Saponins in eggs and larvae of A canthaster planci (L.) (Asteroidea) as chemical defences against planktivorous fish

Lucas, John; Hart, R. C.; Howden, M.E.H.; Salathé, Rahel

doi:10.1016/0022-0981(79)90042-x

Cited by 89 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, prey odors have been shown to stimulate searching and feeding by Asterias rubens and Crossaster papposus in Europe (Castilla & Crisp 1970, Castilla 1972, Heeb 1973, Sloan & Northway 1982. Sea star odors (such as saponins: Lucas et al 1979, Sloan 1980) are known to provoke avoidance reactions from prey, and from conspecific and interspecific sea stars. Although Sloan (1980) indicates that avoidance of conspecifics may be a way to reduce cannibalism, intraspecific avoidance is more often considered a dispersion mechanism (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the first treatment, either 5 conspecifics or 5 interspecifics were placed in the larger section to determine if chemical substances liberated by other sea stars (e.g. saponins: Lucas et al 1979) affected the feeding rate of the target sea star. In the second, we added 5 conspecifics or 5 interspecifics along with 40 medium-sized mussels to examine if chemical substances liberated during feeding (the initial digestion is extraoral) affected the target sea star.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of intra- and interspecific interactions on the feeding behavior of two subtidal sea stars

Gaymer¹,

Himmelman

Johnson³

2002

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition and its effects are difficult to demonstrate, as they vary depending on the species present and the environmental conditions in each community. We conducted laboratory and field experiments to evaluate the effects of intra-and interspecific interactions on the use of food resources and behavior of the sea stars Leptasterias polaris and Asterias vulgaris, 2 major predators in subtidal communities of the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. We demonstrate interference (encounter) competition between the two. For both species, the presence of the other (as detected by both contact and chemical signals) decreased feeding activity and provoked behavioral changes (avoidance, decrease in percentage feeding). These effects were reversible and short-lived, and were more pronounced when there was a shortage of food and when sea stars were exposed to simulated attacks by the other species (involving pedicellarial pinching). L. polaris seemed to be the inferior competitor as (1) it switched to less profitable prey size (smaller mussels, Mytilus edulis) when A. vulgaris was present, and (2) it avoided A. vulgaris and reduced its feeding activity when food was scarce. The dominance of A. vulgaris is possibly attenuated at our study site (near its northern distributional limit) by the reduction of its fitness when water temperatures are low (most of the year) and during the winter when it migrates to deeper water. Competition for food resources seems to occur periodically (mainly summer), in localized areas (patches and beds of mussels) or when sea stars form dense aggregations in which they are likely to interact frequently. Interactions, and thus the chance of competition, are less likely at greater depths. Coexistence seems to be permitted by both the attenuation of the dominance of A. vulgaris and by the great variations in how L. polaris and A. vulgaris interact (strongly affected by variations in prey availability, sea star abundance, and in the patterns of prey use by both sea stars).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of intra- and interspecific interactions on the feeding behavior of two subtidal sea stars

Gaymer¹,

Himmelman

Johnson³

2002

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the intense predation pressure that invertebrate larvae may face, field studies have demonstrated that predators are selective in their consumption of larvae (Hobson & Chess 1976, Sebens & Koehl 1984, Purcell & Nemazie 1992. Additionally, laboratory investigations have shown that many invertebrate larvae possess behavioral (Forward 1977, Morgan 1987, morphological (Pennington & Chia 1984, Morgan 1989, Morgan & Christy 1996, and/or chemi-cal (Lucas et al 1979. Young & Bingham 1987, McClintock & Vernon 1990, Lindquist et al 1992, Lindquist 1996, Lindquist & Hay 1996 traits that reduce their susceptibility to predators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Susceptibility of invertebrate larvae to predators:how common are post-capture larval defenses?

Bullard¹,

Lindquist²,

Hay³

1999

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predation is bel~eved to be a major source of mortal~ty for larvae of benthlc Invertebrates, but the palatab~hty of larvae commonly found In the water column has rarely been assessed Larval palatability assays were conducted by collecting live invertebrate larvae from a temperate f~e l d slte and offerlng them to a suite of common predators (the flshes Lagodon rhomboides, Leiostomus xanthurus, and Monacanthus h~s p~d u s and the hard coral Ocul~na arbuscula) By crushing larvae that were rejected intact and re-offering them to pledators it was poss~ble to distinguish between defenses based on morpholog~cal and chemical character~stlcs of the larvae Add~tlonally, abundance data were collected for taxonomic groups of larvae at our samphng location The majonty of Invertebrate larvae were palatable to consumers Most predators readily consumed polychaete larvae barnacle naupln, blvalve veligers shnmp zoeae, crab megalopae, phoronld actlnotrochs, and hemlchordate tornana (which together accounted for 65 "L of meroplankton abundance) s u g g e s t~n g that these larvae lacked effective morpholog~cal or chem~cal defenses Agalnst at least 1 fish predator, a significant number of gastropod vel~gers, barnacle cypnds, crab Loeae, and stomatopod larvae (which accounted for 34 % of meroplankton abundance) appeared to be morphologically defended Larvae from these groups tended to b e rejected whole, but \yere consumed by flshes once they were crushed A significant number of nemertean pilidia asterold biplnnana and c n~d a n a n planulae (which accounted for only 0 2 % of meroplankton abundance) were rejected both whole and crushed suggest~ng that some species or indlvlduals withln these taxa may be chemcally defended Thus, the majonty of larvae from t h s assemblage of temperate meroplankton lacked physlcal or chemlcal defenses a g a~n s t potential predators (3 flshes and 1 cnidallan) Among the remalrung larvae, physical resistance to predators was much more common t h~i n chemical resistance

show abstract

“…Some are held on or in a parent's body, enclosed in tough envelopes or voluminous gel, or sequestered in safe locations (Lee and Strathmann 1998). Planktonic embryos, though often possessing extraembryonic envelopes (Strathmann 1987) and sometimes possessing toxins (Lucas et al 1979;Lindquist 1996;McClintock and Baker 1997), are among the minimally protected embryos. For a single, unprotected embryo, the plankton may be safer than the benthos.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and the Evolution of Cell-Cycle Durations of Embryos

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Embryos at low risk evolve slower development rates. In seven independent evolutionary contrasts for marine invertebrates (two in asteroids, three in gastropods, one each in phoronids and brachiopods) the more protected embryos had longer cell cycles from first to second cleavage than less protected planktonic embryos. Protected embryos had longer cell cycles even when protected eggs were smaller than planktonic eggs. In an eighth contrast, among tunicates, the embryonic cell cycle was unrelated to brooding and nearly proportional to egg size, but the literature provides examples of especially slow development in some brooding tunicates. The faster development of planktonic embryos is consistent with published estimates of greater mortality rates for planktonic larvae than for embryos in broods or egg masses. Examples from the literature for annelids, arthropods, holothuroids, and chordates also demonstrated longer embryonic cell cycles for more protected embryos with no consistent effect of egg size on cell-cycle duration. Longer cell cycles presumably reduce the benefits of protecting offspring because of longer exposure to whatever hazards remain, but slow development may permit compensating benefits. Hypothesized benefits of longer cell cycles include less maternal investment in rate-limiting materials, more or different transcription, and correction of errors. Such trade-offs are independent of feeding and growth and are influenced by parental protection.

show abstract

Saponins in eggs and larvae of A canthaster planci (L.) (Asteroidea) as chemical defences against planktivorous fish

Cited by 89 publications

References 10 publications

Effect of intra- and interspecific interactions on the feeding behavior of two subtidal sea stars

Effect of intra- and interspecific interactions on the feeding behavior of two subtidal sea stars

Susceptibility of invertebrate larvae to predators:how common are post-capture larval defenses?

Risk and the Evolution of Cell-Cycle Durations of Embryos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About