Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 166:15 | Cite as

Behavioral mechanisms of swimming crab (Portunus trituberculatus) preying on Manila clams (Ruditapes philippinarum): effects of substrate and competition

  • Dapeng Liu
  • Fang WangEmail author
  • Yunliang Lu
  • Nan Hu
  • Xianpeng Su
  • Jingjing Liu
  • Boshan Zhu
Original paper

Abstract

Although constructions for marine ranching may influence the local habitat, few studies have focused on the effect of substrate changes on the predator–prey relationship in the benthic community. A predator–prey system was established in the laboratory to investigate how substrate type and conspecific competitor affect the behavioral mechanisms of swimming crab (Portunus trituberculatus Miers) foraging on Manila clams (Ruditapes philippinarum Adams and Reeve). Specifically, we calculated predation rate and quantified foraging behaviors and encounter behaviors between crabs. Circadian differences in foraging behaviors and intraspecific interactions were observed as a result of the burying behavior of crab in the substrate. Spatial refuges produced by the substrate reduced predation rate significantly. The effects of substrates were enhanced gradually by increasing particle size, reflected by continuously decreasing foraging efficiency. Crabs spent considerable time searching, but rarely encountered with a clam. The decline in foraging efficiency intensified the interactions between crabs (e.g., kleptoparasitism, and fighting), and hindered further foraging, indicated by an increase in proportion of handling time and decrease in probability of consumption upon capture. Additionally, crabs raised the probability of capture upon encounter in response to the decline of prey accessibility. The dual protections provided by substrate and intraspecific interactions decreased the predation risk of clams and the foraging efficiency of crabs. These mechanisms might help to reveal the effects of substrate changes on crabs’ predation and competition in marine ranching.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof. Hui Liu and Prof. Gee Chapman for providing language help and writing assistance. We also would like to express our great appreciation to the editor and the three reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (no. 201861027), the Shandong Province Natural Science Fund Project (no. ZR2018MC028), and the Scientific Research Project of Tianjin Education Commission (no. 2017KJ186).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for sampling, care and experimental use of organisms for the study have been followed, and all necessary approvals have been obtained.

Supplementary material

227_2018_3461_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (241 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 240 kb)

References

  1. Abelló P, Reid DG, Naylor E (1991) Comparative locomotor activity patterns in the portunid crabs Liocarcinus holsatus and L. depurator. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 71:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 14:359–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold WS (1984) The effects of prey size, predator size, and sediment composition on the rate of predation of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, on the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria (Linné). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 80:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbeau MA, Scheibling RE (1994) Behavioral mechanisms of prey size selection by sea stars (Asterias vulgaris Verill) and crabs (Cancer irroratus Say) preying on juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin)). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 180:103–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beukers JS, Jones GP (1998) Habitat complexity modifies the impact of piscivores on a coral reef fish population. Oecologia 114:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blundon JA, Kennedy VS (1982) Mechanical and behavioral aspects of blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun), predation on Chesapeake Bay bivalves. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 65:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark ME, Wolcott TG, Wolcott DL, Hines AH (1999) Intraspecific interference among foraging blue crabs Callinectes sapidus: interactive effects of predator density and prey patch distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 178:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowlishaw GUY (1997) Trade-offs between foraging and predation risk determine habitat use in a desert baboon population. Anim Behav 53:667–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eggleston DB (1990) Behavioural mechanisms underlying variable functional responses of blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus feeding on juvenile oysters, Crassostrea virginica. J Anim Ecol 59:615–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferner MC, Smee DL, Weissburg MJ (2009) Habitat complexity alters lethal and non-lethal olfactory interactions between predators and prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 374:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gosnell JS, DiPrima JB, Gaines SD (2012) Habitat complexity impacts persistence and species interactions in an intertidal whelk. Mar Biol 159:2867–2874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grabowski JH, Powers SP (2004) Habitat complexity mitigates trophic transfer on oyster reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 277:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grabowski JH, Hughes AR, Kimbro DL (2008) Habitat complexity influences cascading effects of multiple predators. Ecology 89:3413–3422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffen BD, Byers JE (2006) Partitioning mechanisms of predator interference in different habitats. Oecologia 146:608–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo YL, Ren YP, Yang HB (2005) A study on the growth characteristics of the clam Ruditapes philippinarum in Jiaozhou Bay. J Ocean Univ China 35:779–784Google Scholar
  16. Hughes AR, Grabowski JH (2006) Habitat context influences predator interference interactions and the strength of resource partitioning. Oecologia 149:256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kitada S (2018) Economic, ecological and genetic impacts of marine stock enhancement and sea ranching: a systematic review. Fish Fish 19:511–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhlmann ML, Hines AH (2005) Density-dependent predation by blue crabs Callinectes sapidus on natural prey populations of infaunal bivalves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 295:215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lehner PN (1996) Handbook of ethological methods. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu DP, Wang F, Yang C, Hu N, Sun YF (2017) Starvation and a conspecific competitor influence multiple predator effects in a swimming crab (Portunus trituberculatus)—Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) foraging system. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 495:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu DP, Guo XT, Zhong DS, Wang F, Li L, Hu N (2018) Prey density and a conspecific competitor influence multiple predator effects in a crab—clam foraging system. Aquaculture 493:264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lv HB, Wang SQ, Liu GS, Zhang XM (2016) Effects of bioturbation on vertical distribution of sediment particles by two macrobenthos species. J Hydroecol 37:78–86Google Scholar
  23. Mansour RA, Lipcius RN (1991) Density-dependent foraging and mutual interference in blue crabs preying upon infaunal clams. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 72:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matheson K, Gagnon P (2012) Temperature mediates non-competitive foraging in indigenous rock (Cancer irroratus Say) and recently introduced green (Carcinus maenas L.) crabs from Newfoundland and Labrador. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 414–415:6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osorno JL, Torres R, Garcia CM (1992) Kleptoparasitic behavior of the magnificent frigatebird: sex bias and success. Condor 94:692–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips DW (1977) Avoidance and escape responses of the gastropod mollusc Olivella biplicata (Sowerby) to predatory asteroids. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 28:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quinn BK, Boudreau MR, Hamilton DJ (2012) Inter- and intraspecific interactions among green crabs (Carcinus maenas) and whelks (Nucella lapillus) foraging on blue mussels (Mytilus edulis). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 412:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reid DG, Abelló P, Warman CG, Naylor E (1994) Size-related mating success in the shore crab Carcinus maenas (Crustacea: Brachyura). J Zool 232:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Relini G, Zamboni N, Tixi F, Torchia G (1994) Patterns of sessile macrobenthos community development on an artificial reef in the Gulf of Genoa (northwestern Mediterranean). Bull Mar Sci 55:745–771Google Scholar
  30. Siddon CE, Witman JD (2004) Behavioral indirect interactions: multiple predator effects and prey switching in the rocky subtidal. Ecology 85:2938–2945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skilleter GA (1994) Refuges from predation and the persistence of estuarine clam populations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 109:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smallegange IM, Van Der Meer J, Kurvers RH (2006) Disentangling interference competition from exploitative competition in a crab bivalve system using a novel experimental approach. Oikos 113:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sponaugle S, Lawton P (1990) Portunid crab predation on juvenile hard clams: effects of substrate type and prey density. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 67:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sumpton WD, Smith GS (1990) Effect of temperature on the emergence, activity and feeding of male and female sand crabs (Portunus pelagicus). Mar Freshw Res 41:545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun YF, Wang F, Liu DP, Dong SL (2016) Behavioral mechanisms underlying the functional response of the swimming crab Portunus trituberculatus preying on the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum. Mar Biol 163:124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sun YF, Wang F, Hu N, Su XP, Liu Z, Dircksen H (2017) Prey selection of the swimming crab Portunus trituberculatus (Miers, 1876) (Brachyura: Portunidae) foraging on bivalves. J Crustac Biol 37:521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor DL, Eggleston DB (2000) Effects of hypoxia on an estuarine predator–prey interaction: foraging behavior and mutual interference in the blue crab Callinectes sapidus and the infaunal clam prey Mya arenaria. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 196:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Rosenheim JA, Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW, Sih A (2007) The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88:2689–2696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. VanLandeghem MM, Carey MP, Wahl DH (2011) Turbidity-induced changes in emergent effects of multiple predators with different foraging strategies. Ecol Freshw Fish 20:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang RC, Wang ZP, Zhang J (2008) Science of marine shellfish culture. China Ocean University Press, QingdaoGoogle Scholar
  41. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA (2004) Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wentworth CK (1922) A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J Geol 30:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. West DL, Williams AH (1986) Predation by Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun) within Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 100:75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams PJ, Floyd TA, Rossong MA (2006) Agonistic interactions between invasive green crabs, Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus), and sub-adult American lobsters, Homarus americanus (Milne Edwards). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 329:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wong MC (2013) Green crab (Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus, 1758)) foraging on soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria Linnaeus, 1758) across seagrass complexity: behavioural mechanisms and a new habitat complexity index. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 446:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wong MC, Barbeau MA (2003) Effects of substrate on interactions between juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus Gmelin) and predatory sea stars (Asterias vulgaris Verrill) and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus Say). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 287:155–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wong MC, Peterson CH, Kay J (2010) Prey size selection and bottom type influence multiple predator effects in a crab-bivalve system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 409:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang HS (2016) Construction of marine ranching in China: reviews and prospects. J Fish China 40:1133–1140Google Scholar
  49. Yang G, Li F, Lv ZB, Xu BQ, Yuan XN, Wang XX, Chen W (2017) Study on the community structure of crabs in the coastal waters along Shandong Peninsula. Acta Oceanol Sin 39:48–61Google Scholar
  50. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang XL, Jiang SC, Cong YQ, Wang XB, Wang J, Zou D (2007) Investigation report on resource of Ruditapes philippinarum in Penglai, Shandong Province. Trans Oceanol Limnol 4:151–156Google Scholar
  52. Zimmer-Faust RK (1989) The relationship between chemoreception and foraging behavior in crustaceans. Limnol Oceanogr 34:1367–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dapeng Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fang Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yunliang Lu
    • 3
  • Nan Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xianpeng Su
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jingjing Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Boshan Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The Key Laboratory of MaricultureMinistry of Education, Ocean University of ChinaQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Function Laboratory for Marine Fisheries Science and Food Production ProcessesQingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and TechnologyQingdaoChina
  3. 3.Marine Science and Engineering CollegeQingdao Agricultural UniversityQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations