Click
here to close Hello! We notice that
you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Echinobase
and may cause the site to display incorrectly. We suggest using a
current version of Chrome,
FireFox,
or Safari.
PeerJ
2019 Jan 01;7:e6556. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6556.
Show Gene links
Show Anatomy links
Effects of handling and short-term captivity: a multi-behaviour approach using red sea urchins, Mesocentrotus franciscanus.
Bose APH
,
Zayonc D
,
Avrantinis N
,
Ficzycz N
,
Fischer-Rush J
,
Francis FT
,
Gray S
,
Manning F
,
Robb H
,
Schmidt C
,
Spice C
,
Umedaly A
,
Warden J
,
Côté IM
.
???displayArticle.abstract???
Understanding the effects of captivity-induced stress on wild-caught animals after their release back into the wild is critical for the long-term success of relocation and reintroduction programs. To date, most of the research on captivity stress has focused on vertebrates, with far less attention paid to invertebrates. Here, we examine the effect of short-term captivity (i.e., up to four days) on self-righting, aggregation, and predator-escape behaviours in wild-caught red sea urchins, Mesocentrotus franciscanus, after their release back into the wild. Aggregation behaviour, which has been linked to feeding in sea urchins, was not affected by handling or captivity. In contrast, the sea urchins that had been handled and released immediately, as well as those that were handled and held captive, took longer to right themselves and were poorer at fleeing from predators than wild, unhandled sea urchins. These results indicate that handling rather than captivity impaired these behaviours in the short term. The duration of captivity did not influence the sea urchin behaviours examined. Longer-term monitoring is needed to establish what the fitness consequences of these short-term behavioural changes might be. Our study nevertheless highlights the importance of considering a suite of responses when examining the effects of capture and captivity. Our findings, which are based on a locally abundant species, can inform translocation efforts aimed at bolstering populations of ecologically similar but depleted invertebrate species to retain or restore important ecosystem functions.
Figure 2. Sea urchin righting times measured (A) immediately after release into the wild and (B) 24 h post-release.Capital letters denote the results of comparisons between âwildâ controls as the reference group and all other experimental groups; lowercase letters denote the results of comparisons between âhandlingâ controls as the reference group and all captive experimental groups. Within a comparison set, means with similar letters are not significantly different from the reference group. Bars represent means ± standard error (in s). Sample sizes per group are given above each bar in parentheses.
Figure 3. Sea urchin aggregation scores.Capital letters denote the results of comparisons between âwildâ controls as the reference group and all other experimental groups; lowercase letters denote the results of comparisons between âhandlingâ controls as the reference group and all captive experimental groups. Within a comparison set, means with similar letters are not significantly different from the reference group. Bars represent means ± standard error. Sample sizes per group are given above each bar in parentheses. Aggregation scores were obtained by counting the number of sea urchins within a one-meter radius of focal urchins on each sampling day.
Figure 4. Distance travelled by sea urchins in 30 s after being induced to flee by contact with a predatory sea star.Capital letters denote the results of comparisons between âwildâ controls as the reference group and all other experimental groups; lowercase letters denote the results of comparisons between âhandlingâ controls as the reference group and all captive experimental groups. Within a comparison set, means with similar letters are not significantly different from the reference group. Bars represent means ± standard error (in cm). Sample sizes per group are given above each bar in parentheses.
Andrews,
Introduction: laboratory invertebrates: only spineless, or spineless and painless?
2011, Pubmed
Andrews,
Introduction: laboratory invertebrates: only spineless, or spineless and painless?
2011,
Pubmed
Brown,
Differential stress responses in fish from areas of high- and low-predation pressure.
2005,
Pubmed
Buehler,
Constitutive immune function responds more slowly to handling stress than corticosterone in a shorebird.
2008,
Pubmed
Coddington,
Effect of acute captivity stress on plasma concentrations of corticosterone and sex steroids in female whistling frogs, Litoria ewingi.
1995,
Pubmed
Cooke,
Refuge-seeking impairments mirror metabolic recovery following fisheries-related stressors in the Spanish flag snapper (Lutjanus carponotatus) on the Great Barrier Reef.
2014,
Pubmed
Dickens,
Initial transference of wild birds to captivity alters stress physiology.
2009,
Pubmed
Dickens,
Wild European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) adjust to captivity with sustained sympathetic nervous system drive and a reduced fight-or-flight response.
2009,
Pubmed
Fischer,
Chronic stress and the introduction to captivity: How wild house sparrows (Passer domesticus) adjust to laboratory conditions.
2018,
Pubmed
Gregory,
Plasma corticosterone concentrations associated with acute captivity stress in wild loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta).
1996,
Pubmed
Holland,
Studies on the perivisceral coelomic fluid protein concentration during seasonal and nutritional changes in the purple sea urchin.
1967,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Hothorn,
Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.
2008,
Pubmed
Lattin,
Hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis activity and the subsequent response to chronic stress differ depending upon life history stage.
2012,
Pubmed
Polls,
Behavioral aspects of righting in two asteroids from the Pacific coast of North America.
1975,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Yeruham,
Collapse of the echinoid Paracentrotus lividus populations in the Eastern Mediterranean--result of climate change?
2015,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase