Biol. Bull.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berke, S. K.
Right arrow Articles by Osman, R. W.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berke, S. K.
Right arrow Articles by Osman, R. W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ecology
Right arrow Annelids
Right arrow Regeneration
Biol. Bull. 217: 242-252. (December 2009)
© 2009 Marine Biological Laboratory

Sublethal Predation and Regeneration in Two Onuphid Polychaetes: Patterns and Implications

Sarah K. Berke1,*, Veronica Cruz1,2 and Richard W. Osman1

1 Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 647 Contees Wharf Rd., Edgewater, Maryland 21037
2 College of Social Sciences, 113 Collegiate Loop, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2190

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: skberke{at}gmail.com

We examined sublethal predation in the polychaete Diopatra cuprea, an important ecosystem engineer of intertidal and shallow subtidal marine sediments in the western Atlantic. D. cuprea commonly loses its antennae and portions of its anterior to predator attacks; these lost body portions are subsequently regenerated. We asked (i) if the intensity of sublethal predation differs for D. cuprea populations in Virginia versus Florida, (ii) if sublethal predation varies temporally in each region, and (iii) if sublethal predation influences activity and tube-building rates. Within Florida, we also drew comparisons between D. cuprea and the closely related onuphid Americonuphis magna. Surprisingly, we found that sublethal predation is more intense in Virginia than in Florida, likely making substantial contributions to secondary productivity. Within Florida, A. magna experienced more antennal loss than D. cuprea and is incapable of anterior regeneration. D. cuprea activity and tube-building rates are strongly influenced by anterior loss, but more subtly influenced by antennal loss. Given the observed rates of sublethal predation and population densities in Virginia versus Florida, sublethal predation is an important factor influencing D. cuprea populations and their associated communities.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the Marine Biological Laboratory.