4.4 Article

The effects of interspecific competition and prey odor on foraging behavior in the rock crab, Cancer irroratus (Say)

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MARINE BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY
Volume 287, Issue 2, Pages 249-260

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0981(02)00575-0

Keywords

Cancer borealis; Cancer irroratus; competition; foraging behavior; prey odor; permutation test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of competitor pressure and prey odor on foraging behavior of the rock crab, Cancer irroratus (Say), were investigated. The Jonah crab, Cancer borealis (Stimpson), was chosen as the interspecific competitor because it shares resources with C. irroratus. Four treatments were tested for their effect on foraging: the presence or absence of a competitor and two types of prey odor; body odor (living mussel) and tissue extract (dead mussel tissue). The presence of Jonah crabs did not influence location time, search time, prey size selected, or handling time of the rock crabs. However, rock crabs responded differently to the presence of body odor and tissue extract cues. The presence of extract odor decreased the time to locate prey while increasing the number of prey manipulated and prey size selected. When prey body odor was present, rock crabs displayed less investigative behaviors than in the presence of extract odor, illustrated by reduced location time. Extract odor provided a stronger and more attractive cue than body odor, but increased prey manipulation and search time. Extract odor induced increases in manipulation and searching for prey but canceled out the benefits of decreased location time, resulting in crabs from both treatments displaying similar search times. These elevated behaviors may be associated with foraging for injured and cracked prey or may indicate an area of conspecific feeding. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available