Marine Biology

, Volume 149, Issue 3, pp 455–463 | Cite as

Herbivory in the gammarid amphipod Aora typica: relationships between consumption rates, performance and abundance across ten seaweed species

  • Richard B. TaylorEmail author
  • Pam J. Brown
Research Article


This paper reveals a substantial capacity for herbivory of seaweeds in the gammarid amphipod Aora typica, adults eating seven of ten taxonomically and morphologically diverse seaweed species offered to them in a no-choice assay. The green algae Ulva spathulata and Enteromorpha intestinalis were consumed at the highest rates in both no-choice (2.3–2.5 mg blotted weight individual−1 day−1) and multiple-choice assays (0.5–1.3 mg blotted weight individual−1 day−1). Adult A. typica collected from two different species of brown seaweeds had very similar feeding preferences to each other. Juvenile A. typica grew to reproductive maturity on the green algae E. intestinalis and U. spathulata, and the brown algae Carpophyllum maschalocarpum and Ecklonia radiata. In common with previous studies on members of other amphipod families, survivorship of juvenile amphipods was positively correlated with feeding preferences of adults across seaweed species (r2=0.43, P=0.04). However, densities of A. typica on seaweeds in the field (excluding the intertidal E. intestinalis and U. spathulata) were not significantly correlated with feeding preferences of adults (r2=0.07, P=0.5) or survivorship of juveniles (r2=0.17, P=0.31). This suggests that either host seaweeds are not a major dietary component of these amphipods in nature, or that the host’s value as a food source is overridden by other properties such as the degree of shelter it affords from larger consumers. This study provides the first demonstration that a member of the cosmopolitan amphipod family Aoridae is capable of consuming a diverse range of seaweeds.


Ulva Seaweed Species Cool White Fluorescent Lighting Feeding Assay Intertidal Seaweed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by a University of Auckland Early Career Research Excellence Award to R. Taylor. We thank N. Barr for sharing his observations, and L. Zemke-White for collecting Ulva pertusa from the Mokohinau Islands. Ulva pertusa was identified by L. McIvor. Thanks also to A. Poore for initially alerting us to the capacity of Aora spp. to consume seaweeds, and M. Costello and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. The experiments comply with the current laws of New Zealand.


