Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T04:45:22.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fecundity of the arrow crab Stenorhynchus seticornis in the southern Brazilian coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2003

Claudia Melissa Okamori
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de Taubaté—UNITAU, Pça. Marcelino Monteiro, 63, 12030-010, Taubaté, (SP) Brasil, E-mail: cmokamori@hotmail.com
Valter José Cobo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de Taubaté—UNITAU, Pça. Marcelino Monteiro, 63, 12030-010, Taubaté, (SP) Brasil and Group of Studies on Crustacean Biology, Ecology and Culture—NEBECC, E-mail: vjcobo@uol.com.br

Abstract

The arrow crab Stenorhynchus seticornis (Brachyura, Majidae), is a common inhabitant of the rocky subtidal along the Brazilian coast. Fecundity and the influence of environmental variables on egg production are investigated in this study. Information on egg size and egg loss through incubation are also provided. Monthly samples were conducted using SCUBA diving, from January to December 1998 in the Ubatuba region (23°25′25[double prime or second]S–44°52′03[double prime or second]W), south-eastern Brazilian coast. Early broods were used for the estimation of size-specific relationships of fecundity. Egg loss was assessed by comparing average egg numbers of early and late broods. The fecundity was estimated in 621.1±339.6 eggs, with an average diameter of 0.48±0.1 and 0.57±0.1 mm for early and late eggs, respectively. The number of eggs produced was apparently constant year-round. No significant differences were recorded among monthly fecundity values. The variation of abiotic factors did not show any relationship with temporal variability of fecundity, suggesting that the environmental effect in egg production is slight at best.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boolootian, R.A., Farmanfarmaian, A. & Turcker, J., 1959. Reproductive cycles of five west coast crabs. Physiological Zoö'logy, 4, 213–220.Google Scholar
Bryant, A.D. & Hartnoll, R.G., 1995. Reproductive investment in two spider crabs with different breeding strategies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 188, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choy, S.C., 1988. Reproductive biology of Liocarcinus puber and L. holsatus (Decapoda, Brachyura, Portunidae) from the Gower Peninsula, South Wales. Marine Ecology, 9, 227–241.Google Scholar
Corey, S. & Reid, D.M., 1991. Comparative fecundity of decapod Crustacean. I. The fecundity of thirty-three species of nine families of caridean shrimp. Crustaceana, 60, 271–293.Google Scholar
Hines, A.H., 1982. Allometric constraints and variable of repro-ductive effort in brachyuran crabs. Marine Biology, 69, 309–320.Google Scholar
Hynes, H.B.N., 1954. The ecology of Gammarus duebeni Lilljeborg and its occurrence in fresh water in western Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology, 23, 38–84.Google Scholar
Luppi, T.A., Bas, C.C., Spivak, E.D. & Anger, K., 1997. Fecundity of two crabs species in the Laguna Mar Chiquita, Argentina. Archive Fishery and Marine Research, 45, 146–166.Google Scholar
Melo, G.A.S., 1996. Manual de identißcaqäo dos Brachyura (Caranguejos e Siris) do litoral Brasileiro. Säo Paulo: Plêiade.Google Scholar
Steachey, D.P.M. & Somers, K.M., 1995. Potential, realized and actual fecundity in the crayfish Orconectes imunis from south-western Ontario. Canadian Journal ofZoology, 73, 672–677.Google Scholar
Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Wear, R.G., 1974. Incubation in British decapod Crustacea, and the effects of temperature on the rate and success of embryonic development. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 54, 745–762.Google Scholar