Marine Biology

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 285–295 | Cite as

Differences in somatic and gonadic growth of sea urchins (Stronglyocentrotus droebachiensis) fed kelp (Laminaria longicruris) or the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides are related to energy acquisition

  • Devin A. LyonsEmail author
  • Robert E. Scheibling
Research Article


The rocky subtidal community off the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia has historically undergone a cyclical transition between Laminaria-dominated kelp beds and sea urchin-dominated barrens. Since the introduction of the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, a third community state has emerged: Codium-dominated algal beds. We conducted a 42-week feeding experiment in the laboratory, which mimicked the quantity and quality of food available to urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) in each of these community states. Feeding rate, growth, reproduction, and survival of urchins fed either Laminaria longicruris or C. fragile ad libidum, or L. longicruris 2 days per month, were measured. Although the ad libidum feeding rate on C. fragile was higher than that on kelp, energy intake was lower. Urchins in the ad libidum kelp treatment were larger and had larger gonads than those in the C. fragile treatment. Urchins fed kelp infrequently exhibited little somatic and gonadic growth over the course of the experiment. Regression analysis revealed that urchin performance on these diets was strongly related to energy intake. Diet treatment had no effect on survival or gonad maturation. Although urchins can consume substantial amounts of C. fragile, it appears that they cannot, or do not, feed quickly enough to compensate for its lower nutritional value. Our results suggest that, although urchins feeding on C. fragile are capable of surviving, growing, and reproducing, the replacement of kelp by C. fragile in some areas might negatively affect urchin populations as they continue to repopulate the shallow subtidal zone.


Gonad Index Gonad Weight Test Diameter Gonadic Growth Gametogenic Cycle 
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 thank Ebony Wicks, Mark Ulett, John Lindley, Allison Schmidt, Olivier D’Amours, and Meagan Saunders for their assistance with diving and lab work. Jean-Sébastien Lauzon-Guay and Marie Auger Méthé and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on the manuscript. The research was funded by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) to RES. DAL was supported by scholarships from NSERC.


  1. Benson EE, Rutter JC, Cobb AH (1983) Seasonal variation in frond morphology and chloroplast physiology of the intertidal alga Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot. New Phytol 95:569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird CJ, Dadswell MJ, Grund DW (1993) First record of the potential nuisance alga Codium fragile spp. tomentosoides (Chlorophyta, Caulerpales) in Atlantic Canada. Proc N S Inst Sci 40:11–17Google Scholar
  3. Black R, Codd C, Hebbert D, Vink S, Burt J (1984) The functional significance of the relative size of Aristotle’s lantern in the sea urchin Echinometra mathaei (de Blainville). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 77:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black R, Johnson MS, Trendall JT (1982) Relative size of Aristotle’s lantern in Echinometra mathaei occurring at different densities. Mar Biol 71:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady SM, Scheibling RE (2005) Repopulation of the shallow subtidal zone by green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) following mass mortality in Nova Scotia, Canada. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 85:1511–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady SM, Scheibling RE (2006) Changes in growth and reproduction of green sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Müller), during repopulation of the shallow subtidal zone after mass mortality. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 335:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breen PA, Mann KH (1976a) Destructive grazing of kelp by sea urchins in eastern Canada. J Fish Res Board Can 33:1278–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breen PA, Mann KH (1976b) Changing lobster abundance and the destruction of kelp beds by sea urchins. Mar Biol 34:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman ARO (1981) Stability or sea urchin dominated barren grounds following destructive grazing of kelp in St. Margaret’s Bay, eastern Canada. Mar Biol 62:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman AS, Scheibling RE, Chapman ARO (2002) Species introductions and changes in marine vegetation of Atlantic Canada. In: Claudi R, Nantel P, Muckle-Jeffs E (eds) Alien invaders in Canada’s waters, wetlands, and forests. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian forest service science branch, Ottawa, pp 133–148Google Scholar
  11. Cho DM, Kim DS, Lee DS, Kim HR, Pyeun JH (1995) Trace components and functional saccharides in seaweed. 1. Changes in proximate composition and trace elements according to harvest season and places. Bull Korean Fish Soc 28:49–59Google Scholar
  12. Cho GY, Yoon HS, Boo SM, Yarish C (2000) Atlantic kelp species Laminaria longicruris and L. saccharina (Laminariales) are conspecific. J Phycol 36(Suppl. 3):12–13CrossRefGoogle 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. Daggett TL, Pearce CM, Tingley M, Robinson SM, Chopin T (2005) Effect of prepared and macroalgal diets and seed stock source on somatic growth of juvenile green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis). Aquaculture 244:263–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Jong-Westman M, March BE, Carefoot TH (1995) The effect of different nutrient formulations in artificial diets on gonad growth in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Can J Zool 73:1495–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duggins DO (1981) Sea urchins and kelp: the effects of short-term changes in urchin diet. Limnol Oceanogr 26:391–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ebert TA (1968) Growth rates of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus related to food availability and spine abrasion. Ecology 49:1075–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ebert TA (1980) Relative growth of sea urchin jaws: an example of plastic resource allocation. Bull Mar Sci 30:467–474Google Scholar
  20. Ebert TA, Dixon JD, Schroeter SC, Kalvass PE, Richmond NT, Bradbury WA, Woodby DA (1999) Growth and mortality of red sea urchins Strongylocentrotus franciscanus across a latitudinal gradient. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 190:189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ebert TA Russell MP (1992) Growth and mortality estimates for red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus from San Nicolas Island, California. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 81:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fralick RA, Mathieson AC (1972) Winter fragmentation of Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot ssp. tomentosoides (Van Goor) silva in New England. Phycologia 11:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gagnon P, Himmelman JH, Johnson LE (2003) Algal colonization in urchin barrens: defense by association during recruitment of the brown alga Agarum cribrosum. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 290:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gagnon P, Himmelman JH, Johnson LE (2004) Temporal variation in community interfaces: kelp-bed boundary dynamics adjacent to persistent urchin barrens. Mar Biol 144:1191–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garrido CL, Barber BJ (2001) Effects of temperature and food ration on gonad growth and oogenesis of the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Mar Biol 138:447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Himmelman JH (1984) Urchin feeding and macroalgal distribution in Newfoundland, eastern Canada. Nat Can 111:337–348Google Scholar
  27. Himmelman JH, Nédélec H (1990) Urchin foraging and algal survival strategies in intensely grazed communities in eastern Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:1011–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson CR, Mann KH (1988) Diversity, patterns of adaptation, and stability of Nova Scotian kelp beds. Ecol Monogr 58:129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson CR, Mann KH (1982) Adaptations of Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis for survival on barren grounds in Nova Scotia. In: Lawrence JM (ed) Echinoderms: Proceedings of the international conference, Tampa Bay. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 277–283Google Scholar
  30. Keats DW, Steele DH, South GR (1984) Depth-dependent reproductive output of the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (O.F. müller), in relation to the nature and availability of food. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 80:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kennish R, Williams GA (1997) Feeding preferences of the herbivorous crab Grapsus albolineatus: the differential influence of algal nutrient content and morphology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 147:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klinger TS (1982) Feeding rates of Lytechinus variegatus Lamark (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) on differing physiognomies of an artificial food on a uniform composition. In: Lawrence JM (ed) Echinoderms: Proceedings of the international conference, Tampa Bay. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 29–32Google Scholar
  33. Lamare MD, Mladenov PV (2000) Modeling somatic growth in the sea urchin Evechinus chloroticus (Echinoidea: Echinometridae). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 243:17–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lamare MD, Wing SR (2001) Calorific content of New Zealand marine macroalgae. NZ J Mar Freshwater Res 35:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larson BR, Vadas RL, Keser M (1980) Feeding and nutritional ecology of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in Maine, USA. Mar Biol 59:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lauzon-Guay J-S, Scheibling R (2007) Behavior of sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis): food mediated aggregations and density dependant facilitation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawrence JM (1975) On the relationships between marine plants and sea urchins. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 13:213–286Google Scholar
  38. Lawrence JM, Lawrence AL, Watts SA (2007) Feeding, digestion and digestibility. In: Lawrence JM (ed) Edible sea urchins: biology and ecology. 2nd Edn. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemire M, Himmelman JH (1996) Relation of food preference to fitness for the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Mar Biol 127:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levin PS, Coyer JA, Petrik R, Good TP (2002) Community-wide effects of nonindigenous species on temperate rocky reefs. Ecology 83:3182–3193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levitan DR (1991) Skeletal changes in the test and jaws of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum in response to food limitation. Mar Biol 111:431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levitan DR (1992) Community structure in times past: influence of human fishing pressure on algal-urchin interactions. Ecology 73:1597–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis CA, Ebert TA, Boren ME (1990) Allocation of 45calcium to body components of starved and fed purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus). Mar Biol 105:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lowe EF, Lawrence JM (1976) Absorption efficiencies of Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) for selected marine plants. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 21:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meidel SK, Scheibling RE (1998a) Annual reproductive cycle of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, in differing habitats in Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar Biol 131:461–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meidel SK, Scheibling RE (1998b) Differences in size and age structure of subpopulations of sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) in kelp beds, barren grounds and grazing fronts in relation to growth rate and nutritional condition. In: Mooi R, Telford M (eds) Echinoderms: proceedings of the international conference, San Francisco. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 737–742Google Scholar
  47. Meidel SK, Scheibling RE (1999) Effects of food type and ration on reproductive maturation and growth of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Mar Biol 134:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller RJ (1985) Seaweeds, sea urchins, and lobster: a reappraisal. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:2061–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller RJ, Mann KH (1973) Ecological energetics of the seaweed zone in a marine bay on the Atlantic coast of Canada III. Energy transformations by sea urchins. Mar Biol 18:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Minor MA, Scheibling RE (1997) Effects of food ration and feeding regime on growth and reprodution of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Mar Biol 129:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paine RT, Vadas RL (1969) Calorific values of benthic marine algae and their postulated relation to invertebrate food preference. Mar Biol 4:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prince JS, LeBlanc WG (1992) Comparative feeding preference of Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Echinoidea) for the invasive seaweed Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides (Chlorophyceae) and four other seaweeds. Mar Biol 113:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Propp MV (1977) Ecology of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis of the Barents Sea: metabolism and regulation of abundance. Sov J Mar Biol 3:27–37Google Scholar
  54. Russell MP, Meredith RW (2000) Are natural growth lines in the skeletal structures of echinoids reliable indicators of age? A test using Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Invert Biol 119:410–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scheibling RE (1986) Increased macroalgal abundance following mass mortalities of sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia. Oecologia 68:186–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheibling RE, Anthony SX (2001) Feeding, growth and reproduction of sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) on single and mixed diets of kelp (Laminaria spp.) and the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides. Mar Biol 139:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scheibling RE, Gagnon P (2006) Competitive interactions between the invasive green alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides and native canopy-forming seaweeds in Nova Scotia (Canada). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 325:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scheibling RE, Hatcher BG (2007) The ecology of Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. In: Lawrence JM (ed) Edible sea urchins: biology and ecology. 2nd Edn. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 353–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scheibling RE, Hennigar AW (1997) Recurrent outbreaks of disease in sea urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in Nova Scotia: evidence for a link with large scale meteorologic and oceanographic events. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 152:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scheibling RE, Hennigar AW, Balch T (1999) Destructive grazing, epiphytism, and disease: the dynamics of sea urchin-kelp interactions in Nova Scotia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:2300–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stachowicz JJ, Hay M (1999) Reduced mobility is associated with compensatory feeding and increased diet breadth of marine crabs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 188:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sumi CBT, Scheibling RE (2005) Role of grazing by sea urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in regulating the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides in Nova Scotia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 292:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Theriault C, Scheibling RE, Hatcher BG, Jones W (2006) Mapping the distribution of an invasive marine alga (Codium fragile) in optically dense coastal waters using the Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI). Can J Remote Sens 32:315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson RJ (1982) The relationship between food ration and reproductive effort in the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Oecologia 56:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vadas RL (1977) Preferential feeding: an optimization strategy in sea urchins. Ecol Monogr 47:337–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zar J (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations