Marine Biology

, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 47–54 | Cite as

Predatory feeding of the hydromedusae Obelia geniculata and Phialla quadrata

  • R. S. FultonIII
  • R. G. Wear


In 1982–1983 nauplii and adults of several co-occurring copepods and Artemia sp. nauplii (Lake Grassmere, New Zealand strain) were fed to the hydromedusae Obelia geniculata (L.) and Phialella quadrata (Forbes), two species which are very abundant in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand. Clearance rates of both hydromedusae were significantly correlated with predator diameter, but independent of water temperature and prey density. P. quadrata consumed all developmental stages of some copepod species, but O. geniculata consumed only nauplii. Clearance rates of O. geniculata were most strongly related with the strength of the prey escape response, and showed little relation with prey size or movement rates. Clearance rates of P. quadrata were equally influenced by the prey escape response and prey size, but a large amount of the variability in clearance rates could not be explained by any of the prey characteristics, or by a linear combination of the prey characteristics. Clearance rates of the hydromedusae are combined with measures of hydromedusa abundance in Wellington Harbour to calculate daily per capita death rates of the prey.


Death Rate Water Temperature Linear Combination Developmental Stage Clearance Rate 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Allan, J. D. and C. E. Goulden: Some aspects of reproductive variation among freshwater zooplankton. In: Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities, pp 388–410. Ed. by W. C. Kerfoot. Hanover, NH: Univ. Press of New England 1980Google Scholar
  2. Ambler, J. W. and B. W. Frost: The feeding behavior of a predatory planktonic copepod, Tortanus discaudatus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 19, 446–451 (1974)Google Scholar
  3. Arai, M. N. and D. E. Hay: Predation by medusae on Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) larvae. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 39, 1537–1540 (1982)Google Scholar
  4. Arai, M. N. and J. R. Jacobs: Interspecific predation of common Strait of Georgia planktonic coelenterates: laboratory evidence. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 37, 120–123 (1980)Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, K. M.: Comparison of laboratory rates of predation on five species of marine fish larvae by three planktonic invertebrates: effects of larval size on vulnerability. Mar. Biol. 79, 303–309 (1984)Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, K. M. and R. S. Battey: A laboratory study of predation by Aurelia aurita on larval herring (Clupea harengus): experimental observations compared with model predictions. Mar. Biol. 72, 295–301 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. Bradford, J. M.: Systematics and ecology of New Zealand central east coast plankton sampled at Kaikoura. N.Z. Oceanogr. Inst. Mem. 54, 1–87 (1972)Google Scholar
  8. Byron, E. R., P. T. Whitman and C. R. Goldman: Observations of copepod swarms in Lake Tahoe. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28, 378–382 (1983)Google Scholar
  9. Cuker, B. E. and S. C. Mozley: Summer population fluctuations, feeding, and grwoth of Hydra in an Arctic lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26, 697–708 (1981)Google Scholar
  10. D'Apolito, L. M. and S. E. Stancyk: Population dynamics of Euterpina acutifrons (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) from North Inlet, South Carolina, with reference to dimorphic males. Mar. Biol. 54, 251–260 (1979)Google Scholar
  11. Dodson, S. I. and S. D. Cooper: Trophic relationships of the freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbyi Lankester 1880. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28, 345–351 (1983)Google Scholar
  12. Drenner, R. W., J. R. Strickler and W. J. O'Brien: Capture probability: the role of zooplankton escape in the selective feeding in planktivorous fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35, 1370–1373 (1978)Google Scholar
  13. Durbin, A. G. and E. G. Durbin: Standing stock and estimated production rates of phytoplankton and zooplankton in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Estuaries 4, 24–41 (1981)Google Scholar
  14. Förch, E. C.: Studies on the zooplankton of Pauatahanui Inlet, 192 pp. Ph. D. thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand 1983Google Scholar
  15. Forward, R. B. Jr.: Negative phototaxis in crustacean larvae: possible functional significance. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 16, 11–17 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, J. H.: Experimental feeding of some medusae and Chaetognatha. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 26, 1743–1762 (1969)Google Scholar
  17. Frost, B. W.: Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behavior of the marine copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17, 805–815 (1972)Google Scholar
  18. Frost, B. W.: A threshold feeding behavior in Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 263–266 (1975)Google Scholar
  19. Fulton, R. S. III: Predatory feeding of two marine mysids. Mar. biol. 72, 183–191 (1982)Google Scholar
  20. Fulton, R. S. III Distribution and community structure of estuarine copepods. Estuaries, 7, 38–50 (1984)Google Scholar
  21. Gerritsen, J.: Adaptive responses to encounter problems. In: Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities, pp 52–62. Ed. by W. C. Kerfoot. Hanover, N. H.: Univ. Press of New England 1980Google Scholar
  22. Gerritsen, J. and J. R. Strickler: Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: a mathematical model. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 34, 73–82 (1977)Google Scholar
  23. Greene, C. H.: Selective predation in freshwater zooplankton communities. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 68, 297–315 (1983)Google Scholar
  24. Hamner, W. M. and J. H. Carlton: Copepod swarms: attributes and role in coral reef ecosystems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24, 1–14 (1979)Google Scholar
  25. Hassell, M. P., J. H. Lawton and J. R. Beddington: The components of arthropod predation. I. The prey death rate. J. Anim. Ecol. 45, 135–164 (1976)Google Scholar
  26. Heron, A. C.: A vertical free fall plankton net with no mouth obstructions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27, 380–383 (1982)Google Scholar
  27. Hollander, M. and D. A. Wolfe: Nonparametric statistical methods, 503 pp. New York: John Wiley 1973Google Scholar
  28. Holling, C. S.: The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. Ent. Soc. Can. 48, 1–86 (1966)Google Scholar
  29. Huntley, M. E. and L. A. Hobson: Medusa predation and plankton dynamics in a temperate fjord, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 35, 257–261 (1978)Google Scholar
  30. Jillett, J. B.: Zooplankton associations off Otago Peninsula, southeastern New Zealand related to different water masses. N. Z. J. mar. freshwat. Res. 10, 543–557 (1976)Google Scholar
  31. Kerfoot, W. C.: A question of taste: crypsis and warning coloration in freshwater zooplankton communities. Ecology 63, 538–554 (1982)Google Scholar
  32. Landry, M. R.: Predatory feeding behavior of marine copepod, Labidocera trispinosa. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23, 1103–1113 (1978)Google Scholar
  33. Lang, W. H., R. B. Forward Jr. and D. C. Miller: Behavioral responses of Balanus improvisus nauplii to light intensity and spectrum. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 157, 166–181 (1979)Google Scholar
  34. Lasker, H. R., J. A. Syron and W. S. Clayton Jr.: The feeding response of Hydra viridis: effects of prey density on capture rates. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 162, 290–298 (1982)Google Scholar
  35. Lebour, M. V.: The food of plankton organisms. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 12, 644–677 (1922)Google Scholar
  36. Lebour, M. V.: The food of plankton organisms. II. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 13, 70–92 (1923)Google Scholar
  37. Lonsdale, D. J.: Inlluence of age-specific mortality on the life history traits of two estuarine copepods. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 5, 333–340 (1981)Google Scholar
  38. McAllister, C. D.: Zooplankton rations, phytoplankton mortality and the estimation of marine production. In: Marine food chains, pp 419–457. Ed. by J. H. Steele. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd 1970Google Scholar
  39. McCormick, J. M.: Trophic relationships of hydromedusae in Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Northwest Sci. 43, 207–214 (1969)Google Scholar
  40. Mills, C. E.: Vertical migration and diel activity patterns of hydromedusae: studies in a large tank. J. Plankton Res. 5, 619–635 (1983)Google Scholar
  41. Mullin, M. M., E. F. Stewart and F. J. Fuglister: Ingestion by planktonic grazers as a function of concentration of food. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 259–262 (1975)Google Scholar
  42. O'Brien, W. J.: The predator-prey interaction of planktivorous fish and zooplankton. Am. Sci. 67, 572–581 (1979)Google Scholar
  43. Omori, M. and W. M. Hamner: Patohy distribution of zooplankton: behavior, population assessment and sampling problems. Mar. Biol. 72, 193–200 (1982)Google Scholar
  44. Parsons, T. R. and R. J. LeBrasseur: The availability of food to different trophic levels in the marine food chain. In: Marine food chains, pp 325–343. Ed. by J. H. Steele. Berkeley: Univ. California Press 1970Google Scholar
  45. Porter, K. G., J. Gerritsen and J. D. Orcutt Jr.: The effect of food concentration on swimming patterns, feeding behavior, ingestion, assimilation, and respiration by Daphnia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27, 935–949 (1982)Google Scholar
  46. Purcell, J. E.: Feeding and growth of the siphonophore Muggiaea atlantica (Cunningham 1893). J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 62, 39–54 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Purcell, J. E. and P. Kremer: Feeding and metabolism of the siphonophore Sphaeronectes gracilis. J. Plankton Res. 5, 95–106 (1983)Google Scholar
  48. Reeve, M. R., Comparative experimental studies on the feeding of chaetognaths and ctenophores. J. Plankton Res. 2, 381–393 (1980)Google Scholar
  49. Reeve, M. R., M. A. Walter and T. Ikeda: Laboratory studies of ingestion and food utilization in lobate and tentaculate ctenophores. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23, 740–751 (1978)Google Scholar
  50. Rippingdale, R. J. and E. P. Hodgkin: Population growth of a copepod Gladioferens imparipes Thompson. Aust. J. mar. freshwat. Res. 25, 351–360 (1974)Google Scholar
  51. Robertson, S. B. and B. W. Frost: Feeding by an omnivous planktonic copepod Aetideus divergens Bradford. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 29, 231–244 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwartz, S. S., B. J. Hann and P. D. N. Hebert: The feeding ecology of Hydra and possible implications in the structuring of pond zooplankton communities. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 164, 136–142 (1983)Google Scholar
  53. Scott, M. A. and W. M. Murdoch: Selective predation by the backswimmer, Notonecta. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28, 352–366 (1983)Google Scholar
  54. Sullivan, B. K. and M. R. Reeve: Comparison of estimates of the predatory impact of ctenophores by two independent techniques. Mar. Biol. 68, 61–66 (1982)Google Scholar
  55. Townsend, D. W.: Comparison of inshore zooplankton and ichthyoplankton populations of the Gulf of Maine. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 15, 79–90 (1984)Google Scholar
  56. Turner, J. T.: The annual cycle of zooplankton in a Long Island estuary. Estuaries 5, 261–274 (1982)Google Scholar
  57. Wear, R. G.: Zooplankton of Wellington Harbour, New Zealand. Zool. Publ. Victoria Univ. Wellington 38, 1–31 (1965)Google Scholar
  58. Welsh, J. H.: Light intensity and the extent of activity of locomotor muscles as opposed to cilia. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 65, 168–174 (1983)Google Scholar
  59. Winer, B. J.: Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd ed., 907 pp. New York: McGraw-Hill 1971Google Scholar
  60. Zaret, T. M.: Predation and freshwater communities, 187 pp. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press 1980Google Scholar
  61. Zelickman, E. A., V. I. Gelfand and M. A. Shifrin: Growth, reproduction and nutrition of some Barents Sea hydromedusae in natural aggregations. Mar. Biol. 4, 167–173 (1969)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. S. FultonIII
    • 1
  • R. G. Wear
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations