4.2 Article

Burrow morphology and behavior of the mud shrimp Upogebia omissa (Decapoda : Thalassinidea : Upogebiidae)

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 200, 期 -, 页码 229-240

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps200229

关键词

shrimp; burrow; feeding; Upogebia; decapoda; thalassinidea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The burrow morphology, burrowing behavior and feeding mechanisms of the thalassinidean shrimp Upogebia omissa were studied. Twenty burrow casts were made in situ with epoxy resin, and an overall 'Y' shape was most frequently observed. Several burrows consisted of a single, oblique tunnel; burrow diameter was positively correlated with burrow length, maximum depth and distance between openings. Additionally, burrow length was positively associated with maximum depth, indicating that as burrow length increased burrow depth increased; i.e, burrows spread vertically rather than horizontally, Total sediment displacement by the burrows accounted for 2.6 % of sediment to a depth of 30 cm. The sediment-water interface increased by 290 % in areas containing burrows compared to areas without burrows. Solitary adults were trapped in 15 casts. Three casts were interconnected, but each burrow contained only 1 shrimp. Regression analysis revealed shrimp length to be positively correlated with burrow diameter and area. In aquaria, U. omissa displayed a dual feeding behavior: the shrimp filtered suspended particles, and also fed directly on the sediment. Filter-feeding occurred mainly within U-shaped tunnels, while deposit-feeding was observed in association with the oblique tunnels of the burrow. Although filter-feeding has been considered as the main trophic mode in upogebiids, we present evidence that U. omissa may have a more pronounced deposit-feeding behavior than described for other species of this group. Based on our findings, we suggest that current models on the functional morphology of burrows in relation to feeding should be used cautiously in inferring the trophic behavior of these shrimp.

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