Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 111, Issue 1, pp 113–119 | Cite as

Digestive mechanics and gluttonous feeding in the feather starOligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea)

  • N. D. Holland
  • A. B. Leonard
  • D. L. Meyer
Article

Abstract

The movement and digestion of food in the gut ofOligometra serripinna (Carpenter) were studied at Lizard Island (14°38′42″S; 145°27′10″E) in the austral winter of 1986. Feather stars in the laboratory were fed a brief, small meal of brine shrimp nauplii and killed at increasing time intervals thereafter. Histological reconstructions showed that the ingested nauplii progressed along the digestive tract surprisingly quickly. Some nauplii were found in the mid and hind intestine in only 30 min, and all of the nauplii had reached the hind intestine and rectum in 1 h. Digestion of the nauplii had started at 1 h, and only a few fragments of naupliar exoskeleton remained in the hind intestine and rectum 5 h after the start of feeding. Videotape analysis showed that no fecal pellets were released during this experiment. In the natural environment ofO. serripinna, ingested particles may similarly be transported quickly to the hind part of the gut and digested there — when feather stars were fixed in the field, most of the gut contents were found in the hind intestine and rectum.O. serripinna, which efficiently rejects inert particles before they are ingested, usually defecates infrequently (probably not more than once over a span of many hours) and differs from some other feather stars that ingest numerous inert particles and defecate much more frequently. When specimens ofO. serripinna were fed continuously on brine shrimp nauplii,Artemia sp. (San Francisco strain), in the laboratory, the feather stars fed gluttonously, packing their guts with several hundred nauplii in 1 to 2 h. Thereafter, superfluous feeding began (i.e., further ingestions appeared to force undigested nauplii, some of them still living, out of the anus). These observations suggest thatO. serripinna usually feeds at relatively modest rates in its natural habitat, but can feed gluttonously to take advantage of infrequent patches of highly concentrated, nutritious particles (e.g. copepod swarms, migrating demersal zooplankton, and invertebrate gametes from mass spawnings). It is likely that such patches of nutritious particles are usually small enough to drift out of reach of the feather stars before gluttonous feeding proceeds to superfluous feeding. Opportunities for superfluous feeding in nature are probably very infrequent (e.g. ingestion of coral gametes and embryos after a mass spawning), and the feather stars evidently have no behavior that stops further ingestions after the gut becomes filled to capacity.

Keywords

Digestive Tract Fecal Pellet Inert Particle Austral Winter Increase Time Interval 
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. Byrne, M., Fontaine, A. R. (1986). The feeding behaviour ofFlorometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Can. J. Zool. 59: 11–18Google Scholar
  2. Carpenter, P. H. (1884). Report upon the Crinoidea collected during the voyage of HMS.Challenger during the years 1872–1876. Part I — General morphology, with descriptions of the stalked crinoids. Rep scient Results HMS Challenger (s: Zool.) 11: 1–422Google Scholar
  3. Casselman, W. G. B. (1959). Histochemical technique. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. De Ridder, C., Jangoux, M. (1982). Digestive systems: Echinoidea. In: Jangoux, M., Lawrence, J. M. (eds.) Echinoderm nutrition. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 213–234Google Scholar
  5. Dimelow, E. J. (1958). Some aspects of the biology ofAntedon bifida (Pennant) with some reference toNeocomatella europaea. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Reading, Reading, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  6. Féral, J. P., Massin, C. (1982). Digestive systems: Holothuroidea. In: Jangoux, M., Lawrence, J. M. (eds.) Echinoderm nutrition. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 191–212Google Scholar
  7. Gislén, T. (1924). Echinoderm studies. Zool. Bidr. Upps. 9: 1–316Google Scholar
  8. Grimmer, J. C., Holland, N. D. (1990). The structure of a sessile, stalkless crinoid (Holopus rangii). Acta zool., Stockh 71: 61–67Google Scholar
  9. Hamner, W. M., Carleton, J. H. (1979). Copepod swarms: attributes and role in coral reef ecosystems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 1–14Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, P. L., Babcock, R. C., Bull, G. D., Oliver, J. K., Wallace, C. C., Willis, B. L. (1984). Mass spawning in tropical reef corals. Science, N.Y. 223: 1186–1198Google Scholar
  11. Holland, N. D., Grimmer, J. C., Wiegmann, K. (1991). The structure of a sea lilyCalamocrinus diomedae, with special reference to the articulations, skeletal microstructure, symbiotic bacteria, axial organs, and stalk tissues (Crinoida, Millericrinida). Zoomorphology 111: 115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holland, N. D., Leonard, A. B., Strickler, J. R. (1987). Upstream and downstream feeding byOligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) under surge conditions. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 173: 552–556Google Scholar
  13. Holland, N. D., Strickler, J. R., Leonard, A. B. (1986). Particle interception, transport and rejection by the feather starOligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), studied by frame analysis of videotapes. Mar. Biol. 93: 111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jangoux, M. (1982a). Digestive systems: Ophiuroidea. In: Jangoux, M., Lawrence, J. M. (eds.) Echinoderm nutrition. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 272–279Google Scholar
  15. Jangoux, M. (1982b). Digestive systems: Asteroidea. In: Jangoux, M., Lawrence, J. M. (eds.) Echinoderm nutrition. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 235–272Google Scholar
  16. Jangoux, M. (1982c). Digestive systems: Crinozoa. In: Jangoux, M., Lawrence, J. M. (eds.) Echinoderm nutrition. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 187–190Google Scholar
  17. La Haye, C. A., Holland, N. D. (1984). Electron microscopic studies of the digestive tract and absorption from the gut lumen of a feather starOligometra serripinna (Echinodermata). Zoomorphology 104: 252–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lahaye, M. C., Jangoux, M. (1985). Functional morphology of the podia and ambulacral grooves of the comatulid crinoidAntedon bifida (Echinodermata) Mar. Biol. 86: 307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. La Touche, R. W., West, A. B. (1980). Observations on the food ofAntedon bifida (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Mar. Biol. 60: 39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard, A. B. (1989). Functional response inAntedon mediterranea (Lamarck) (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): the interaction of prey concentration and current velocity on a passive suspensionfeeder. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 127: 81–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leonard, A. B., Strickler, J. R., Holland, N. D. (1988). Effects of current speed on filtration during suspension feeding inOligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Mar. Biol. 97: 111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liddell, W. D. (1982). Suspension feeding by Caribbean comatulid crinoids. In: Lawrence, J. M. (ed.) Proceedings of International Echinoderm Conference, Tampa Bay. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 33–39Google Scholar
  23. Lucas, J. S. (1982). Quantitative studies of feeding and nutrition during larval development of the coral reef asteroidAcanthaster planci (L.). J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 65: 173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyer, D. L. (1982). Food composition and feeding behavior of sympatric species of comatulid crinoids from the Palau Islands (Western Pacific). In: Lawrence, J. M. (ed.) Proceedings of International Echinoderm Conference, Tampa Bay. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 43–49Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, D. L., Macurda, D. B. (1980). Ecology and distribution of the shallow-water crinoids of Palau and Guam. Micronesica 16: 59–99Google Scholar
  26. Penry, D. L. (1989). Tests of kinematic models for deposit-feeders' guts: patterns of sediment processing byParastichopus californicus (Stimpson) (Holothuroidea) andAmphicteis scaphobranchiata Moore (Polychaeta). J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 128: 127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reeve, M. R. (1980). Comparative experimental studies of the feeding of chaetognaths and ctenophores. J. Plankton Res. 2: 381–393Google Scholar
  28. Reiswig, H. M. (1981). Particulate organic carbon of bottom boundary and submarine cavern waters of tropical coral reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 5: 129–133Google Scholar
  29. Rutman, J., Fishelson, L. (1969). Food composition and feeding behavior of shallow-water crinoids at Eilat (Red Sea). Mar. Biol. 3: 46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vail, L. (1987). Diel patterns of emergence of crinoids (Echinodermata) from within a reef at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Mar. Biol. 93: 551–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vail, L. (1990). Bathymetric distribution and behaviour of two sympatric species ofOligometra (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 41: 551–555Google Scholar
  32. Zmarzly, D. L. (1985). Distribution and ecology of shallow-water crinoids (Echinodermata) in the Marshall Islands, with emphasis on their symbiotic organisms. Ph. D. dissertation. University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  33. Zmarzly, D. L., Holland, N. D. (1981). Rates of food transport down the ambulacral grooves and through the gut ofComanthus bennetti (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) observed in situ. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 6: 229–230Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. D. Holland
    • 1
  • A. B. Leonard
    • 1
  • D. L. Meyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Marine Biology Research Division, A-002Scripps Institution of OceanographyLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Geology DepartmentUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations