Marine Biology

, Volume 151, Issue 1, pp 135–145 | Cite as

Juvenile–adult associations in sea urchins (Strongylocentrotusfranciscanus and S. droebachiensis): protection from predation and hydrodynamics in S. franciscanus

  • Michael T. Nishizaki
  • Josef Daniel AckermanEmail author
Research Article


Juvenile red sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, aggregate under adult conspecifics, whereas sympatric juvenile green sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, are typically more solitary and dispersed. Neither the potential advantage of juvenile sheltering nor the differences in post-settlement behavior between the two species has been demonstrated experimentally, but may be related to protection from predators and/or hydrodynamics. In predation experiments, juvenile vulnerability differed in the two species as the seastar Pycnopodia helianthoides consistently chose juvenile S. franciscanus over S. droebachiensis (100% vs. 0%). When associated with adults, juvenile mortality decreased dramatically in S. franciscanus (90% alone vs. 5% with adults), but very little in S. droebachiensis (85% vs. 75%). Not surprisingly, juvenile behavioral responses in the two species reflect this difference in vulnerability. Juvenile S. franciscanus sheltered under adults when predation risk was high, but not when risk was low (44% vs. 13%), whereas sheltering in S. droebachiensis was infrequent and not related to predation risk (7% for high risk versus 5% for low risk). From a hydrodynamic perspective, the presence of an adult led to the creation of a hydrodynamic refuge for juveniles, where average water velocities were reduced by > 60% around the adult urchin. Again, striking differences in sheltering rate were apparent in S. franciscanus (52% vs. 13% for high flow and low flow, respectively), but not S. droebachiensis (5% for high flow versus 4% for low flow). Sheltering behavior was also species-specific as juveniles did not shelter at high rates under adults of the opposite species (≤ 16%). A field survey confirmed these finding in that juvenile S. franciscanus abundance was associated with both adults and water motion (R2 = 0.80, P = 0.008, best-subsets regression). These results suggest that sheltering confers juvenile S. franciscanus with a degree of protection from predators and water motion, and that species-specific differences in this post-settlement behavior may be related to the differences in the protection afforded by adults.


Hermit Crab Test Diameter Juvenile Abundance Early Juvenile Stage Strongylocentrotus Franciscanus 
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.



We acknowledge J. Grayson, J. Mortimor, and D. Johnson for their diving assistance in field study, BMSC Director, A. Spencer for providing facilities, Island Scallops for providing juvenile urchins, and several anonymous reviewers for commenting on the manuscript. Financial support was provided by the Pacific Urchin Harvester’s Association, West Coast Green Urchin Harvester’s Association, a WCUMBS graduate award to MTN and Fisheries Renewal BC and NSERC grants to JDA.


  1. Ackerman JD, Okubo A (1993) Reduced mixing in a marine macrophyte canopy. Funct Ecol 7:305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman JD, Hoover TM (2001) Measurement of local bed shear stress in streams using a Preston-static tube. Limnol Oceanogr 46:2080–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adkins BE, Harbo RM, Breen PA (1981) A survey of commercial sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) populations in the Gulf Islands, November 1980. Can Manuscr Rep Fish Aquat Sci 1618:1–41Google Scholar
  4. Arsenault DJ, Himmelman JH (1996) Size-related changes in vulnerability to predators and spatial refuge use by juvenile Iceland scallops (Chlamys islandica). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 140:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouma H, de Vries PP, Duiker JMC, Herman PMJ, Wolff WJ (2001) Migration of the bivalve Macoma balthica on a highly dynamic tidal flat in the Westerschelde estuary, The Netherlands. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breen PA, Adkins BE (1982) Observations of abalone populations on the north coast of British Columbia, July 1980. Can Manuscr Rep Fish Aquat Sci 1633:1–55Google Scholar
  7. Breen PA, Carolsfeld W, Yamanaka KL (1985) Social behavior of juvenile red sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus (Agassiz). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 92:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron RA, Schroeter SC (1980) Sea urchin Strongylocentrotus spp recruitment: effect of substrate selection on juvenile distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA, Collins SL (2002) Species diversity enhances ecosystem functioning through interspecific facilitation. Nature 415:426–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connolly SR, Menge BA, Roughgarden J (2001) A latitudinal gradient in recruitment of intertidal invertebrates in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Ecology 82:1799–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowen RK (1983) The effect of sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) predation on red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) populations: an experimental analysis. Oecologia 58:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duggins DO (1981) Interspecific facilitation in a guild of benthic marine herbivores. Oecologia 48:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duggins DO (1983) Starfish predation and the creation of mosaic patterns in a kelp-dominated community. Ecology 64:1610–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebert TA (1983) Recruitment in Echinoderms. In: Jangoux M, Lawrence JM (eds) Echinoderm Studies. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp169–203Google Scholar
  15. Gagnon P, Wagner G, Himmelman JH (2003) Use of a wave tank to study the effects of water motion and algal movement on the displacement of the sea star Asterias vulgaris towards its prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 258:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaines S, Roughgarden J (1985) Larval settlement rate: a leading determinant of structure in an ecological community of the marine intertidal zone. PNAS 82:3707–3711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillanders B, Able KJB, Eggleston D, Sheridan P (2003) Evidence of connectivity between juvenile and adult habitats for mobile marine fauna: an important component of nurseries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 247:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gosselin LA, Qian PY (1997) Juvenile mortality in benthic marine invertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 146:265–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagen NT, Mann KH (1994) Experimental analysis of factors influencing the aggregating behavior of the green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Muller). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 176:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris LG, Chester CM (1996) Effects of location, exposure and physical structure on juvenile recruitment of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in the Gulf of Maine. Invertebr Reprod Dev 30:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hendler G, Grygier MJ, Maldonado E, Benton J (1999) Babysitting brittlestars: heterospecific symbiosis between ophiuroids (Echinodermata). Invertebr Biol 118:190–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunt HL, Scheibling RE (1997) Role of early post-settlement mortality in recruitment of benthic marine invertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 155:269–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonsson PR, Berntsson KM, Larsson AI (2004) Linking larval supply to recruitment: flow-mediated control of initial adhesion of barnacle larvae. Ecology 85(10):2850–2859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambert DLH (2000) Larval settlement of the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, in the southern Gulf of Maine. Invertebr Biol 119:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Low CG (1975) The effects of grouping of Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, the giant red sea urchin, on its population biology. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  26. Menge BA (2000) Recruitment vs. postrecruitment processes as determinants of barnacle population abundance. Ecol Monogr 70:265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moitoza DJ, Phillips DW (1979) Prey defense, predator preference, and nonrandom diet: the interactions between Pycnopodia helianthoides and two species of sea urchins. Mar Biol 53:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morgan LE (1997) Spatial variability in growth, mortality and recruitment in the northern California red sea urchin fishery. PhD thesis, UC DavisGoogle Scholar
  29. Nishizaki MT, Ackerman JD (2001) Gimme shelter: factors influencing juvenile sheltering in Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. In: Barker M (ed) Echinoderms 2000. Swets & Zeitlinger, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp515–520Google Scholar
  30. Nishizaki MT, Ackerman JD (2004) Juvenile-adult associations in sea urchins Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and S. droebachiensis: Is nutrition involved? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nishizaki MT, Ackerman JD (2005) A secondary chemical cue facilitates juvenile-adult post-settlement associations in red sea urchins. Limnol Oceanogr 50(1):354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowell ARM, Jumars PA (1984) Flow environments of aquatic benthos. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pace D (1975) Environmental control of red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) vertical distribution in Barkley Sound, British Columbia. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University. Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter ET, Sanford LP, Suttles SE (2000) Gypsum dissolution is not a universal integrator of ‘water motion’. Limnol and Oceanogr 45:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogers-Bennett L, Bennett WA, Fastenau HC, Dewees CM (1995) Spatial variation in red sea urchin reproduction and morphology: Implications for harvest refugia. Ecol Appl 5:1171–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowley RJ (1990) Newly settled sea-urchins in a kelp bed and urchin barren ground—a comparison of growth and mortality. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 62(3):229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowley RJ (1989) Settlement and recruitment of sea-urchins (Strongylocentrotus spp) in a sea-urchin barren ground and a kelp bed—are populations regulated by settlement or post-settlement processes. Mar Biol 100(4):485–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheibling RE, Hatcher BG (2001) The ecology of Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. In: Lawrence J (ed) Edible Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology. Elsevier Science, pp271–306Google Scholar
  39. Sloan NA, Lauridsen CP, Harbo RM (1987) Recruitment characteristics of the commercially harvested red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus in southern British Columbia, Canada. Fish Res 5:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tegner MJ, Dayton PK (1977) Sea urchin recruitment patterns and implications of commercial fishing. Science 196:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tegner MJ, Dayton PK (1981) Population structure, recruitment and mortality of two sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and S. purpuratus) in a kelp forest. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 5:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tegner MJ, Levin LA (1983) Spiny lobsters and sea urchins: analysis of a predator-prey interaction. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 73:125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael T. Nishizaki
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Josef Daniel Ackerman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Physical Ecology LaboratoryUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  2. 2.Bamfield Marine Sciences CentreBamfieldCanada
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Integrative Biology and Faculty of Environmental SciencesUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations