Advertisement

Prey preference of the common long-armed octopus Octopus minor (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) on three different species of bivalves

  • Minpeng Song
  • Jinhai Wang
  • Xiaodong ZhengEmail author
Article

Abstract

Octopus minor is widely distributed along the northern coast of China. To date, there is little information on the prey selection process of this species. To understand this process, several experiments were carried out. Three types of bivalves, namely, Ruditapes philippinarum, Mactra chinensis, and Mytilus edulis, were used to observe the prey selection of O. minor and to analyze the potential causes of prey selection from three aspects: prey profitability, adductor muscle tension and handling time. Under single-prey conditions, we found that the average (±SD) predation rates of O. minor on R. philippinarum, M. chinensis, and M. edulis were 1.73±0.50, 1.27±0.42, and 0.8±0.2/d, respectively. Under different prey combinations, octopods actively selected one type of prey over the other(s), and the order of prey preference was R. philippinarum, followed by M. chinensis and lastly M. edulis. Furthermore, the shells of the consumed prey showed that O. minor only consumed bivalves by pulling them apart since there was no evidence of drill holes on the shells. The prey selection of O. minor was related to the prey profitability and handling time; O. minor appeared to select preys with a higher profitability and a shorter handling time. However, the difficulty in opening the bivalve was not consistent with the prey preference of the octopods. These results suggest that O. minor prefers to consume R. philippinarum possibly due to a high profitability and a short handling time that supports the optimum Foraging Theory.

Keyword

Octopus minor bivalve prey preference prey selection prey profitability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Dr. Diego Orol Gómez, Dr. YU Zhenlin, Master HU Nan and Master XIN Xiaoke for their valuable advice and suggestion, and Mr. CAI Bing, Mr. CAI Hui for the sample collection. We also thank three reviewers for their useful ideas and criticism.

References

  1. Ambrose R F. 1984. Food preferences, prey availability, and the diet of Octopus bimaculatus Verrill. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 77(1–2): 29–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90049-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson R C, Mather J A. 2007. The packaging problem: bivalve prey selection and prey entry techniques of the octopus Enteroctopus dofleini. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(3): 300–305, https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.3.300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bo Q K, Zheng X D, Gao X L, Li Q. 2016. Multiple paternity in the common long-armed octopus Octopus minor (Sasaki, 1920) (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) as revealed by microsatellite DNA analysis. Marine Ecology, 37(5): 1073–1078, https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulding E G. 1984. Crab-resistant features of shells of burrowing bivalves: decreasing vulnerability by increasing handling time. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 76(3): 201–223, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90189-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlsson N O L, Sarnelle O, Strayer D L. 2009. Native predators and exotic prey — an acquired taste? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(10): 525–532, https://doi.org/10.1890/080093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casey E. 1999. Intelligent predation by the California two-spot octopus. The Festivus, 31(2): 21–24.Google Scholar
  7. Chesson J. 1978. Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecology, 59(2): 211–215, https://doi.org/10.2307/1936364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dong Z Z. 1998. Chinese Journal of Animal (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Science Press, Beijing, China. p.181–182. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  9. Fiorito G, Gherardi F. 1999. Prey-handling behaviour of Octopus vulgaris (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) on bivalve preys. Behavioural Processes, 46(1): 75–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00020-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao X L, Zheng X D, Bo Q K, Li Q. 2016. Population genetics of the common long-armed octopus Octopus minor (Sasaki, 1920) (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) in Chinese waters based on microsatellite analysis. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 66: 129–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2016.03.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guerra Á. 1978. Sobre la alimentación y el comportamiento alimentario de Octopus vulgaris. Investigacion Pesquera, 42(2): 351–364.Google Scholar
  12. Hanlon R T, Messenger J B. 1996. Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. p.47–65.Google Scholar
  13. Hartwick B, Tulloch L, MacDonald S. 1981. Feeding and growth of Octopus dofleini (Wulker). The Veliger, 24(2): 129–138.Google Scholar
  14. Hu N, Wang F, Zhang T, Song H, Yu Z L, Liu D P. 2016. Prey selection and foraging behavior of the whelk Rapana venosa. Marine Biology, 163(11): 233, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-3006-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hughes R N, Dunkin S D B. 1984. Behavioural components of prey selection by dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L.), feeding on mussels, Mytilus edulis L., in the laboratory. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 77(1–2): 45–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90050-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hughes R N, Seed R. 1981. Size selection of mussels by the blue crab Callinectes sapidus: energy maximizer or time minimizer? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 6(1): 83–89, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps006083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes R N. 1980. Optimal foraging theory in the marine context. Oceanography and Marine Biology—An Annual Review, 18: 423–481.Google Scholar
  18. Iribarne O O, Fernandez M E, Zucchini H. 1991. Prey selection by the small Patagonian octopus Octopus tehuelchus d’Orbigny. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 148(2): 271–282, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(91)90087-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iwakoshi E, Hisada M, Minakata H. 2000. Cardioactive peptides isolated from the brain of a Japanese octopus, Octopus minor. Peptides, 21(5): 623–630, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-9781(00)00201-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim D H, An H C, Lee K H, Hwang J W. 2008. Optimal economic fishing efforts in Korean common octopus Octopus minor trap fishery. Fisheries Science, 74(6): 1 215–1 221, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2008.01645.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim D S, Kim J M. 2006. Sexual maturity and growth characteristics of Octopus minor. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 39(5): 410–418, https://doi.org/10.5657/kfas.2006.39.5.410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leite T S, Haimovici M, Mather J. 2009. Octopus insularis (Octopodidae), evidences of a specialized predator and a time-minimizing hunter. Marine Biology, 156(11): 2 355–2 367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1264-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liszka D, Underwood A J. 1990. An experimental design to determine preferences for gastropod shells by a hermit-crab. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 137(1): 47–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(90)90059-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mascaró M, Seed R. 2001. Foraging behavior of juvenile Carcinus maenas (L.) and Cancer pagurus L. Marine Biology, 139(6): 1 135–1 145, https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270100677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McQuaid C D. 1994. Feeding behaviour and selection of bivalve prey by Octopus vulgaris Cuvier. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 177(2): 187–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(94)90236-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murdoch W W. 1969. Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecological Monographs, 39(4): 335–354, https://doi.org/10.2307/1942352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nixon M. 1980. The salivary papilla of Octopus as an accessory radula for drilling shells. Journal of Zoology, 190(1): 53–57, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1980.tb01422.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Onthank K L, Cowles D L. 2011. Prey selection in Octopus rubescens: possible roles of energy budgeting and prey nutritional composition. Marine Biology, 158(12): 2 795–2 804, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1778-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Portela E, Simões N, Rosas C, Mascaró M. 2014. Can preference for crabs in juvenile Octopus maya be modified through early experience with alternative prey? Behaviour, 151(11): 1 597–1 616, https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pyke G H, Pulliam H R, Charnov E L. 1977. Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 52(2): 137–154, https://doi.org/10.1086/409852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pyke G H. 1984. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual Review of Ecologyand Systematics, 15: 523–575, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Qian Y S, Zheng X D, Wang P, Li Q. 2010. Analysis and evaluation of nutritive composition of Octopus minor in Lake Swan. Marine Sciences, 34(12): 14–18. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  33. Qian Y S, Zheng X D, Wang W J, Yang J M, Li Q. 2016. Ultrastructure of spermatozoa and spermatogenesis in Octopus minor (Sasaki, 1920) (Cephalopoda: Octopoda). Journal of Natural History, 50(31–32): 2 037–2 047, https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2016.1184343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson T B, Pope H P, Hawken L, Binneman C. 2015. Predation-driven biotic resistance fails to restrict the spread of a sessile rocky shore invader. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 522: 169–179, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Savini D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A. 2006. Consumption rates and prey preference of the invasive gastropod Rapana venosa in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Helgoland Marine Research, 60(2): 153–159, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10152-006-0029-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoener T W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 2: 369–404, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.02.110171.002101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seibel B A, Drazen J C. 2007. The rate of metabolism in marine animals: environmental constraints, ecological demands and energetic opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1487): 2 061–2 078, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seol D W, Lee J, Im S Y, Park I S. 2007. Clove oil as an anaesthetic for common octopus (Octopus minor, Sasaki). Aquaculture Research, 38(1): 45–49, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01622.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skein L, Robinson T B, Alexander M E. 2018. Impacts of mussel invasions on the prey preference of two native predators. Behavioral Ecology, 29(2): 353–359, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steer M A, Semmens J M. 2003. Pulling or drilling, does size or species matter? An experimental study of prey handling in Octopus dierythraeus (Norman, 1992). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 290(2): 165–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00076-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stephens D W, Krebs J R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Journal of Ecology, 49(5): 247.Google Scholar
  42. Vincent T L S, Scheel D, Hough K R. 1998. Some aspects of diet and foraging behavior of Octopus dofleini Wülker, 1910 in its Northernmost Range. Marine Ecology, 19(1): 13–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1998.tb00450.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong M C, Barbeau M A. 2005. Prey selection and the functional response of sea stars (Asterias vulgaris Verrill) and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus Say) preying on juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin)) and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis Linnaeus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 327(1): 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2005.05.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xu R, Bo Q K, Zheng X D. 2018. A divergent lineage among Octopus minor (Sasaki, 1920) populations in the Northwest Pacific supported by DNA barcoding. Marine Biology Research, 14(4): 335–344, https://doi.org/10.108 0/17451000.2018.1427866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yamamoto T. 1942. On the ecology of Octopus variabilis typicus (Sasaki), with special reference to its breading habits. The Malacological Society of Japan, 12(1–2): 9–20.Google Scholar
  46. Zar J H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Zheng X D, Qian Y S, Liu C, Li Q. 2014. Octopus minor. In: Iglesias J, Fuentes L, Villanueva R eds. Cephalopod culture. Springer, Dordrecht, New York. p.415–426, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8r648-5_22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Mariculture (Ocean University of China)Ministry of EducationQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Institute of Evolution and Marine BiodiversityOcean University of ChinaQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations