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.
???displayArticle.abstract???
Competitive interactions come in a variety of forms and may be modulated by the size and number of individuals involved, and/or the resources available. Here, intra- and interspecific competitive behaviours for food (i.e., foraging/food search and feeding/food ingestion) were experimentally characterized and quantified in four co-existing deep-sea benthic species. Three sea stars (Ceramaster granularis, Hippasteria phrygiana, and Henricia lisa) and one gastropod (Buccinum scalariforme) from the bathyal Northwest Atlantic were investigated using video trials in darkened laboratory conditions. A range of competitive or cooperative behaviours occurred, depending on species (conspecific or heterospecific), comparative body size, and the number of individuals involved. Contrary to expectations, small individuals (or smaller species) were not always outcompeted by larger individuals (or larger species) when foraging and feeding. Moreover, faster species did not always outcompete slower ones while scavenging. Overall, this study sheds new light on scavenging strategies of co-existing deep-sea benthic species in food-limited bathyal environments, based on complex behavioural inter- and intraspecific relationships.
Figure 1. Mean and maximum speeds of Ceramaster granularis (A) when two similarly sized individuals were tested and (B) when two differently sized individuals were tested. Each of the two treatments was replicated four times and data are provided as means ± SD where applicable (n = 1–8). Means were compared between response types in one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05) in A. Means were compared between sizes for each metric in B using two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05). Bars with different letters are significantly different and groups with different letters are significantly different (within the same metric). See text for full results.
Figure 2. Mean and maximum speeds of Hippasteria phrygiana (A) when two similarly sized individuals were tested and (B) when two differently sized individuals were tested. Each of the two treatments was replicated four times and data are provided as means ± SD where applicable (n = 1–8). Means were compared between response types in one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05) in A. Means were compared between sizes for each metric in B using two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05). Bars with different lower letters are significantly different and groups with different capital letters are significantly different (within the same metric). See text for full results.
Figure 3. Mean and maximum speeds of (A) Henricia lisa and (B) Buccinum scalariforme when two individuals were tested concurrently. Each of the two treatments was replicated four times and data are shown as mean ± SD (n = 3–8). Means were tested across different response types for each metric using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05). Bars with different letters are significantly different from each other (for a given metric). Note the different Y-axis between panels. See text for full results.
Figure 4. Mean and maximum speeds for (A) Ceramaster granularis and Henricia lisa tested concurrently and (B) C. granularis and Buccinum scalariforme tested concurrently in short-duration trials. Please note different Y-axis scales for A and B. Each of the two treatments was replicated four times and data are shown as mean ± SD (n = 2–8). Means were tested within species and between species using two-way ANOVA in panel A and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey tests and t-tests for each factor as appropriate in panel B due to B. scalariforme having no positive trials. Bars with different letters are significantly different within a species for a given metric while groups with different letters are significantly different between species (p < 0.05). See text for full results.
Birk,
Deep-sea starfish from the Arctic have well-developed eyes in the dark.
2018, Pubmed,
Echinobase
Birk,
Deep-sea starfish from the Arctic have well-developed eyes in the dark.
2018,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Childress,
Are there physiological and biochemical adaptations of metabolism in deep-sea animals?
1995,
Pubmed
Danovaro,
Challenging the paradigms of deep-sea ecology.
2014,
Pubmed
Delgado,
Predator-induced behavioral and morphological plasticity in the tropical marine Gastropod Strombus gigas.
2002,
Pubmed
Gooding,
Quantifying the Effects of Predator and Prey Body Size on Sea Star Feeding Behaviors.
2015,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Hamel,
Prespawning Behavior, Spawning, and Development of the Brooding Starfish Leptasterias polaris.
1995,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Higgs,
Fish food in the deep sea: revisiting the role of large food-falls.
2014,
Pubmed
Levin,
The deep ocean under climate change.
2015,
Pubmed
Majer,
Cooperative foraging expands dietary niche but does not offset intra-group competition for resources in social spiders.
2018,
Pubmed
Meijering,
Methods for cell and particle tracking.
2012,
Pubmed
Mestre,
Exploitation of deep-sea resources: the urgent need to understand the role of high pressure in the toxicity of chemical pollutants to deep-sea organisms.
2014,
Pubmed
Morissette,
Subtidal food thieves: interactions of four invertebrate kleptoparasites with the sea star Leptasterias polaris.
2000,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Ramirez-Llodra,
Man and the last great wilderness: human impact on the deep sea.
2011,
Pubmed
Rochette,
Aggregation of whelks, Buccinum undatum, near feeding predators: the role of reproductive requirements.
2001,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Sbragaglia,
Fighting over burrows: the emergence of dominance hierarchies in the Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus).
2017,
Pubmed
Schmitt,
Indirect Interactions Between Prey: Apparent Competition, Predator Aggregation, and Habitat Segregation.
1987,
Pubmed
