2004
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-003-1233-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Induced anti-predator responses of the green mussel, Perna viridis (L.), on exposure to the predatory gastropod, Thais clavigera K�ster, and the swimming crab, Thalamita danae Stimpson

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
26
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Small mussels increased shell mass in predator treatments, which has been reported for other mussel species (Smith & Jennings 2000, Cheung et al 2004). Smaller mussels did not reduce soft tissue growth in predator treatments even though they grew a thicker shell.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Small mussels increased shell mass in predator treatments, which has been reported for other mussel species (Smith & Jennings 2000, Cheung et al 2004). Smaller mussels did not reduce soft tissue growth in predator treatments even though they grew a thicker shell.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…Bivalves have routinely been used in studies of phenotypic plasticity, and have been shown to produce thicker shells after exposure to predator exudates (Leonard et al 1999, Nakaoka 2000, Smith & Jennings 2000, Caro & Castilla 2004, Cheung et al 2004. In addition to increasing shell thickness in the presence of crushing predators (crabs), mussels (Mytilus edulis) also increased byssal thread production to increase the force needed by predators to remove them from hard substrates (Cote 1995, Leonard et al 1999, Shin et al 2009) and to increase abductor muscle mass for some predators (whelks) (Freeman 2007, Freeman et al 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bivalves readily utilize chemical exudates that emanate from predators and from injured conspecifics to evaluate predation risk (Caro & Castilla 2004, Cheung et al 2004, Smee & Weissburg 2006b. They respond to risk by increasing their burrowing depth (Griffiths & Richardson 2006, Flynn & Smee 2010, reducing their feeding behavior (Smee & Weissburg 2006a,b, Naddafi et al 2007, and increasing their shell thickness (Trussell & Smith 2000, Caro & Castilla 2004, Freeman & Byers 2006.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is favourable because shell growth is vital for not only continuing somatic growth, but also offering physical protection, especially under life-threatening conditions (e.g. harder shells produced at a higher rate under predation risk) (Cheung et al, 2004;Brookes and Rochette, 2007;Hirsch et al, 2014).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…following non-lethal shell damage), harder and stiffer shells were 185 produced at a higher rate, despite the reduced energy intake by feeding. This is a typical anti-predator response since shell repair should be prioritized to restore and enhance protection (Cheung et al, 2004;Hirsch et al, 2013;Brom et al, 2015). This response can be achieved by downregulating the less essential physiological processes or activities as trade-offs (Rundle and Brönmark, 2001;Trussell and Nicklin, 2002;Hoverman and Relyea, 2009;Babarro et al, 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%