4.2 Article

Predation-induced morphological and behavioral defenses in a hard coral: implications for foraging behavior of coral-feeding butterflyfishes

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 267, 期 -, 页码 145-158

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps267145

关键词

inducible defenses; morphological defenses; behavioral defenses; foraging behavior; corallivory; corals; chaetodontidae; clonal organisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In clonal organisms, such as corals, one consequence of partial predation may be an elaboration of defenses in remaining portions of the clone, thereby reducing the probability or severity of future predation events. Inducible defenses have been found in terrestrial and marine plants and in several taxa of marine invertebrates. Predators can detect differences in various aspects of prey quality that translate into preferences for certain prey items. Differences in quantity or types of defenses may determine which species, individuals or parts of a prey item are consumed. Coral-feeding butterflyfishes show distinct preferences for certain coral species, and may prefer particular individuals of a species over others. This study examines the potential for inducible defenses in a hard coral in response to grazing by a natural coral predator, the butterflyfish Chaetodon multicinctus. Pairs of genetically identical fragments of the Hawaiian coral Porites compressa were exposed to grazed and ungrazed treatments. These colonies were then offered to naive fish in preference tests at various intervals following the treatment period. Grazing by butterflyfishes induced changes in polyp behavior (prolonged withdrawal of coral polyps) in the short term, and increases in nematocyst density over the longer term, and these changes were associated with reductions in palatability and subsequent predation rates on the damaged corals. These inducible responses may play a role in regulating the intensity of grazing, and ultimately territory size and the density of corallivorous reef fishes.

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

4.2
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