Chemical Communication in Decapod Shrimps: The Influence of Mating and Social Systems on the Relative Importance of Olfactory and Contact Pheromones

  • Raymond T. Bauer


Interest in chemoreception of decapod shrimps has been stimulated by observations indicative of sex pheromones, such as frenzied male searching and copulatory activity in the presence of premolt or recently postmolt reproductive females. Review of previous studies on shrimp mating behavior led to the formulation of hypotheses about the variation of chemical communication with mating and social systems. Penaeoidean and many caridean species are highly mobile and live in dense aggregations, resulting in frequent contacts among individuals. In such species, males are usually stimulated to copulatory behavior by apparent contact pheromones on the newly molted female’s exoskeleton, received by contact with the male’s antennal flagella. In species with temporary mate guarding, males search for premolt reproductive females, which release water soluble substances received by olfactory receptors (aesthetascs). Males guard females for some days until the female molt, after which mating occurs, followed by male abandonment to search for other females. In “neighborhoods of dominance” mating systems, it is the premolt parturial female that seeks out a large dominant male, stimulated by his olfactory pheromones. She is then guarded by the male, which will mate with her after her molt. In monogamous mate guarding species, males and females form permanent pairs, with the initial pairing perhaps mediated by sex pheromones emitted and perceived by both sexes. Olfactory sex pheromones are given off by females in many caridean species just after the molt, stimulating nearby males and ensuring mate finding. Recognition of pair partners or social (agonistic) status of an individual is chemically mediated in various decapod shrimps. The exact source and chemical composition of olfactory sex pheromones is still unknown, but both cuticular hydrocarbons and glycoproteins have been implicated as contact sex pheromones. Comparative studies with additional species are required to test these hypotheses about the form of chemical communication in different mating systems. Isolation and chemical identification of sex and individual-recognition pheromones is a major avenue of future research. Results of such studies may not only result in a greater understanding of chemoreception per se, but also may lead to commercial applications in shrimp fisheries and aquaculture.


Chemical Communication Cuticular Hydrocarbon Receptive Female Pair Partner Parturial Female 
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.



The author wishes to acknowledge support on shrimp pheromone research from NOAA Louisiana Sea Grant R/SA-03. This is contribution no. 123 of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Laboratory for Crustacean Research. My sincere thanks to Thomas Breithaupt and Martin Thiel for their careful editorial work and for the invitation to write this chapter on such an intriguing topic. I am grateful to outside reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.


  1. Atema J, Steinbach MA (2007) Chemical communication and social behavior of the lobster Homarus americanus and other decapod crustacea. In: Duffy JE, Thiel M (eds) Evolutionary ecology of social and sexual systems. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 115–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer RT (1976) Mating behaviour and spermatophore transfer in the shrimp Heptacarpus pictus (Stimpson) (Decapoda: Caridea: Hippolytidae). J Nat Hist 10:315–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer RT (1979) Sex attraction and recognition in the caridean shrimp Heptacarpus paludicola Holmes (Decapoda: Hippolytidae). Mar Behav Physiol 6:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer RT (1991) Sperm transfer and storage structures in penaeoid shrimps: a functional and phylogenetic perspective. In: Bauer RT, Martin JW (eds) Crustacean sexual biology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 183–207Google Scholar
  5. Bauer RT (1996) A test of hypotheses on male mating systems and female molting in decapod shrimp, using Sicyonia dorsalis (Decapoda: Penaeoidea). J Crust Res 16:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer RT (2000) Simultaneous hermaphroditism in caridean shrimps: a unique and puzzling sexual system in the Decapoda. J Crust Biol 20(spec no 2):116–128Google Scholar
  7. Bauer RT (2002) Tests of hypotheses on the adaptive value of an extended male phase in the hermaphroditic shrimp Lysmata wurdemanni (Caridea: Hippolytidae). Biol Bull 203:347–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer RT (2004) Remarkable shrimps: adaptations and natural history of the Carideans. University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauer RT, Abdalla JA (2001) Male mating tactics in the shrimp Palaemonetes pugio (Decapoda, Caridea): precopulatory mate guarding vs. pure searching. Ethology 107:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauer RT, Caskey JL (2006) Flagellar setae of the second antennae in decapod shrimps: sexual dimorphism and possible role in detection of contact sex pheromones. Invert Reprod Dev 49:51–60Google Scholar
  11. Breithaupt T, Eger P (2002) Urine makes the difference: chemical communication in fighting crayfish made visible. J Exp Biol 205:1221–1231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burkenroad MD (1947) Reproductive activities of decapod Crustacea. Am Nat 81:392–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Caskey JL, Bauer RT (2005) Behavioral tests for a possible contact sex pheromone in the caridean shrimp Palaemonetes pugio. J Crust Biol 25:571–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caskey JL, Hasenstein KH, Bauer RT (2009a) Studies on contact pheromones of the caridean shrimp Palaemonetes pugio: I. Cuticular hydrocarbons associated with mate recognition. Invert Reprod Dev 53:93–103Google Scholar
  15. Caskey JL, Watson GM, Bauer RT (2009b) Studies on contact pheromones of the caridean shrimp Palaemonetes pugio: II. The role of glucosamine in mate recognition. Invert Reprod Dev 53:105–116Google Scholar
  16. Correa C, Thiel M (2003) Mating systems in caridean shrimp (Decapoda: Caridea) and their evolutionary consequences for sexual dimorphism and reproductive biology. Rev Chil Hist Nat 76:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Díaz ER, Thiel M (2004) Chemical and visual communication during mate searching in rock shrimp. Biol Bull 206:134–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Duffy JE (2007) Ecology and evolution of eusociality in sponge-dwelling shrimp. In: Duffy JE, Thiel M (eds) Evolutionary ecology of social and sexual systems. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 387–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunham PJ (1978) Sex pheromones in Crustacea. Biol Rev 53:555–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunham PJ (1988) Pheromones and behavior in Crustacea. In: Laufer H, Downer RGH (eds) Endocrinology of selected invertebrate types. Alan R. Liss, New York, pp 375–392Google Scholar
  21. Fransen HJM, De Grave S (2009) Evolution and radiation of shrimp-like decapods: An overview. In: Martin JW, Crandall KA, Felder DL (eds) Decapod crustacean phylogenetics. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 245–259Google Scholar
  22. Grafen A, Ridley M (1983) A model of mate guarding. J Theor Biol 102:549–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herberholz J, Schmitz B (2001) Signaling via water currents in behavioral interactions of snapping shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis). Biol Bull 201:6–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Howard RW, Bloomquist GJ (2005) Ecological, behavioral, and biochemical aspects of insect hydrocarbons. Annu Rev Entomol 50:371–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hudinaga M (1942) Reproduction, development, and rearing of Penaeus japonicus. Jpn J Zool 10:305–393Google Scholar
  26. Hughes M (1996) The function of concurrent signals: visual and chemical communication in snapping shrimp. Anim Behav 52:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson VR (1969) Behavior associated with pair formation in banded shrimp Stenopus hispidus (Olivier). Pac Sci 23:40–50Google Scholar
  28. Johnson VR Jr (1977) Individual recognition in the banded shrimp Stenopus hispidus (Olivier). Anim Behav 25:418–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamiguchi Y (1972) Mating behavior in the freshwater prawn. Palaemon paucidens. A study of the sex pheromone and its effect on males. J Fac Sci Hokkaido Univ Ser VI Zool 18:347–355Google Scholar
  30. Karplus I, Malecha SR, Sagi A (2000) The biology and management of size variation. In: New MB, Valenti WC (eds) Freshwater prawn culture: the farming of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Blackwell Science, Malden, pp 259–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelly LS, Snell TW (1998) Role of surface glycoproteins in mate-guarding of the marine harpacticoid copepod Tigriopus japonicus. Mar Biol 130:605–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee CL, Fielder DR (1982) Maintenance and reproductive behaviour in the freshwater prawn Macrobrachium australiense Holthuis (Crustacea: Decapoda: Palaemonidae). Aust J Mar Freshw Res 33:629–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathews LM (2003) Tests of the mate-guarding hypothesis for social monogamy: male snapping shrimp prefer to associate with high-value females. Behav Ecol 14:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nakashima Y (1987) Reproductive strategies in a partially protandric shrimp, Athanas kominatoensis (Decapoda: Alpheidae): sex change as the best of a bad situation for subordinates. J Ethol 5:145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Obermeier M, Schmitz B (2003a) Recognition of dominance in the big-clawed shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis Say 1818). Part I. Individual or group recognition? Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 36:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Obermeier M, Schmitz B (2003b) Recognition of dominance in the big-clawed shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis Say 1818). Part II. Analysis of signal modality. Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 36:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Obermeier M, Schmitz B (2004) The modality of the dominance signal in snapping shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis) and the corresponding setal types on the antennules. Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 37:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rahman N, Dunham DW, Govind CK (2001) Mate recognition and pairing in the big-clawed shrimp, Alpheus heterochelis. Mar Fresh Physiol 34:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ridley M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Schein H (1975) Aspects of the aggressive and sexual behavior of Alpheus heterochaelis Say. Mar Behav Physiol 3:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seibt U (1973) Sense of smell and pair bond in Hymeoncera picta Dana. Micronesica 9:231–236Google Scholar
  42. Seibt U, Wickler W (1979) The biological significance of the pair-bond in the shrimp Hymenocera picta. Z Tierpsychol 50:166–179Google Scholar
  43. Sneddon LU, Huntingford FA, Taylor AC, Clare AS (2003) Female sex pheromone-mediated effects and competition in the shore crab (Carcinus maenas). J Chem Ecol 29:55–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Yano I, Kanna RA, Oyama RN, Wyban JA (1988) Mating behaviour in the penaeid shrimp Penaeus vannamei. Mar Biol 97:171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wickler W, Seibt U (1981) Monogamy in crustacea and man. Z Tierpsychol 57:215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ward J, Saleh N, Dunham DW, Rahman N (2004) Individual discrimination in the big-clawed snapping shrimp, Alpheus heterochelis. Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 37:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wyatt TD (2003) Pheromones and animal behavior: communication by smell and taste. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang D, Lin J (2006) Mate recognition in a simultaneous hermaphroditic shrimp, Lysmata wurdemanni (Caridea: Hippolytidae). Anim Behav 71:1191–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang D, Zhu J, Lin J, Hardege JD (2010) Surface glycoproteins are not the contact pheromones in the Lysmata shrimp. Mar Biol 157:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of LouisianaLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations