4.6 Article

Impacts of habitat complexity on physiology: Purple shore crabs tolerate osmotic stress for shelter

期刊

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
卷 53, 期 6, 页码 865-876

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/ecss.2001.0826

关键词

salinity; shelter; Hemigrapsus nudus; behaviour; crab; osmoregulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purple shore crabs, Heinigrapsus nudus (Crustacea: Decapoda), can survive indefinitely in salinities of 8 (25% SW), but also tolerate short-term exposure to salinities as low as 2. In the laboratory their salinity preference range, determined from choice chamber experiments, is 22-32 and they can discriminate between pairs of salinities separated by a difference of 2. These crabs show a strong positive thigmotaxis and a weak negative phototaxis and tend to choose environments with available shelter. The presence of shelter significantly alters the behaviour of this species. When shelter is available the salinity preference range is 10-32. Even in salinities below this preference range, the presence of shelter prolongs the time spent in the lower test salinities. This change in behaviour has implications on the crab's physiology: the haemolymph osmolality falls to lower levels when crabs remain in low salinity under shelters. In the field, H. nudus is found in creeks with salinities close to freshwater and they may remain in this salinity for up to 11 h, if there are rocks under which to shelter. An increase in habitat complexity increases the number of crabs that are found within the creek. These crabs in the low salinity environment have a lower haemolymph osmolality than crabs on die nearby open shore. In H. nudus the behavioural selection of a shelter appears to outweigh the physiological costs associated with osmotic regulation of the body fluids. Therefore, the distribution of H. nudus in estuaries may depend more on the availability of suitable habitats rather than the salinity tolerance of this species. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

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

4.6
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