Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 151, Issue 5, pp 1761–1772 | Cite as

Food preferences and related behavior of the browsing sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus) and its potential for use as a biological control agent

  • John StimsonEmail author
  • Tamar Cunha
  • Joanna Philippoff
Research Article

Abstract

The short-spined toxopneustid sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla feeds on a wide variety of algal species and on sea grasses. However, the urchin does show preferences when offered a selection of macroalgal species, which it encounters in nature. Preferences among macroalgae were evident in field-collected urchins exposed to pair-wise tests where the variable was either the consumption rate of the algae or observation of which algal species the urchins chose to touch with their lantern teeth. Exposure of lab-housed urchins to one of five species of macroalgae for 5 months did not seem to alter preferences of urchins in three of the exposure groups, but those exposed to Padina sanctae-crucis seemed to show an enhanced preference for this species when offered a choice of the five species of macroalgae at the end of the exposure period, and those exposed to Gracilaria salicornia seemed to avoid the species when offered the choice of the five species. Perhaps more ecologically important than their preferences were two other observations on these urchins: first, when offered only a single species of algae, the urchins on four of five diets ate the same quantity per day. Second, when simultaneously offered the choice among the five macroalgal species, the urchins consumed more macroalgae per day than when offered only one species. These urchins move about a meter a day. They probably encounter food resources in a relatively coarse-grained fashion and have evolved to eat what is available. Because of their limited movements, their habitat overlap with grazing fishes, their acceptance of a wide variety of macroalgae and their preference for macroalgae, these native urchins are thought to have the potential to serve as biological control agents of alien and invasive macroalgae, which have come to dominate some reef zones normally occupied by corals in Hawaii.

Keywords

Macroalgae Reef Flat Patch Reef Reef Slope Herbivorous Fish 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology for access to its facilities and the Univ. of Hawaii, Dept. of Zoology for use of equipment and facilities. We wish to thank Meghan Dailer, Shino Ogawa, and Rudolf Pan for assistance with experiments and with data collection. The manuscript has benefited from comments by Drs. Karla McDermid and Charles Birkeland. Support for this research came from the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative. The study complies with the laws in the State of Hawaii and the United States.

References

  1. Agatsuma Y, Momma H (1988) Release of cultured seeds of the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus intermedius (A. Agassiz), in the Pacific coastal waters of southern Hokkaido I. Growth and reproductive cycle. Bull Hokkaido Fish Res Sta 31:15–25 (In Japanese)Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson C, Hopley S, Mendelsohn L, Yacowitz S (1973) Food studies on Diadema antillarum on a patch reef, St Croix, US Virgin Islands. In: Ogden JD, Abbott DP, Abbott I (eds) Studies on the activity and food of the echinoid Diadema antillarum Philippi on a West Indian Patch Reef, pp 65–80 Special Publ. No. 2 West Indies Lab., St CroixGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayling AL (1978) The relation of food availability and food preferences to the field diet of an echinoid Evechinus chloroticus (Valenciennes). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 33:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beddington SD, McClintock JB (1999) Food resource utilization in the sea urchin Lytechinus variegates in contrasting shallow-water microhabitats of Saint Joseph Bay, Fla Gulf Mex Sci 17:27–34Google Scholar
  5. Birkeland C (1989) The influence of echinoderms on coral-reef communities In: Jangoux M, Lawrence JM (eds) Echinoderm studies, vol 3, pp 23–79 Balkema, Rotterdam, 383ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolser RC, Hay ME (1996) Are tropical plants better defended? Plantability and defenses of temperate vs. tropical seaweeds. Ecology 77:2269–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter RC (1981) Grazing by Diadema antillarum (Phillippi) and its effects on the benthic algal community. J Mar Res 39:749–765Google Scholar
  8. Chen C-P, Run J-Q (1988) Some aspects on rearing larvae and larval development of Tripneustes gratilla (L.) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Bull Inst Zool Acad Sin 27:151–157Google Scholar
  9. Cronin G, Paul VJ, Hay ME, Fenical W (1997) Are tropical herbivores more resistant than temperate herbivores to seaweed chemical defenses? Diterpenoid metabolites from Dictyota acutiloba as feeding deterrents for tropical versus temperate fishes and urchins. J Chem Ecol 23:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Loma L, Conrad C, Harmelin-Vivien M, Ballesteros E (2002) Food selectivity of Tripneustes gratilla (L.) (Echinodermata:Echinoidea) in oligotrophic and nutrient-enriched coral reefs at La Runion (Indian Ocean). Bull Mar Sci 70:927–938Google Scholar
  11. De Ridder C, Lawrence JM (1982) Food and feeding mechanisms: Echinoidea. In: Jangoux M, Lawrence JM (eds) Echinoderm nutrition, pp 57–115, Balkema, Rotterdam, 654ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Dy D, Uy FA, Coralles CM (2002) Feeding, respiration and excretion by the tropical sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Echinodermata: Echinoidea ) from the Philippines. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 82:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebert T (1983) Recruitment in echinoderms. Echinoderm Stud 1:169–203Google Scholar
  14. Grando I, Caballero P (2001) Feeding rates of Littorina striata and Osilinus atratus in relation to nutritional quality and chemical defenses of seaweeds. Mar Biol 138:1213–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harmelin-Vivien M, Peyrot-Clausade LM, Romano J-C (1992) Transformation of algal turf by echinoids and scarid fishes on French Polynesian coral reefs. Coral Reefs 11:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hay ME (1984a) Predictable spatial escapes from herbivory: how do these affect the evolution of herbivore resistance in tropical marine communities? Oecologia 64:396–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hay ME (1984b) Patterns of fish and urchin grazing on Caribbean coral reefs: are previous results typical. Ecology 65:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. HayME (1997) The ecology and evolution of seaweed-herbivore interactions on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 16(Suppl):S67–S76Google Scholar
  19. Hay ME, Fenical W, Gustafson K (1987) Chemical defense against diverse coral-reef herbivores. Ecology 68:1581–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Himmelman JH, Nedelec H (1990) Urchin foraging and algal survival strategies in intensely grazed communities in eastern Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:1011–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Junio-Meñez MA, Macwaris NND, Bangi HGP (1998) Community-based sea urchin (Tripneustes gratilla) grow-out culture as a resource management tool. In: Jamieson GS, Campbell A (eds) Proc. No. Pacific Symp. Invert Stock Assess. and Manage. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. vol 125, pp 393–399Google Scholar
  22. Klumpp DW, Salita-Espinosa JT, Fortes MD (1993) Feeding ecology and trophic role of sea urchins in a tropical seagrass community. Aquat Bot 45:205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knowlton N (1992) Thresholds and multiple stable states in coral reef community dynamics. Am Zool 32:674–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laur DR, Ebeling AW, Reed DC (1986) Experimental evaluations of substrate types as barriers to sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus spp.) movement. Mar Biol 93:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawrence JM (1975) On the relationship between marine plants and sea urchins. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 13:213–286Google Scholar
  26. Lawrence JM, Agatsuma Y (2001) The ecology of Tripneustes. In: Lawrence JM (ed) Edible sea urchins: biology and ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis JB (1964) Feeding and digestion in the tropical sea urchin Diadema antillarum Philippi. Can J Zool 42:549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maharavo J, Régis M-B, Thomassin BA (1994) Food preferences of Tripneustes gratilla (L.) (Echinoidea) on fringing reef flats off the NW coast of Madagascar (SW Indian Ocean). In: David B, Guille A, Féral J-P, Roux M (eds) Echinoderms through time. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 769–774Google Scholar
  29. Ogden NB, Ogden JC, Abbott IA (1989) Distribution, abundance and food of sea urchins on a leeward Hawaiian reef. Bull Mar Sci 45:539–549Google Scholar
  30. Paine RT, Vadas RL (1969) Calorific values of benthic marine algae and their postulated relation to invertebrate food preference. Mar Biol 4:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paul VJ, Hay ME (1986) Seaweed susceptibility to herbivory: chemical and morphological correlates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 33:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pennings SC, Nadeau MT, Paul VJ (1993) Selectivity and growth of the generalist herbivore Dolabella auricularia feeding upon complementary resources. Ecology 74:879–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poore AGB, Hill NA (2006) Sources of variation in herbivore preference: among-individual and past diet effects on amphipod host choice Mar Biol DOI.1007/s00227-006-0307-3Google Scholar
  34. Prince JS, LeBlanc WG (1992) Comparative feeding preference of Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Echinoidea) for the invasive seaweed Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides (Chlorophyceae) and four other seaweeds. Mar Biol 113:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Randall JE, Schroeder RE, Starck WA II (1964) Notes on the biology of the echinoid Diadema antillarum. Caribb J Sci 4:421–433Google Scholar
  36. Rodgers K, Cox E (1999) Rate of spread of introduced rhodophytes Kappaphycus alvarezii, Kappaphycus striatum and Gracilaria salicornia and their current distributions in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Pac Sci 53:232–241Google Scholar
  37. Shokita S, Kakazu K, Tomori A, Toma T (1991) Aquaculture in tropical areas. Midori Shobo, Japan, p 360Google Scholar
  38. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, 593 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Stimson J, Larned ST, Conklin E (2001) Effects of herbivory, nutrient levels, and introduced algae on the distribution and abundance of the invasive macroalga Dictyosphaeria cavernosa in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. Coral Reefs 19:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stuercke B, McDermid KJ (2004) Variation in algal turf species composition and abundance on two Hawaiian shallow subtidal reefs. Cryptogam Algol 25:353–365Google Scholar
  41. Tegner MJ (1989) The feasibility of enhancing red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, stocks in California: an analysis of the options. Mar Fish Rev 51:1–22Google Scholar
  42. Van Alstyne KL, Wolfe GV, Freidenburg TL, Neill A, Hicken C (2001) Activated defense systems in marine macroalgae: evidence for an ecological role for DMSP cleavage. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 213:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vasserot J (1992) Prospects of biological control of harmful proliferations of multicellular algae: 2. Possibilities for control and utilization by grazing animals of Sargassum muticum. J Rec Oceanogr 16:77Google Scholar
  44. Vaitilingon D, Rasolofonirina R, Jangoux M (2003) Feeding preferences, seasonal gut repletion indices, and diel feeding patterns of the sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Echinodermata:Echinoidea) on a coastal habitat off Toliara (Madagascar). Mar Biol 143:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams SL, Carpenter RC (1997) Grazing effects on nitrogen fixation in coral reef algal turfs. Mar Biol 130:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolcott R, Messing CG (2005) A comparison of diets and water agitation methods for larval culture of the edible sea urchin, Tripneustes ventricosus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Bull Mar Sci 77:177–190Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoology DeptartmentUniversity of HawaiiHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations