Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T19:39:58.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distribution of two species of alpheid shrimp, Alpheus edwardsii and A. Lobidens, on a tropical beach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

J. L. Corfield  and
C. G. Alexander
J. L. Corfield
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Biology, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
C. G. Alexander
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Biology, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Alpheus edwardsii Audouin and Alpheus lobidens de Man (Crustacea: Decapoda: Alpheidae) are two intertidal snapping shrimp that burrow in association with rocks. They are morphologically similar and are often found in the same intertidal zone. The competitive exclusion theory states that two co-existing species must partition resources. The partitioning of food items as a resource appears unlikely, as gut content analyses revealed that the two species have similar diets and the relationship of shrimp condition and shrimp density indicates that food supply was not in limited supply. Instead the two species partition the resources of space within the intertidal zone, and shelter. The two species were found to exist largely in isolation from each other. Alpheus edwardsii occurred across much of the intertidal zone. Within this range A. edwardsii were most abundant in substrata with a low proportion (<50%) of mud. These substrata are better suited to their elaborate method of burrow construction. The simpler burrow construction method of A. lobidens allows this species the potential to occupy a wide range of substratum types; however, they were found only in muddy substrata with substantial surface rock cover at tidal elevations of 1.18m above datum or below. The restriction of A. lobidens to this region of the intertidal zone is probably related, in part, to their physiological requirements. In regions of co-occurrence, A. lobidens were significantly smaller than A. edwardsii, and utilized smaller rocks as shelters, thus avoiding direct interspecific competition for this resource. The absence of large A. lobidens from these areas may reflect their ability to procure shelter in competition with A. edwardsii, as behavioural experiments conducted in this study found that A. edwardsii were the dominant competitors for this resource.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , August 1995 , pp. 675 - 687
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1995

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

Abele, L.G., 1976. Comparative species composition and relative abundance of decapod crustaceans in marine habitats of Panama. Marine Biology, 38, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banner, A.H. & Banner, D.M., 1966. The alpheid shrimp of Thailand. The Siam Society Monograph Series, 3, 9–10.Google Scholar
Banner, A.H. & Banner, D.M., 1973. The alpheid shrimp of Australia. Part 1. The lower genera. Records of the Australian Museum, 28, 291–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J.L. & Townsend, C.R., 1990. Ecology: individuals, populations and communities, 2nd ed. Melbourne: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Cato, D.H. & Bell. M.J., 1992. Ultrasonic ambient noise in Australian shallow waters at frequencies up to 200 kHz. Victoria: Australian Defence Science & Technology Organisation Material Research Library.Google Scholar
Connell, J.H., 1972. Community interactions on marine rocky intertidal shore. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 3, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, M.R. & Miller, D.E., 1978. The importance of the large chela in the territorial and pairing behaviour of the snapping shrimp, Alpheus heterochaelis. Marine Behaviour and Physiology, 5, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdman, R.B. & Blake, N.J., 1987. Population dynamics of the sponge-dwelling alpheid Synalpheus longicarpus, with observations on S. brooksi and S. pectiniger, in shallow-water assemblages of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 7, 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, P.W., 1976. Some physical and biological determinants of coral community structure in the eastern Pacific. Ecological Monographs, 46, 431–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazlett, B.A. & Winn, H.E., 1962. Sound production and associated behavior of Bermuda crustaceans (Panulirus, Gonodactylus, Alpheus, and Synalpheus). Crustaceana, 4, 25–38.Google Scholar
Hynes, H.B.N., 1950. The food of freshwater sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus and Pygosteus pungitius), with a review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes. Journal of Animal Ecology, 19, 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeng, M.-S. & Chang, K.-H., 1988. Study on the habitat preference of the snapping shrimp Alpheus edwardsii. Bulletin. Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, 27, 91–103.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.W., Everest, F.A. & Young, R.W., 1947. The role of snapping shrimp (Crangon and Synalpheus) in the production of underwater noise in the sea. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 93, 122–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R.S., 1968. A suggested method for quantifying gut contents in herbivorous fishes. Micronesica, 4, 369–371.Google Scholar
Karplus, I., 1987. The association between gobiid fishes and burrowing alpheid shrimps. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 25, 507–562.Google Scholar
Karplus, I., R, Szlep. & Tsurnamal, M., 1981. Goby-shrimp partner specificity. I. Distribution in the northern Red Sea and partner specificity. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 51, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, R., 1979. Predicted, actual and effective tidal emersion at Townsville. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland, 90, 113–116.Google Scholar
Knowlton, N. & Keller, B.D., 1985. Two more sibling species of alpheid shrimps associated with the Caribbean sea anemones Bartholomea annulata and Heteractis lucida. Bulletin of Marine Science, 37, 893–904.Google Scholar
Knowlton, R.E. & Moulton, J.M., 1963. Sound production in the snapping shrimps Alpheus (Crangon) and Synalpheus. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 125, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropp, R.K., 1987. Descriptions of some endolithic habitats for snapping shrimp (Alpheidae) in Micronesia. Bulletin of Marine Science, 41, 204–213.Google Scholar
Lewinsohn, C. & Galil, B., 1982. Notes on species of Alpheus (Crustacea: Decapoda) from the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Tecnologia della Pesca, 3(2–5), 207–210.Google Scholar
Ngan, Y. & Price, I.R., 1980. Distribution of intertidal benthic algae in the vicinity of Townsville, tropical Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 31, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B.A. & Salmon, M., 1970. The behavior and ecology of snapping shrimp (Crustacea: Alpheus heterochaelis and Alpheus normanni). Forma et Functio, 2, 289–335.Google Scholar
Pauly, D., 1984. Fish population dynamics in tropical waters: a manual for use with programmable calculators. ICLARM Studies and Reviews, 8, 1–342.Google Scholar
Polunin, N.V.C. & Lubbock, R., 1977. Prawn-associated gobies (Teleostei: Gobiidae) from the Seychelles, western Indian Ocean: systematics and ecology. Journal of Zoology, 183, 63–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.K., Ramsey, F.L. & Seber, G.A., 1992. An adaptive procedure of sampling animal populations. Biometrics, 48, 1195–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar