Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 162, Issue 3, pp 607–616 | Cite as

Contrasting arm elevation angles of multi- and two-armed sea urchin echinoplutei supports Grünbaum and Strathmann’s hydromechanical model

  • Natalie A. Soars
  • Maria ByrneEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The morphology of marine invertebrate larvae influences population maintenance and connectivity through functional consequences for swimming, feeding, dispersal and settlement. Sea urchin echinoplutei approximate one of two forms: multi-armed larvae with arms at high elevation angles or two-armed larvae with arms at low elevation angles. According to the hydromechanical model of Grünbaum and Strathmann in J Mar Res 61:659–691 (2003), these morphologies convey either high swimming speed and weight-carrying capacity (few arms at low angles) or high stability in shear (many arms at high angles). This dichotomy, as exemplified by the multi- and two-armed larvae of Heliocidaris tuberculata and Centrostephanus rodgersii, respectively, was investigated to assess model predictions with regard to the angle of elevation of the arms. It was hypothesised that this angle differs in the two forms, multi-armed with high angles (>60°) and two-armed with low angles (<40°) and that the angle would lower as the larvae increased in weight due to growth of the arm skeleton. Arm angles differed as hypothesised and decreased with growth, 7.7° and 10.6° in the advanced larvae of H. tuberculata and C. rodgersii, respectively. The angle of elevation of the outermost arms was also determined from images of 37 additional species of echinoplutei to examine trends in arm angle and change as larvae develop. Multi-armed larvae exhibited a 3°–16° decrease in postoral arm angle from the 2–4 to 6–8 arm stage. In general, multi-armed larvae had higher arm angles than two-armed larvae and, arm angles decreased with growth in both larval forms.

Keywords

Swimming Speed Swimming Performance Larval Form Ciliary Band Weight Capacity 
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 thank Dr. Andreas Heyland (Guelph University) and Justin Hodin (Stanford University) and the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (University of Miami) hatchery staff for images of Diadema antillarum, particularly Tom Capo and Nadiera Sukharaj who assisted with larval culture. Dr. Richard Strathmann and Danny Grünbaum are thanked for advice on the manuscript. This research was supported by a scholarship (NAS) from Sydney Institute of Marine Science (SIMS) and is contribution number 144 of SIMS.

Supplementary material

227_2014_2608_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (106 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 106 kb)
227_2014_2608_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (29 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 29 kb)

References

  1. Allen JD (2008) Size-specific predation in marine invertebrate larvae. Biol Bull 214:42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop CD, Hall BK (2009) Sniffing out new data and hypotheses on the form, function, and evolution of the echinopluteus post-oral vibratile lobe. Biol Bull 216:307–321Google Scholar
  3. Boidron-Metairon IF (1988) Morphological plasticity in laboratory-reared echinoplutei of Dendraster excentricus (Eschscholtz) and Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck) in response to food conditions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 119:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne M, Andrew NL (2013) Chapter 17 Centrostephanus rogersii. In: Lawrence J (ed) Sea urchins: Biology and ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne M, Andrew NL, Worthington DG, Brett PA (1998) Reproduction in the diadematoid sea urchin Centrostephanus rodgersii in contrasting habitats along the coast of New South Wales, Australia. Mar Biol 132:305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne M, Emlet RB, Cerra A (2001) Ciliated band structure in planktotrophic and lecithotrophic larvae of Heliocidaris species (Echinodermata: Echinoidea): a demonstration of conservation and change. Acta Zool-Stockholm 82:189–199Google Scholar
  7. Byrne M, Sewell MA, Prowse TAA (2008) Nutritional ecology of sea urchin larvae: influence of endogenous and exogenous nutrition on echinopluteal growth and phenotypic plasticity in Tripneustes gratilla. Funct Ecol 22:643–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne M, Lamare M, Winter D, Dworjanyn SA, Uthicke S (2013) The stunting effect of a high CO2 ocean on calcification and development in sea urchin larvae, a synthesis from the tropics to the poles. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368:20120439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan KYK (2012) Biomechanics of larval morphology affect swimming: insights from the sand dollars Dendraster excentricus. Integr Comp Biol 52:458–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan KYK, Grunbaum D (2010) Temperature and diet modified swimming behaviors of larval sand dollar. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 415:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan KYK, Grünbaum D, O’Donnell MJ (2011) Effects of ocean-acidification-induced morphological changes on larval swimming and feeding. J Exp Biol 214:3857–3867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clay TW, Grunbaum D (2011) Swimming performance as a constraint on larval morphology in plutei. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 423:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clay TW, Grünbaum D (2010) Morphology-flow interactions lead to stage-selective vertical transport of larval sand dollars in shear flow. J Exp Biol 213:1281–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckert GL (1998) Larval development, growth and morphology of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum. Bull Mar Sci 63:443–451Google Scholar
  15. Emlet RB (1983) Locomotion, drag, and the rigid skeleton of larval echinoderms. Biol Bull 164:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emlet RB (1986) Facultative planktotrophy in the tropical echinoid Clypeaster rosaceus (Linnaeus) and a comparison with obligate planktotrophy in Clypeaster subdepressus (Gray) (Clypeasteroida, Echinoidea). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 95:183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emlet RB (1991) Functional constraints on the evolution of larval forms of marine-invertebrates: experimental and comparative evidence. Am Zool 31:707–725Google Scholar
  18. Emlet RB (1994) Body form and patterns of ciliation in nonfeeding larvae of echinoderms: functional solutions to swimming in the plankton? Am Zool 34:570–585Google Scholar
  19. Emlet RB (2002) Sea urchin larval ecology: food rations, development, and size at metamorphosis. In: Yokotoa Y, Mataranga V, Smolenicka Z (eds) The sea urchin: from basic biology to aquaculture. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 105–111Google Scholar
  20. Emlet RB (2009) The bilaterally asymmetrical larval form of Stomopneustes variolaris (Lamarck). Biol Bull 216:163–174Google Scholar
  21. Emlet RB, Young CM, George SB (2002) Phylum Echinodermata: Echinoidea, chapter 28. In: Young CM, Rice ME, Sewell MA (eds) An atlas of marine invertebrate larvae. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuchs HL, Solow AR, Mullineaux LS (2010) Larval responses to turbulence and temperature in a tidal inlet: habitat selection by dispersing gastropods. J Mar Res 68:153–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grünbaum D, Strathmann RR (2003) Form, performance and trade-offs in swimming and stability of armed larvae. J Mar Res 61:659–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hart MW (1991) Particle captures and the method of suspension feeding by echinoderm larvae. Biol Bull 180:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keesing JK (2013) Chapter 25 Heliocidaris erythrogramma. In: Lawrence J (ed) Sea urchins: biology and ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kingsford MJ, Leis JM, Shanks A, Lindeman KC, Morgan SG, Pineda J (2002) Sensory environments, larval abilities and local self-recruitment. Bull Mar Sci 70:309–340Google Scholar
  27. Laegdsgaard P, Byrne M, Anderson DT (1991) Reproduction of sympatric populations of Heliocidaris erythrogramma and H. tuberculata (Echinoidea) in New South Wales. Mar Biol 110:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lessios HA, Kessing BD, Robertson DR (1998) Massive gene flow across the world’s most potent marine biogeographic barrier. Proc R Soc Ser B: Biol 265:583–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ling SD, Johnson CR (2009) Population dynamics of an ecologically important range-extender: Kelp beds versus sea urchin barrens. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 374:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ling SD, Johnson CR, Ridgway K, Hobday AJ, Haddon M (2009) Climate-driven range extension of a sea urchin: inferring future trends by analysis of recent population dynamics. Global Change Biol 15:719–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manuel JL, O’dor RK (1997) Vertical migration for horizontal transport while avoiding predators: I. A tidal/diel model. J Plankton Res 19:1929–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manuel JL, Pearce CM, O’Dor RK (1997) Vertical migration for horizontal transport while avoiding predators: II. Evidence for the tidal/diel model from two populations of scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) veligers. J Plankton Res 19:1949–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McEdward LR (1986a) Comparative morphometrics of echinoderm larvae. I. Some relationships between egg size and initial larval form in echinoids. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 96:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McEdward LR (1986b) Comparative morphometrics of echinoderm larvae. II. Larval size, shape, growth, and the scaling of feeding and metabolism in echinoplutei. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 96:267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metaxas A (2013) Chapter 6 Larval ecology in echonoids. In: Lawrence J (ed) Sea urchins: biology and ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Metaxas A, Saunders M (2009) Quantifying the “bio-” components in biophysical models of larval transport in marine benthic invertebrates: advances and pitfalls. Biol Bull 216:257–272Google Scholar
  37. Miller SH, Morgan SG (2013) Interspecific differences in depth preference: regulation of larval transport in an upwelling system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 476:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mogami Y, Fujima K, Baba SA (1991) Five different states of ciliary activity in the epaulette of echinoplutei. J Exp Biol 155:65–75Google Scholar
  39. Morgan SG, Fisher JL (2010) Larval behavior regulates nearshore retention and offshore migration in an upwelling shadow and along the open coast. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 404:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mortensen T (1921) Studies of the development and larval forms of echinoderms, vol 3. G. E. C. Gad, CopenhagenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mortensen T (1927) Die Echinodermen-Larven. Dordisches Plankton 5Google Scholar
  42. Mortensen T (1937) Contributions to the study of the development and larval forms of echinoderms III. Det Knonglige Danske videnskabernes selskabs skrifter, Narurvidenskabelig og Mathematisk Afdeling 9, Raekke 7:1-XVGoogle Scholar
  43. Pennington JT, Emlet RB (1986) Ontogenic and diel vertical migration of a planktonic echinoid larva, Dendraster excentricus (Eschscholtz)—occurrence, causes, and probable consequences. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 104:69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennington JT, Strathmann RR (1990) Consequences of the calcite skeletons of planktonic echinoderm larvae for orientation, swimming, and shape. Biol Bull 179:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Radford CA, Jeffs AG, Montgomery JC (2007) Directional swimming behavior by five species of crab postlarvae in response to reef sound. Bull Mar Sci 80:369–378Google Scholar
  46. Roy A, Metaxas A, Ross T (2012) Swimming patterns of larval Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in turbulence in the laboratory. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 453:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sameoto JA, Metaxas A (2008) Interactive effects of haloclines and food patches on the vertical distribution of 3 species of temperate invertebrate larvae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 367:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sameoto JA, Ross T, Metaxas A (2010) The effect of flow on larval vertical distribution of the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 383:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Soars NA, Prowse TAA, Byrne M (2009) Overview of phenotypic plasticity in echinoid larvae, ‘Echinopluteus transversus’ type vs. typical echinoplutei. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 383:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strathmann RR (1971) The feeding behavior of planktotrophic echinoderm larvae: mechanisms, regulation, and rates of suspension feeding. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 6:109–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strathmann RR, Grünbaum D (2006) Good eaters, poor swimmers: compromises in larval form. Integr Comp Biol 46:312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strathmann RR, Fenaux L, Strathmann MF (1992) Heterochronic developmental plasticity in larval sea-urchins and its implications for evolution of nonfeeding larvae. Evolution 46:972–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wray GA (1992) The evolution of larval morphology during the post-Paleozoic radiation of Echinoids. Paleobiology 18:258–287Google Scholar
  54. Young CM (1995) Behavior and locomotion during the dispersal phase of larval life. In: McEdward LR (ed) Ecology of marine invertebrate larvae. CRC Press, Boca-RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Schools of Medical and Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations