4.0 Article

Experimental predatory behavior of the stone crab Eriphia verrucosa (Forskal, 1775) (Decapoda, Brachyura, Eriphiidae)

期刊

NAUPLIUS
卷 25, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA CARCINOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/2358-2936e2017033

关键词

Predation effect; Sacculina eriphiae; crab feeding; intertidal epibenthos

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predatory behavior of the crab Eriphia verrucosa (Forskal, 1775) on the oyster Magallana angulata (Lamarck, 1819), the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819, the limpet Patella depressa Pennant, 1777, the hermit crab Clibanarius erythropus (Latreille, 1818), the gastropod Phorcus lineatus (da Costa, 1778) and the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816) was experimentally studied. Taken into account that the sampled population of E. verrucosa was infected with the parasitic barnacle Sacculina eriphiae Smith, 1906, four predator categories were established regarding crab sex and parasite presence: uninfected and infected males and females, respectively. These four crab categories were fed on the six preys offered, but prey remains suggest that the crab obtains the flesh of each prey using different methods of attack. Irrespective of the prey species, uninfected females consistently presented lower percentages of crab feeding and total consumption. On average, it was found that a significantly higher percentage of crabs feed on M. galloprovincialis, P. depressa and Ph. lineatus than on the other three prey species (chi-squared test, p < 0.05). In terms of mean eaten biomass, the preys most eaten were P. lividus and P. depressa and the least eaten was C. erythropus (ANOVA test, p < 0.05). For crabs feeding on M. galloprovincialis and Ph. lineatus there was a significant positive correlation (p < 0.05) between the predator size and prey size, as well as between the predator size and total prey consumption. According to these results, potential effects of this top predator on intertidal communities are also discussed.

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

4.0
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