Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 69–76 | Cite as

The feeding behavior of Beroe ovata

  • N. Swanberg
Article

Abstract

Patches of the neritic ctenophores Beroe ovata and Bolinopsis vitrea were observed on the edge of the Great Bahama Bank in order to determine the interaction between the predator Beroe ovata and its prey Bolinopsis vitrea. Laboratory experiments on Beroe ovata showed that it responds chemokinetically to the presence of its prey; as it swims it collides with other etenophores on which it preys. The unique use of macrocilia as cutting implements aids the predator in removing tissue from its prey, yielding maximum gain from each encounter. By means of direct observations while diving, data on horizontal and vertical patchiness, swimming speeds, abundance, and feeding behavior were collected, and used to assess the impact of populations of the predator on its prey. Together, these two animal populations form an ecological feed-back system which affects other portions of the planktonic community.

Keywords

Laboratory Experiment Feeding Behavior Direct Observation Swimming Speed Animal Population 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Arenberg, I. K., W. F. Marovitz and A. P. MacKenzie: Preparative techniques for the study of soft biological tissues in the scanning electron microscope. Trans. Am. Acad. Ophthal. Oto-lar. 75, 1333–1345 (1971).Google Scholar
  2. Bigelow, H. B.: The ctenophores. Bull Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. 54 (12), 369–408 (1912).Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, J. W.: Feeding rates of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis Chesapeake Sci. 8, 259–264 (1967).Google Scholar
  4. Coonfield, B. R.: Regeneration in Mnemiopsis leidyi Agassiz. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 71, 421–428 (1936).Google Scholar
  5. DeCeccatty, M. P. and M. L. Hernandez: Integratio and symmetry in Beroe. Am. Zool. 5, 537–543 (1965).Google Scholar
  6. Fraser, H. F.: The role of ctenophores and salps in zooplankton production and standing crop. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer 153, 121–123 (1962).Google Scholar
  7. —: The ecology of the ctenophore Pleurobrachia pileus in Scottish waters. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer. 33, 149–168 (1970).Google Scholar
  8. Greve, W.: Cultivation experiments on North Sea ctenophores. Helgoländer wiss. Meeresunters. 20, 304–317 (1970).Google Scholar
  9. —: Ökologische Untersuchungen an Pleurobrachia pileus. 1. Kreilanduntersuchungen. Helgoländer wiss. Meeresunters. 22, 303–325 (1971).Google Scholar
  10. Horridge, G. A.: Macrocilia with numerous shafts from the lips of the ctenophore Beroe. Proc. R. Soc. (Ser. B.) 162,351–363 (1965).Google Scholar
  11. Hyman, L. H.: The invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, 726 pp. New York: McGraw-Hill 1940.Google Scholar
  12. Kamshilov, M. M.: Size of ctenophore Beroe cucumis Fabr. in relation to its feeding. Dokl. (Proc.) Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R. (Sect. Biol. Sci.) 131, 277–279 (1960a). [Transl. from Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 131 (4), 957–960 (1960)].Google Scholar
  13. —: Feeding of ctenophore Beroe cucumis Fabr. Dokl. (Proc.) Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R. (Sect. Biol. Sci.) 130 (1/6), 128–129 (1960 b). [Transl. from Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 130 (5), 1138–1140 (1960)].Google Scholar
  14. —: Biologiya grebnevikov pribrezh'ya Murmana. Trudy murmansk. morsk. biol. Inst. 3 (7), 36–49 (1961). [Abstr. Referat. Zh. biol., 1962, No. 16 (71),-Soviet Abstr. Biol.].Google Scholar
  15. —, E. A. Zelikman i, M. I. Roukhiyainen: Plankton pribrezh'ya Murmana. In: Zakonomernosti skoplenii i migratsii promyslovykh ryb b priberezhnoi zone Murmana, pp 59–102. Moscow-Leningrad: Akad. Nauk SSSR. 1958. [Abstract in Referat. Zh. biol., 1960. No. 38526-Soviet Abstr. Biol.].Google Scholar
  16. Lebour, M. V.: The food of plankton organisms. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 12, 644–677 (1922).Google Scholar
  17. —: The food of plankton organisms. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 13, 70–92 (1923).Google Scholar
  18. Marovitz, W. F., I. R. Arenberg and R. Thalmann: Evaluation of preparative techniques for the scanning electron microscope. Laryngoscope, St. Louis 80, 1680–1700 (1970).Google Scholar
  19. Mayer, A. G.: Ctenophores of the Atlantic coast of North America. Publs Carnegie Instn 162, 1–58 (1912).Google Scholar
  20. Nelson, T. C.: Occurrence and feeding habits of ctenophores in New Jersey coastal waters. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 48, 92–111 (1925).Google Scholar
  21. Parduez, B.: Ciliary movements and coordination in ciliates. Acta microbiol. hung. 1, 175–221 (1956).Google Scholar
  22. Rauchbach, E. and I. K. Arenberg: Scanning electron microscopic observations of the cilia in the sensory epithelia of the inner ear of the lemon shark. Negaprion brevirostris. Anat. rec. 172, p. 390 (1972).Google Scholar
  23. Smith, M. E. and E. Finke: Critical point drying of soft biological material for the scanning electron microscope. Invest. Ophthal. 11, 127–132 (1972).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Will, J. G. F.: Horae tergestinac. Beschreibung und Anatomie der im Herbste 1843 bei Trieste beobachteten Akalephen, Leipzig: Voss 1844.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Swanberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations