Advertisement

Moon snails Amauropsis islandica can shape the population of Baltic clams Limecola balthica by size-selective predation in the high-latitude White Sea

  • Dmitriy AristovEmail author
  • Marina Varfolomeeva
Original Paper

Abstract

Relative importance of biotic factors (i.e., predation) in shaping community structure at high-latitude marine habitats is likely underestimated due to lack of relevant research. Size-selective predation on dominant species can strongly affect the demography of the prey resulting in indirect community-wide effects. Moon snails (Naticidae: Gastropoda) drill shells of other mollusks, and their feeding habits are thus comparatively easy to trace. Here we test the predation of the Iceland moon snail Amauropsis islandica, preying upon the Baltic tellin Limecola balthica, for size-selectivity in the high-latitude White Sea, combining caging experiments and a 17-years’ survey. The results from both data sources confirm that drilled valves of Limecola are generally larger than living clams. Sizes of the drillholes on the Limecola shells in the sediments evidence that with increasing predator size its’ size-selectivity shifts towards bigger prey, and larger range of sizes becomes available for consumption (0.5–7 mm range for the 2.5 mm Amauropsis and 4–20 mm for the 22.5 mm Amauropsis). In the caging experiment, larger Limecola (>8 mm length) are more likely consumed by larger predators (12.1–14.8 mm in height) than by smaller ones (7.1–8.6 mm in height). Size-selective predation by Amauropsis could shape Limecola population as evidenced by the size variation of potentially edible Limecola clams in samples with different density and size of Amauropsis. Since the large Limecola clams may have different ecological functions than small ones, Amauropsis could indirectly influence the intertidal community structure.

Keywords

Size-selective predation Ontogenetic diet shift Caging experiments Long-term studies White sea 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors thank the authorities of Kanadalaksha State Reserve (Murmansk region, Russia) who granted access to the protected study area; Dr. Vadim Khaitov who helped with the field sampling and data analysis; Egor Sergeenko who helped in conducting the field experiments and collecting the data; and all students of Laboratory of Marine Benthic Ecology and Hydrobiology for their help in sampling and sorting during the long-term field survey. We gratefully acknowledge the reviewers (Dr. Jeff Clements, Dr. Melissa Grey, and a reviewer who remained anonymous) for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We thank Dr. Alexey Sukhotin, Dr. Eugene Yakovis, and Dr. Melissa Grey for their kind help with language corrections.

Funding

The project was partly supported by the Russian Fund of Basic Research grant 18-34-00405, and by the ongoing Program of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Functioning and dynamics of subarctic and Arctic marine ecosystems” (AAAA-A17-117021300220-3).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no conflicts of interest exist.

Supplementary material

300_2019_2597_MOESM1_ESM.xls (768 kb)
Supplementary file1 (XLS 768 kb)
300_2019_2597_MOESM2_ESM.xls (50 kb)
Supplementary file2 (XLS 49 kb)
300_2019_2597_MOESM3_ESM.xls (80 kb)
Supplementary file3 (XLS 79 kb)

References

  1. Alexander RR, Dietl GP (2001) Latitudinal trends in naticid predation on Anadara ovalis (Bruguiére, 1789) and Divalinga quadrisulcata (Orbigny, 1842) from New Jersey to the Florida Keys. Am Malacol Bull 16:179–194Google Scholar
  2. Alyakrinskaya IO (2002) Morphofunctional properties of nutrition of certain predatory gastropods. Biol Bull 29:589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amezcua AB, Holyoak M (2000) Empirical evidence for predator-prey source-sink dynamics. Ecology 81:3087–3098Google Scholar
  4. Aristov DA, Granovitch AI (2011) Ration of predatory mollusk Amauropsis islandica (Müller, 1776) (Caenogastropoda: Naticidae) in the White Sea littoral zone. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta (Ser. 3) 4:10–18 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  5. Aristov D, Varfolomeeva M, Puzachenko G (2015) All’s good in a famine? Hydrobia ulvae as a secondary prey for juveniles of Iceland moonsnails Amauropsis islandica at the White Sea sandflats. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 95:1601–1606.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415000454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayliss DE (1986) Selective feeding on bivalves by Polinices alderi (Forbes) (Gastropoda). Ophelia 25:33–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00785326.1986.10429722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beal BF (2006) Relative importance of predation and intraspecific competition in regulating growth and survival of juveniles of the soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria L., at several spatial scales. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 336:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2006.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beukema JJ, Dekker R (2003) Large spatial variability in lifetime egg production in an intertidal Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica) population. Helgol Mar Res 56:274–278.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10152-002-0128-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broom MJ (1982) Size-selection, consumption rates and growth of the gastropods Natica maculosa (Lamarck) and Thais carinifera (Lamarck) preying on the bivalve, Anadara granosa (L.). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 56:213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casey MM, Farrell ÚC, Dietl GP, Veilleux DJ (2015) Mixed assemblages of drilling predators and the problem of identity in the fossil record: a case study using the muricid gastropod Ecphora. Palaeobiology 41:680–696.  https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2015.32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carriker MR (1981) Shell penetration and feeding by naticacean and muricacean predatory gastropods: a synthesis. Malacologia 20:403–422Google Scholar
  14. Chiba S, Arai Y (2014) Predation impact of small drilling gastropods on the Japanese Scallop Mizuhopecten yessoensis. J Shellfish Res 33:137–144.  https://doi.org/10.2983/035.033.0113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiba T, Sato S (2012) Size-selective predation and drillhole-site selectivity in Euspira fortunei (Gastropoda: Naticidae): implications for ecological and palaeoecological studies. J Moll Stud 78(2):205–212.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eys002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiba T, Sato S (2013) Invasion of Laguncula pulchella (Gastropoda: Naticidae) and predator—prey interactions with bivalves on the Tona coast, Miyagi prefecture, northern Japan. Biol Invas 15:587–598.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0310-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clements JC, Rawlings TA (2014) Ontogenetic shifts in the predatory habits of the Northern moonsnail (Lunatia heros) on the Northwestern Atlantic coast. J Shellfish Res 33:755–768.  https://doi.org/10.2983/035.033.0310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Commito JA (1982) Effects of Lunatia heros predation on the population dynamics of Mya arenaria and Macoma balthica in Maine, USA. Mar Biol 193:187–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00396898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Corno G, Jürgens K (2006) Direct and indirect effects of protist predation on population size structure of a bacterial strain with high phenotypic plasticity. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:78–86.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.1.78 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Croll DA, Maron JL, Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd GV (2005) Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from Grassland to Tundra. Science 307:1959–1961.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1108485 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dodson SI (1970) Complementary feeding niches sustained by size-selective predation. Limnol Oceanogr 15:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunson WA, Travis J (1991) The role of abiotic factors in community organisation. Am Nat 138:1067–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards DC, Huebner JD (1977) Feeding and growth rates of Polinices duplicatus preying on Mya arenaria at Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts. Ecol 58:1218–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellis T, Gibson RN (1995) Size-selective predation of 0-group flatfishes on a Scottish coastal nursery ground. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 127:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eloranta AP, Kahilainen KK, Amundsen P, Knudsen R, Harrod C, Jones RI (2015) Lake size and fish diversity determine resource use and trophic position of a top predator in high-latitude lakes. Ecol Evol 5:1664–1675.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1464 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Faraway JJ (2016) Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models, Vol. 124. CRC Press, Boca Raton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  28. Franz DR (1977) Size and age-specific predation by Lunatia heros (Say, 1822) on the surf clam Spisula solidissima (Dillwyn, 1817) off Western Long Island, New York. The Veliger 20:144–150Google Scholar
  29. Freestone AL, Osman RW, Ruiz GM, Torchin ME (2011) Stronger predation in the tropics shapes species richness patterns in marine communities. Ecol 92:983–993.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09-2379.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Genelt-Yanovskiy EA, Aristov DA, Poloskin AV, Nazarova SA (2018) Trends and drivers of Macoma balthica L. dynamics in Kandalaksha Bay, the White Sea. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 98:13–24.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315417001473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Golikov AN (1987) Class Gastropoda. In: Starobogatov YI, Naumov AD (eds) Mollusks of the White Sea. Nauka, Leningrad, pp 41–204 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  32. Gordillo S, Archuby FM (2012) Predation by drilling gastropods and asteroids upon mussels in rocky shallow shores of southernmost South America: paleontological implications. Acta Palaeontol Pol 57:633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gorzelak P, Salamon MA, Trzęsiok D, Niedźwiedzki R (2013) Drill holes and predation traces versus abrasion- induced artifacts revealed by tumbling experiments. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058528 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Grey M, Lelievre PG, Boulding EG (2007) Selection for prey shell thickness by the naticid gastropod Euspira lewisii (Naticidae) on the bivalve Protothaca staminea (Veneridae). The Veliger 48:6–11Google Scholar
  35. Hanson JM, Mackay WC, Prepas EE (1989) Effect of size-selective predation by muskrats (Ondatra zebithicus) on a population of unionid clams (Anodonta grandis simpsoniana). J Anim Ecol 58:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  37. Huelsken T (2011) First evidence of drilling predation by Conuber sordidus (Swainson, 1821) (Gastropoda: Naticidae) on soldier crabs (Crustacea: Mictyridae). Moll Res 31:125–132Google Scholar
  38. Kabat AR (1990) Predatory ecology of naticid gastropods with a review of shell boring predation. Malacologia 32:155–193.Google Scholar
  39. Kingsley-Smith PR, Richardson CA, Seed R (2003) Stereotypic and size-selective predation in Polinices pulchellus (Gastropoda: Naticidae) Risso 1826. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 295:173–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00294-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitchell JA, Boggs CH, Kitchell JF, Rice JA, Boggs H, Kitchell A (1981) Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology 7:533–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Litvak MK, Leggett WC (1992) Age and size-selective predation on larval fishes: the bigger-is-better hypothesis revisited. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 81:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martinelli JC, Gordillo S, Archuby FM (2013) Muricid drilling predation at high latitudes: insights from the Southernmost Atlantic. Palaios 28:33–41.  https://doi.org/10.2110/palo.2012.p12-087r CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Menge BA (1992) Community regulation: under what conditions are bottom-up factors important on rocky shores? Ecology 73:755–765.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Menge BA, Lubchenco J (1981) Community organization in temperate and tropical rocky intertidal habitats: prey refuges in relation to consumer pressure gradients. Ecol Monogr 51:429–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Menge BA, Sutherland JP (1987) Community regulation: variation in disturbance, competition, and predation in relation to environmental stress and recruitment. Am Nat 130:730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Menge BA, Olson AM, Dahlhoff EP (2002) Environmental stress, bottom-up effects, and community dynamics: integrating molecular-physiological and ecological approaches. Integr Comp Biol 42:892–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mondal S, Bardhan S, Sarkar D (2010) Testability of energy maximization model (Kitchell et al., 1981) of naticid predation on two bivalve prey from eastern coast of India. Nautilus 124:137–159Google Scholar
  48. Norkko A, Villnäs A, Norkko J, Valanko S, Pilditch C (2013) Size matters: implications of the loss of large individuals for ecosystem function. Sci Rep 3:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paine RT (1969) The Pisaster-Tegula interaction: prey patches, predator food preference, and intertidal community structure. Ecol 50:950–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peitso E, Hui E, Hartwick B, Bourne N (1994) Predation by the naticid gastropod Polinices lewisii (Gould) on littleneck clams Protothaca staminea (Conrad) in British Columbia. Can J Zool 72:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pennings SC (1990) Size-related shifts in herbivory: specialization in the sea hare Aplysia californica Cooper. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 142:43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinheiro J, Bates D (2006) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Purcell JE, Hopcroft RR, Kosobokova KN, Whitledge TE (2010) Distribution, abundance, and predation effects of epipelagic ctenophores and jellyfish in the western Arctic Ocean. Deep-sea Res II 57:127–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2009.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quijon PA, Grassle JP, Rosario JM (2007) Naticid snail predation on early post-settlement surfclams (Spisula solidissima) on the inner continental shelf of New Jersey, USA. Mar Biol 160:873–882.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0399-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.5.1) [Computer software]. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from https://www.R-project.org/
  56. Reynolds PL, Stachowicz JJ, Hovel K, Borström C, Boyer K, Cusson M et al (2018) Latitude, temperature, and habitat complexity predict predation pressure in eelgrass beds across the Northern Hemisphere. Ecol 99:29–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roy K, Miller DJ, LaBarbera M (1994) Taphonomic bias in analyses of drilling predation: effects of gastropod drill holes on bivalve shell strength. Palaios 9:413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. RStudio (2018) RStudio: integrated development environment for R (Version 1.1.456) [Computer software]. Boston, MA. Retrieved May 20, 2018 from https://rstudio.com
  59. Schemske DW, Mittelbach GG, Cornell HV, Sobel JM, Roy K (2009) Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:245–269.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Selin NI (2008) Feeding behavior, ration and size structure of a population of the predatory gastropod Cryptonatica janthostoma in Vostok Bay, Sea of Japan. Russ J of Mar Biol 34:186–190.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063074008030085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vermeij GJ (1983) Traces and trends of predation, with special reference to bivalves animals. Palaeontology 26:455–465Google Scholar
  62. Vignali R, Galleni L (1986) Naticid predation on soft bottom bivalves: a study on a beach shell assemblage. Oebalia 13:157–177Google Scholar
  63. Watson S-A, Peck LS, Tyler PA, Southgate PC, Tan KS, Day RW et al (2012) Marine invertebrate skeleton size varies with latitude, temperature and carbonate saturation: implications for global change and ocean acidification. Glob Change Biol 18:3026–3038.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02755.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wessel P, Smith WH (1996) A global, self-consistent, hierarchical, high-resolution shoreline database. J Geophys Res 101:8741–8743.  https://doi.org/10.1029/96JB00104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Whitefleet-Smith LA, Harding JM (2014) Size selectivity by Atlantic Mud crabs Panopeus herbstii (Milne Edwards) feeding on Ivory barnacles Balanus eburneus (Gould). J Shellfish Res 33:25–33.  https://doi.org/10.2983/035.032.0304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wickham H (2016) Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilke CO (2018) Cowplot: streamlined plot theme and plot annotations for ‘Ggplot2’ (Version 0.9.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cowplot
  68. Wiltse WI (1980) Effects of Polinices duplicatus (Gastropoda: Naticidae) on infaunal community structure at Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts, USA. Mar Biol 56:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Winemiller KO (1989) Ontogenetic diet shifts and resource partitioning among piscivorous fishes in the Venezuelan llanos. Environ Biol Fish 26:177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wood SN (2003) Thin-plate regression splines. J R Stat Soc (B) 65:95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc (B) 73:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wood SN (2017) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yakovis E, Artemieva A (2015) Bored to death: community-wide effect of predation on a foundation species in a low-disturbance arctic subtidal system. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132973 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Zwerschke N, Bollen M, Molis M, Scrosati RA (2013) An environmental stress model correctly predicts unimodal trends in overall species richness and diversity along intertidal elevation gradients. Helgol Mar Res 67:663–674.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10152-013-0352-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of SciencesSaint-PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Laboratory of Marine Benthic Ecology and HydrobiologySaint-PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Saint-Petersburg State UniversitySaint-PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations