On predation of pelagic larvae and early juveniles of marine bottom invertebrates by adult benthic invertebrates and their passing alive through their predators

Mileikovsky, S. A.

doi:10.1007/bf00391514

Cited by 98 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Woodin (1976) hypothesized negative effects of suspension-feeding bivalves on the recruitment of infaunal species. Larvae, who pass the mussels alive, have htfle chance of surviving in the mussel biodeposits (Mileikovsky, 1974). Commito (1987) observed that infaunal organisms maintaining high densities in mussel beds have benthic development stages and rejects Woodin's hypothesis that no dense infauna should develop with dense suspension-feeders.…”

Section: Settlement and Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mussel beds — amensalism or amelioration for intertidal fauna?

Dittmann

1990

Helgolander Meeresunters

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The faunal assemblages of a mussel bed (Mytilus edufis L.) and ambient sand_flat were compared to study how a bioherm of suspension feeding organisms affects benthic communities in a tidal flat. During a survey of mussel beds in the Wadden Sea at the island of Sylt {North Sea}, a total of 52 macrofaunal species and 44 meiobenthic plathelminth species were detected. They occupied different microhabitats in the mussel bed. 56 % of the macrofauna species were dwelling in the sediment beneath the mussels and 42 % were epibenthic or epiphytic. The latter were restricted in their occurrence to the mussel bed. Along a transect from the sandflat to the mussel bed the mean species densities of macrofauna did not differ significantly, while abundances were significantly lower in the mussel bed than in the sandflat. The composition of the assemblages shifted from a dominance of Polychaeta in the sandflat to Oligochaeta in the mussel bed. Surface filter-feeding polychaetes of the sandflat (Tharyx mariom) were displaced by deposit feeding polychaetes under the mussel cover (Capitella capitata, Heteromastus filiformis}. The total meiobenthic density was lower and single taxa (Ostracoda, Plathelminthes, Nematoda} were ~ignificantly less abundant in the mud of the mussel bed. The plathelminth assemblage was dominated by grazing species (Archaphanostoma agile}, and differed in community structure from a sandflat assemblage. An amensalistic relationship was found between the suspension-feeding mussels and suspensionfeeding infauna, while deposit-feeders were enhanced. The presence of epibenthic microhabitats results in a variety of trophic groups co-occurring in a mussel bed. This is hypothesized as trophic group amelioration and described as an attribute of heterotrophic reefs.

show abstract

Section: Settlement and Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mussel beds — amensalism or amelioration for intertidal fauna?

Dittmann

1990

Helgolander Meeresunters

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even if larvae are not ingested they can incur damage during the rejection process. Damage and mortality of larvae that have been rejected by other suspension-feeders has been documented (Mileikovsky, 1974;Cowden et ai, 1984;Young & Chia, in press). Larval damage and ingestion by benthic suspension-feeders may exert strong effects in marine assemblages (Woodin, 1976;Wilson, 1980), thus the generality of reduced rates of suspension-feeding during periods of low flow merits further investigation.…”

Section: Implications For Dynamics In Suspension-feeding Assemblagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of neighbors on the feeding of an epifaunal bryozoan

Okamura

1988

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Larvae of both species readily adhered to the colloblast cells of ctenophores and were carried to the distensible coelenteron. Mussels prey on small, weak-swimming invertebrate larvae (Mileikovsky, 1974;Cowden et al, 1984) but did not feed readily on either species of larvae.…”

Section: Discussion Differential Vulnerability Of Larvaementioning

confidence: 94%

“…Dense aggregations of benthic invertebrates, such as barnacles, mussels, oysters, polychaetes, sand dollars, ascideans, ~:nemones and corals, may filter many of the larvae that pass over them (e.g., Glynn, 1973). Larvae that are filtered from the water may either be ingested or rejected as pseudofeces, but in either case larvae usually die (Mileikovsky, 1974;pers. obs.…”

Section: Predation On Crab Larvae By Benthic Invertebratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…for Styela plicata, Crassostrea virginica). Larval predation by benthic invertebrates, including oysters, mussels and other bivalves, brachiopods, barnacles, hydroids, sponges, polychaetes, and amphipods, is sometimes great (see Mileikovsky, 1974 for review of early references; Timko, 1979;Commito, 1982;Oliver et al, 1982;Ambrose, 1984;Barange, 1988). These invertebrates in nature have been reported to prey on larvae of molluscs, barnacles, anneiids, shrimps, echinoderms, bryozoans and ascideans, but not on crab larvae.…”

Section: Predation On Crab Larvae By Benthic Invertebratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predation by planktonic and benthic invertebrates on larvae of estuarine crabs

Morgan

1992

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The ability of 11 species of planktonic and benthic invertebrates to prey on larvae of two estua. line species of crabs was determined in the laboratory. Ten of 11 of these predators with diverse feeding modes consumed crab larvae. Two of three planktonic invertebrates tested ate more larvae of the fiddler crab, Uca minax (LeConte, 1855), than larvae of the mud crab, Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Gould, 1841), and 4 of 8 benthic invertebrates consumed more U. minax larvae. None of the invertebrates ingested more R. harrisii than U. minax larvae. The larger size of R. harrisii larvae rather than their longer spines likely deterred most invertebrates, although differences in swimming speed, avoidance behavior or penetrability of the exoskeleton also may account for the differential predation on the two species. Available information on the distribution, abundance and feeding habits of potential predators of crab larvae was reviewed and synthesized with results of this study to determine if dispersal patterns of estuarine crabs likely have evolved in response to predictable trends in predation by invertebrates. Preliminary evidence for this hypothesis is equivocal but suggests that particular taxa of hydromedusae are more likely to influence dispersal of estuarine crabs than are other planktonic and benthic invertebrates.

show abstract

On predation of pelagic larvae and early juveniles of marine bottom invertebrates by adult benthic invertebrates and their passing alive through their predators

Cited by 98 publications

References 36 publications

Mussel beds — amensalism or amelioration for intertidal fauna?

Mussel beds — amensalism or amelioration for intertidal fauna?

The influence of neighbors on the feeding of an epifaunal bryozoan

Predation by planktonic and benthic invertebrates on larvae of estuarine crabs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About