  1. Adams NM (1994) Seaweeds of New Zealand: an illustrated guide. Canterbury University Press, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrontes J (1999) On the evolution of interactions between marine mesoherbivores and algae. Bot Mar 42:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard JL (1972) The marine fauna of New Zealand: algae-living littoral Gammaridea (Crustacea Amphipoda). N Z Oceanogr Inst Mem 62:1–216Google Scholar
  4. Barry JP, Ehret MJ (1993) Diet, food preference, and algal availability for fishes and crabs on intertidal reef communities in southern California. Environ Biol Fishes 37:75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell SS (1991) Amphipods as insect equivalents? An alternative view. Ecology 72:350–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borowsky B (1980) The pattern of tube-sharing in Microdeutopus gryllotalpa (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Anim Behav 28:790–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borowsky R, Borowsky B (1990) Feeding inhibition of the salt marsh amphipod Gammarus palustris Bousfield, 1969 by heat-labile substances in Ulva lactuca L. Crustaceana 59:299–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brawley SH (1992) Mesoherbivores. In: John DM, Hawkins SJ, Price JH (eds) Plant–animal interactions in the marine benthos. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 235–263Google Scholar
  9. Buschmann AH (1990) Intertidal macroalgae as refuge and food for Amphipoda in central Chile. Aquat Bot 36:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapelle G, Peck LS (1995) The influence of acclimation and substratum on the metabolism of the Antarctic amphipods Waldeckia obesa (Chevreux 1905) and Bovallia gigantea (Pfeffer 1888). Polar Biol 15:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conlan KE (1994) Amphipod crustaceans and environmental disturbance: a review. J Nat Hist 28:519–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conover WJ (1980) Practical nonparametric statistics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2000) Can quantity replace quality? Food choice, compensatory feeding, and fitness of marine mesograzers. Ecology 81:201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2001) Macroalgal traits and the feeding and fitness of an herbivorous amphipod: the roles of selectivity, mixing, and compensation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 218:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon IMT, Moore PG (1997) A comparative study on the tubes and feeding behaviour of eight species of corophioid Amphipoda and their bearing on phylogenetic relationships within the Corophioidea. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 352:93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1991) Food and shelter as determinants of food choice by an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecology 72:1286–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1994) Herbivore resistance to seaweed chemical defense: the roles of mobility and predation risk. Ecology 75:1304–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edgar GJ (1983) The ecology of south-east Tasmanian phytal animal communities. I. Spatial organization on a local scale. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 70:129–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enequist P (1950) Studies on the soft-bottom amphipods of the Skagerak. Zool Bidr Upps 28:297–492Google Scholar
  20. Fox G A (1993) Failure-time analysis: emergence, flowering, survivorship, and other waiting times. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 253–289Google Scholar
  21. Galán Jiménez E, Hauxwell J, Heckscher E, Rietsma C, Valiela I (1996) Selection of nitrogen-enriched macroalgae (Cladophora vagabunda and Gracilaria tikvahiae) by the herbivorous amphipod Microdeutopus gryllotalpa. Biol Bull 191:323–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodhart CB (1939) Notes on the bionomics of the tube-building amphipod, Leptocheirus pilosus Zaddach. J Mar Biol Assoc 23:311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hay ME (1992) The role of seaweed chemical defenses in the evolution of feeding specialization and in the mediation of complex interactions. In: Paul VJ (ed) Ecological roles of marine natural products. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, pp 93–118Google Scholar
  24. Hay ME (1997) The ecology and evolution of seaweed–herbivore interactions on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 16(Suppl): S67–S76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Pfister CA, Fenical W (1987) Chemical defense against different marine herbivores: are amphipods insect equivalents? Ecology 68:1567–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hay ME, Renaud PE, Fenical W (1988) Large mobile versus small sedentary herbivores and their resistance to seaweed chemical defenses. Oecologia 75:246–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hay ME, Steinberg PD (1992) The chemical ecology of plant-herbivore interactions in marine versus terrestrial communities. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites, 2nd edn, vol II: Evolutionary and ecological processes. Academic, San Diego, pp 371–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heckscher E, Hauxwell J, Galán Jiménez E, Rietsma C, Valiela I (1996) Selectivity by the herbivorous amphipod Microdeutopus gryllotalpa among five species of macroalgae. Biol Bull 191:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Littler MM, Littler DS (1980) The evolution of thallus form and survival strategies in benthic marine macroalgae: field and laboratory tests of a functional form model. Am Nat 116:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lubchenco J (1978) Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. Am Nat 112:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McArdle BH (1988) The structural relationship: regression in biology. Can J Zool 66:2329–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McBane CD, Croker RA (1983) Animal–algal relationships of the amphipod Hyale nilssoni (Rathke) in the rocky intertidal. J Crustacean Biol 3:592–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Myers AA, Costello MJ (1984) The amphipod genus Aora in British and Irish waters. J Mar Biolog Assoc UK 64:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers AA, Moore PG (1983) The New Zealand and south-east Australian species of Aora Krøyer (Amphipoda, Gammaridea). Rec Aust Mus 35:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nicotri ME (1980) Factors involved in herbivore food preference. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 42:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillips JA, Nelson WA (1998) Typification of the Australasian brown alga Zonaria turneriana J. Agardh (Dictyotales) and description of the endemic New Zealand species, Zonaria aureomarginata sp. nov. Bot Mar 41:77–86Google Scholar
  37. Poore AGB (1994) Selective herbivory by amphipods inhabiting the brown alga Zonaria angustata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 107:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poore AGB, Steinberg PD (1999) Preference-performance relationships and effects of host plant choice in an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecol Monogr 69:443–464Google Scholar
  39. Robertson AI, Lucas JS (1983) Food choice, feeding rates, and the turnover of macrophyte biomass by a surf-zone inhabiting amphipod. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 72:99–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandifer PA, Zielinski PB, Castro WE (1975) Enhanced survival of larval grass shrimp in dilute solutions of the synthetic polymer, polyethylene oxide. Fish Bull 73:678–680Google Scholar
  41. SAS Institute Inc (1990) SAS/STAT® user’s guide, version 6, 4th edn, vol 2. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  42. Shillaker RO, Moore PG (1987) The feeding habits of the amphipods Lembos websteri Bate and Corophium bonnellii Milne Edwards. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 110:93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor RB, Cole RG (1994) Mobile epifauna on subtidal brown seaweeds in northeastern New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 115:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor RB, Steinberg PD (2005) Host use by Australasian seaweed mesograzers in relation to feeding preferences of larger grazers. Ecology 86:2955–2967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tegner MJ, Dayton PK (1987) El Niño effects on southern California kelp forest communities. Adv Ecol Res 17:243–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Alstyne KL, Wolfe GV, Freidenburg TL, Neill A, Hicken C (2001) Activated defense systems in marine macroalgae: evidence for an ecological role for DMSP cleavage. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 213:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zimmerman R, Gibson R, Harrington J (1979) Herbivory and detritivory among gammaridean amphipods from a Florida seagrass community. Mar Biol 54:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leigh Marine LaboratoryUniversity of AucklandWarkworthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations