4.4 Article

Dietary analysis and mesocosm feeding trials confirm the eastern rock lobster (Sagmariasus verreauxi) as a generalist predator that can avoid ingesting urchin spines during feeding

期刊

MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH
卷 72, 期 8, 页码 1220-1232

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/MF20287

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Wollongong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that the eastern rock lobster is a generalist predator that consumes sea urchins, although further research is needed to assess the importance of sea urchins as a dietary item for this species.
Worldwide, lobsters are considered important predators of macroalgae-consuming urchin species, but this has not been tested for Australia's common lobster, the eastern rock lobster (Sagmariasus verreauxi). We predicted that the abundant urchins, the long-spined urchin (Centrostephanus rodgersii) and the short-spined urchin (Heliocidaris erythrogramma), would form substantial components of lobster diets. To test this hypothesis, we examined 115 lobster stomachs from 9 locations and conducted 14 feeding trials, in which lobsters were offered either urchin species. Dissections revealed various stomach items, with detritus (51%), bivalves (34%), gastropods (28%) and algae (26%) occurring more frequently than urchins (19%). Urchin spines were found in 22 lobsters that ranged in size from 91- to 124-mm carapace length, with all individuals containing H. erythrogramma spines and C. rodgersii spines observed only once. During feeding trials, seven urchins were consumed. Four H. erythrogramma were eaten on Day 1, whereas one was not eaten until Day 11. Two C. rodgersii were eaten on Days 2 and 10. Only three of the six lobsters observed to eat urchins ingested spines. Together, these data show that S. verreauxi is a generalist predator that consumes urchins, although, because urchins could be eaten without ingesting spines, future studies are needed to assess the importance of urchins as dietary items for S. verreauxi.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据