Physiology and Ecology of Marine Bryozoans

Ryland, J. S.

doi:10.1016/s0065-2881(08)60449-6

Cited by 164 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, surface texture of the substratum is important for numerous species, and many bryozoans prefer to settle upon smooth surfaces (Ryland 1976). On A. griffithii the bryozoans Electra flagellum and Pyripora polita are very early colonisers of the smooth lower stem of young plants, often in advance of the encrusting coralline algae.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species richness, spatial distribution and colonisation pattern of algal and invertebrate epiphytes on the seagrass Amphibolis griffithii

Borowitzka¹,

Lethbridge²,

Charlton³

1990

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distribution of epiphytic algae and sessile invertebrates on the seagrass Amphibolis griffithji is not random. The number of epiphyte species increases with increasing seagrass height and there are approximately twice as many epiphytic algal species as Invertebrate species. Epiphytes growing on the stems have a clear apico-basal distribution, with algae such as Haliptilon roseum, Laurencja filiforrnis and Hypnea spp. most abundant on the upper 30 '10 of the seagrass stem, while the bryozoan Celleporjna sp and the hydrozoan Thyroscyphus margjnatus are most abundant near the base of the stem. Other species of algae and invertebrates have intermediate distributions. Eplphyte biomass increases with seagrass height and the bulk occurs on the uppermost 20 cm of the tallest plants. This is mainly due to 1 or 2 algal species. Recruitment of epiphytes also follows a distinct pattern related to plant size (age), with species such as the crustose coralline algae rapidly colonising the leaves and stems of new seagrass plants. Other very early colonisers are the bryozoans Pyripora potita and Electra flagellurn on the stems, and the hydrozoan Plumularia compressa and the bryozoan Thairopora mamjllaris on the leaves.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species richness, spatial distribution and colonisation pattern of algal and invertebrate epiphytes on the seagrass Amphibolis griffithii

Borowitzka¹,

Lethbridge²,

Charlton³

1990

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tentacle structures and ciliary particle capture mechanisms in bryozoans have been studied thoroughly over many years (Atkins 1932, Lutaud 1973, Gordon 1974, Ryland 1976, Winston 1977, Strathmann 1982, Strathmann & McEdward 1986, Gordon et al 1987, Nielsen 1987, 2001, 2002a,b, Mukai et al 1997, Riisgård & Manríquez 1997, Nielsen & Riisgård 1998, Riisgård et al 2004, 2009). The lateral ciliary bands of bryozoan tentacles produce feeding currents directed down into the lophophore and out between the tentacles (Figs.…”

Section: Bryozoansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particle capture mechanisms in suspension-feeding invertebrates

Riisgård¹,

Larsen²

2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

205

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large number of suspension-feeding aquatic animals (e.g. bivalves, polychaetes, ascidians, bryozoans, crustaceans, sponges, echinoderms, cnidarians) have specialized in grazing on not only the 2 to 200 µm phytoplankton but frequently also the 0.5 to 2 µm free-living bacteria, or they have specialized in capturing larger prey, e.g. zooplankton organisms. We review the different particle capture mechanisms in order to illustrate the many solutions to the common problem of obtaining nourishment from a dilute suspension of microscopic food particles. Despite the many differences in morphology and living conditions, particle capture mechanisms may be divided into 2 main types. (1) Filtering or sieving (e.g. through mucus nets, stiff cilia, filter setae), which is found in passive suspension feeders that rely on external currents to bring suspended particles to the filter, and in active suspension feeders that themselves produce a feeding flow by a variety of pump systems. Here the inventiveness of nature does not lie in the capture mechanism but in the type of pump system and filter pore-size. (2) A paddle-like flow manipulating system (e.g. cilia, cirri, tentacles, hair-bearing appendages) that acts to redirect an approaching suspended particle, often along with a surrounding 'fluid parcel', to a strategic location for arrest or further transport. Examples include (1) sieving (e.g. by microvilli in sponge choanocytes, mucus nets in polychaetes, acidians, and salps among others), filter setae in crustaceans, 'ciliary sieving' by stiff laterofrontal cilia in bryozoans and phoronids; and (2) 'cirri trapping' in mussels and other bivalves with eu-laterofrontal cirri, ciliary 'catch-up' in bivalve and gastropod veliger larvae, some polychaetes, entroprocts, and cycliophores. These capture mechanisms may involve contact with a particle, and possibly mechanoreception or chemoreception, or may include redirection of particles by the interaction of multiple currents (e.g. in scallops and other bivalves without eu-laterofrontal cirri). Based on the review, we discuss the current physical and biological understanding of the capture process and suggest a number of specific problems related to particle capture, which may be solved in the future using advanced theoretical, computational and experimental techniques.

show abstract

“…Terminological changes made by Woollacott and Zimmer (1972) and supported by Ryland (1976), Ryland and Hayward (1977), Hayward and Ryland (1979), and Reed (1991) reflected the dual necessities of 1) separating the entire brooding apparatus (ovicell) from its parts, which include the protective hood (ooecium or ooecial outfold) generated either by the maternal (egg-producing) zooid or the distal zooid, the brooding cavity, and the closing device (ooecial vesicle or zooidal operculum), and 2) distinguishing between the contributions, in the majority of cases, of two zooids (maternal and daughter) to the structures of the brooding apparatus. Ryland and Hayward (1977), Hayward and Ryland (1979), Reed (1991), and Ostrovsky (1998) provided clear definitions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Hyperstomial ovicells are the most common type of brood chamber in cheilostome bryozoans and consist of the following elements: 1) the ooecium, a double-walled, often hemispherical outgrowth, produced either by the maternal (egg-producing) zooid or the distal auto-or kenozooid, containing an enclosed coelomic lumen that connects with the zooid of origin through one or more pores; 2) a component of non-calcified distal wall from the maternal zooid, often in the form of an ooecial vesicle (=ooecial plug), and 3) a brood chamber (brooding cavity) bounded by the ooecial and maternal-wall components (Ryland, 1976;Ryland and Hayward, 1977;Reed, 1991;Ostrovsky, 1998;Ostrovsky et al, , 2006. The brooding apparatus in Cauloramphus contains all these elements (all maternally derived) and thus shows homology with cheilostome hyperstomial ovicells, though highly modified in form.…”

Section: The Internal-brooding Apparatus As a Highly Modified Ovicellmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Internal-Brooding Apparatus in the Bryozoan Genus Cauloramphus (Cheilostomata: Calloporidae) and Its Inferred Homology to Ovicells

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied by SEM the external morphology of the ooecium in eight bryozoans of the genus Cauloramphus Norman, 1903 (Cheilostomata, Calloporidae): C. spinifer, C. variegatus, C. magnus, C. multiavicularia, C. tortilis, C. cryptoarmatus, C. niger, and C. multispinosus, and by sectioning and light microscopy the anatomy of the brooding apparatus of C. spinifer, C. cryptoarmatus, and C. niger. These species all have a brood sac, formed by invagination of the non-calcified distal body wall of the maternal zooid, located in the distal half of the maternal (egg-producing) autozooid, and a vestigial, maternally budded kenozooidal ooecium. The brood sac comprises a main chamber and a long passage (neck) opening externally independently of the introvert. The non-calcified portion of the maternal distal wall between the neck and tip of the zooidal operculum is involved in closing and opening the brood sac, and contains both musculature and a reduced sclerite that suggest homology with the ooecial vesicle of a hyperstomial ovicell. We interpret the brooding apparatus in Cauloramphus as a highly modified form of cheilostome hyperstomial ovicell, as both types share 1) a brood chamber bounded by 2) the ooecium and 3) a component of the distal wall of the maternal zooid. We discuss Cauloramphus as a hypothetical penultimate stage in ovicell reduction in calloporid bryozoans. We suggest that the internal-brooding genus Gontarella, of uncertain taxonomic affinities, is actually a calloporid and represents the ultimate stage in which no trace of the ooecium remains. Internal brooding apparently evolved several times independently within the Calloporidae.

show abstract

Physiology and Ecology of Marine Bryozoans

Cited by 164 publications

References 114 publications

Species richness, spatial distribution and colonisation pattern of algal and invertebrate epiphytes on the seagrass Amphibolis griffithii

Species richness, spatial distribution and colonisation pattern of algal and invertebrate epiphytes on the seagrass Amphibolis griffithii

Particle capture mechanisms in suspension-feeding invertebrates

The Internal-Brooding Apparatus in the Bryozoan Genus Cauloramphus (Cheilostomata: Calloporidae) and Its Inferred Homology to Ovicells

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About