Barnacle Fouling of the Blue Crab Callinectes Sapidus at Beaufort, North Carolina

Abstract

This study examines the barnacle symbionts on 168 blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus, taken from both shallow and deep estuarine environments in the area of Beaufort, North Carolina. The purpose of the study was to quantify the prevalence, intensity, abundance, and spatial distribution of the ectosymbiotic barnacle Chelonibia patula on blue crabs. The proportion of blue crabs fouled was 67%. There was no difference in the prevalence of barnacles on crabs from the shallow versus the deep environment. Results indicate female crabs were significantly more fouled than males. This suggests that the prevalence and intensity of barnacles are dominantly controlled by the migratory habits of the host, since female crabs spend more time in deeper waters of higher salinity, where they are more likely to be fouled by barnacle larvae. The spatial distribution of barnacles on the crab carapaces was controlled by the surface topography of the carapace with more barnacles on the lateral regions than medial. The orientation of the carinal to rostral axes of the barnacles on the carapaces of the host crabs was measured, but no preferred orientation was found. The costs and benefits of epibiosis are reviewed and the barnacle/blue crab relationship appears to be more beneficial to the barnacles than to the host blue crabs.

Distribution of barnacle epizoites of the crab Portunus pelagicus in the Moreton Bay region, eastern Australia

“…The epizoic relationship between barnacles of the genus Octolasmis and the commercially important North American portunid Callinectes sapidus has received much attention (Walker 1974;Jeffries and Voris 1983;Gannon 1990;Gannon and Wheatly 1992;Gannon and Wheatly 1995;Jeffries and Voris 1996;Key et al 1997). Gannon and Wheatly (1992) noted that excess epizoic load may represent a potential threat to crab populations through obstruction of the ventilatory current and decreased ventilatory effectiveness, leading to high mortality in stressed crabs.…”

A review of cnidarian epibionts on marine crustacea

“…The distribution of epibionts on the surface of basibionts is determined by the following factors: 1) biotic and abiotic microlocal parameters; 2) water currents generated by feeding and respiratory activities of the basibiont; 3) availability of nutrients (Threlkeld et al 1993); 4) behaviour of the basibiont (e.g. burying in sediment, copulation, emersion, nocturnal activity, hiding under rocks); 5) the age, sex, body shape, and size of the host (Connell & Keough 1985;Key et al 1999); 6) moult and intermoult periods; 7) the presence of particular chemical compounds; 8) the presence of protrusions and rugosities on the surface of the basibiont (Viljoen, Van As 1983) and other differences according to particular surfaces of the basibiont; 9) mucosity and sediment on the host surface preventing the adhesion of epibionts (Mulisch et al 1986); 10) the presence of a bacterial community and the associated ciliate protozoan fauna on the basibiont surface (Fernández-Leborans, Herrero Córdoba 1997).…”

“…In aquatic environments, many crustacean groups, such as cladocerans, copepods, cirripedes, isopods, amphipods and decapods, serve as basibionts for protozoan micro-epibionts and invertebrate macro-epibionts (Ross 1983;Corliss 1979;Fernandez-Leborans, Tato-Porto 2000b). Epibiosis is the evolutionary effect of interactions between environmental factors and benthic life forms (Key et al 1999). It is a dynamic process, and the benefits and disadvantages for the organisms involved vary depending on the environmental conditions (Bush et al 2001).…”

Infestation by the epibiont Octolasmis lowei in a portunid crab assemblage from a subtropical coast

“…In marine habitats dominated by soft bottoms, some benthic organisms have an important role in providing hard substrate for the settlement and growth of other species such as algae, barnacles and bryozoans ( Jeffries et al, 1992;Wahl and Hay, 1995;Becker and Wahl, 1996;Key et al, 1999). In this epibionthost interaction, hosts can enhance access to food sources and optimize epibiont dispersal (review in Wahl, 1989).…”

“…increase in weight and surface friction), which may cause reduced mobility (Dixon et al, 1981) depending on the number and species of epibionts. Among host organisms, marine benthic decapods have been extensively reported in sheltering epibionts (Abelló and Macpherson, 1992;Jeffries et al, 1992;Becker and Wahl, 1996;Key et al, 1999;Santos and Bueno, 2002;Cordeiro and Costa, 2010). Epibiont infestation in decapods is often related to the biological traits of these hosts, such as behavior, size, sex, maturity and molt stage (Abelló and Macpherson, 1992;Jeffries et al, 1992;Becker and Wahl, 1996;Key et al, 1999;Cordeiro and Costa, 2010).…”