Rate of arm regeneration and potential causes of arm loss in the feather star <i>Florometra serratissima</i> (Echinodermata: Crinoidea)

Mladenov, Philip V.

doi:10.1139/z83-375

Cited by 47 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Salzwedel (1974), using total dry weight, found that as more arms were removed from the amphiurid brittlestar Amphiura filiformis, the total length and weight of regenerating arms increased, but the per-arm rate of regeneration decreased. These results and his own work led Mladenov (1983) to propose that the per-arm rate of regeneration for crinoids and ophiuroids may decrease as more arms are amputated, but the total amount of regenerated tissue should increase. Our results from individuals with arm loss only, support this hypothesis, even in the absence of external nutrients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…But the effect of disc loss on 125 regeneration of other body parts (or vice versa) has not been examined in either group. A generalization of Mladenov's (1983) hypothesis to consider both discs and arms would predict the highest rates of regeneration and the greatest amount of total tissue production in individuals having lost the most tissue. The amount of production by Day 10 supports this hypothesis but, by Day 20, brittlestars with a disc and only one arm (WI) (second in amount of tissue lost) regenerated more than twice as much tissue as those without a disc and only one arm (A1; first in amount lost).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When external nutrients are not available (such as when the digestive system is lost), internal nutrient stores must supply all the above functions. Therefore, increasing the amount of tissue lost should decrease an individual's available nutrient reserves and thus limit the amount or rate of tissue regenerated (Williams 1966, Stearns 1976, Bell 1980, Mladenov 1983. Further, because discs and arms differ in composition (Dobson et al 1991) and function (Hyman 1955), the type of tissue lost should influence the regeneration process, especially in the absence of external nutrients (Clements 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of disc and arm loss on regeneration byMicrophiopholis gracillima (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) in nutrient-free seawater

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Individual Microphiopholis gracillima (Stimpson) were collected in February 1987 from an intertidal mudflat in the North Inlet Estuary near Georgetown, South Carolina, USA, and allowed to regenerate for 10 or 20 d in nutrient-free seawater after having different amounts of disc and/or arm tissue removed. In the absence of external nutrients, the pattern of regeneration was affected by both the quantity and type of tissue lost, and changed over time. Depending upon which tissues were lost, M. gracillima allocated stored materials to disc and/or arm regeneration until a gut and three complete arms were achieved. This "minimal functional configuration" allows the brittlestar to construct its respiration and feeding burrows and digest whatever food it captures. In the absence of external nutrients, M. gracillima slowed the rate of regeneration once this state was reached, subsequently using nutrients for maintenance metabolism only. Brittlestars which suffer frequent sublethal tissue loss in nature have regeneration patterns that result from a complex interplay between time, quantity and quality of tissue lost, available nutrients and risk of future damage or mortality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of disc and arm loss on regeneration byMicrophiopholis gracillima (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) in nutrient-free seawater

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although predation by fish on crinoids and its evolutionary consequences have received the most attention (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27), sparse data indicated that crinoids may be the prey of benthic invertebrates (28), most notably sea urchins (17-19, 29, 30). Recently it has been shown that during the Triassic, the radiation of cidaroid sea urchins capable of handling the crinoid skeleton coincided with high frequency of bite marks on crinoids likely produced by the jaw apparatus of these sea urchins (18).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predator-induced macroevolutionary trends in Mesozoic crinoids

Gorzelak

Salamon

Baumiller

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sea urchins are a major component of recent marine communities where they exert a key role as grazers and benthic predators. However, their impact on past marine organisms, such as crinoids, is hard to infer in the fossil record. Analysis of bite mark frequencies on crinoid columnals and comprehensive genus-level diversity data provide unique insights into the importance of sea urchin predation through geologic time. These data show that over the Mesozoic, predation intensity on crinoids, as measured by bite mark frequencies on columnals, changed in step with diversity of sea urchins. Moreover, Mesozoic diversity changes in the predatory sea urchins show a positive correlation with diversity of motile crinoids and a negative correlation with diversity of sessile crinoids, consistent with a crinoid motility representing an effective escape strategy. We contend that the Mesozoic diversity history of crinoids likely represents a macroevolutionary response to changes in sea urchin predation pressure and that it may have set the stage for the recent pattern of crinoid diversity in which motile forms greatly predominate and sessile forms are restricted to deep-water refugia.echinoderms | escalation | macroecology I t has long been hypothesized that predator-prey interactions represent a significant driving force of evolutionary change in the history of life (1-4). However, not only is predation itself hard to detect in the fossil record, which makes it difficult to ascertain its intensity over geologic time, but macroevolutionary predictions of the hypothesis are far from simple (5-13). Recent sea urchins (Echinoidea), are known to play a key role in shallow sea ecosystems as grazers and benthic predators that can modify the distribution, abundance, and species composition of coral and algal reef communities (14-16); however, only few data have hinted at the importance of sea urchins to crinoids (17)(18)(19).Crinoids (Crinoidea), commonly known as sea lilies or feather stars, were one of the dominant components of many shallow-sea environments through much of geologic history and a key contributor to the sedimentary record (20). Although predation by fish on crinoids and its evolutionary consequences have received the most attention (21-27), sparse data indicated that crinoids may be the prey of benthic invertebrates (28), most notably sea urchins (17-19, 29, 30). Recently it has been shown that during the Triassic, the radiation of cidaroid sea urchins capable of handling the crinoid skeleton coincided with high frequency of bite marks on crinoids likely produced by the jaw apparatus of these sea urchins (18). Because it was also during the Triassic that various modes of active and passive motility appeared among crinoids, a group that throughout its rich pre-Triassic history was almost exclusively sessile, it was argued that crinoid motility, an effective escape strategy against benthic predation, was an evolutionary response to echinoid predation (18).The hypothesized evolutionary response of crinoids to benthic pr...

show abstract

“…Until recently, few data hinted at the importance of benthic predators to crinoids, including a swimming response in a comatulid when perturbed by the predatory sea star Pycnopodia helianthoides (17), the presence of crinoid pinnulars in the gut of the goniasterid Plinthaster dentatus (18), and a crinoid arm observed in the claw of the crab Oregonia gracilis (17). Recently, submersible studies of stalked crinoids belonging to the Isocrinidae have revealed that they are prey to cidaroids, or pencil urchins.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Paleozoic crinoid radiation in response to benthic predation preceded the Mesozoic marine revolution

Baumiller

Salamon

Gorzelak

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

140

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been argued that increases in predation over geological time should result in increases in defensive adaptations in prey taxa. Recent in situ and laboratory observations indicate that cidaroid sea urchins feed on live stalked crinoids, leaving distinct bite marks on their skeletal elements. Similar bite marks on fossil crinoids from Poland strongly suggest that these animals have been subject to echinoid predation since the Triassic. Following their near-demise during the end-Permian extinction, crinoids underwent a major evolutionary radiation during the Middle-Late Triassic that produced distinct morphological and behavioral novelties, particularly motile taxa that contrasted strongly with the predominantly sessile Paleozoic crinoid faunas. We suggest that the appearance and subsequent evolutionary success of motile crinoids were related to benthic predation by post-Paleozoic echinoids with their stronger and more active feeding apparatus and that, in the case of crinoids, the predation-driven Mesozoic marine revolution started earlier than in other groups, perhaps soon after the endPermian extinction.macroecology | macroevolution | predation | escalation | cidaroids P redator-prey interactions may represent a significant driving force of evolutionary change (1-4), but predation and its consequences are often difficult to assess in Recent communities and even more so in the fossil record. Data on fossil and extant crinoids, commonly known as sea lilies and feather stars (Echinodermata), indicate that they suffer from predation by fishes, and numerous evolutionary trends have been ascribed to such interactions (5-15). Among these are (i) crawling and swimming abilities in comatulids (6), (ii) choice of semicryptic habits and nocturnal-diurnal behavior among comatulids (6), (iii) increasing plate thickness and spinosity among Paleozoic crinoids (9), (iv) offshore displacement of late Mesozoic/Cenozoic stalked crinoids (11), and (v) origin of autotomy (shedding) planes in the stalk and arms (13). Some of these trends have served as examples of dramatic change in marine ecosystems, such as the Mesozoic marine revolution (MMR) (2, 16) and the middle-Paleozoic marine revolution (9).Although predation by fish has received the most attention, crinoids may be the prey of other organisms, most notably benthic invertebrates. Until recently, few data hinted at the importance of benthic predators to crinoids, including a swimming response in a comatulid when perturbed by the predatory sea star Pycnopodia helianthoides (17), the presence of crinoid pinnulars in the gut of the goniasterid Plinthaster dentatus (18), and a crinoid arm observed in the claw of the crab Oregonia gracilis (17). Recently, submersible studies of stalked crinoids belonging to the Isocrinidae have revealed that they are prey to cidaroids, or pencil urchins. Evidence for this interaction includes (i) in situ observations of cidaroids among large aggregations of motile isocrinid sea lilies (Neocrinus decorus and Endoxocrinus parrae), (ii) proximi...

show abstract

Rate of arm regeneration and potential causes of arm loss in the feather star Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea)

Cited by 47 publications

References 12 publications

Effects of disc and arm loss on regeneration byMicrophiopholis gracillima (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) in nutrient-free seawater

Effects of disc and arm loss on regeneration byMicrophiopholis gracillima (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) in nutrient-free seawater

Predator-induced macroevolutionary trends in Mesozoic crinoids

Post-Paleozoic crinoid radiation in response to benthic predation preceded the Mesozoic marine revolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About