Marine Ecology Progress Series

Inter-Research
Marine Ecology Progress Series

IR Home



MEPS
Home
Editors
Forthcoming
Information
Subscribe


Journals
Home
MEPS
AME
CR
DAO
ESEP
Search
Subscribe

Book Series
EE Books
Top Books
ESEP Books
Order

EEIU Brochures
(pdf format)

Discussion Forums
Home

Research
Endangered Species Programs

Institutions
International Ecology Institute
Eco-Ethics International Union

Foundation
Otto Kinne Foundation

MEPS 253:305-309 (2003)

Abstract

In situ swimming and feeding behavior of eight co-occurring hydromedusae

Sean P. Colin1,*, John H. Costello2, Eric Klos3

1Department of Biology, Roger Williams University, 1 Old Ferry Road, Bristol, Rhode Island 02809, USA
2Department of Biology, Providence College, Providence, Rhode Island 02918, USA
3Graduate School of Oceanography, The University of Rhode Island, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882, USA

*Email: scolin@rwu.edu

ABSTRACT: The morphology, swimming kinematics and prey selection of hydromedusae have been shown to be closely related to hydromedusan foraging mode. In order to confirm this link, we examined the in situ foraging behavior of hydromedusae by video-recording and quantifying the in situ swimming activity and tentacle-extension behavior of 8 co-occurring hydromedusae from the waters surrounding Friday Harbor, Washington. The cruising-predatory medusae Aequorea victoria, Mitrocoma cellularia, Phialidium gregarium, and Eutonina indicans spent a greater proportion of their time swimming (on average from 74.1 to 92.1%) than the ambush-predatory medusae Aglantha digitale, Sarsia sp., Leuckartiara sp., and Stomotoca atra (on average from 19.5 to 47.0%). In addition, the cruising-predatory medusae were observed with their tentacles extended almost continuously, regardless of whether they were swimming or drifting. In contrast, the ambush-predatory medusae drifted with their tentacles extended but contracted their tentacles when swimming. These patterns indicate that cruising-predatory medusae can feed while either swimming or drifting, whereas the ambush-predatory medusae feed while drifting but not while swimming. Thus, swimming plays a distinctly different role within the behavioral repertoire of each of these medusan foraging modes. Furthermore, the swimming activity and tentacle-extension behavior we observed were consistent with strategies that optimized feeding by each of the predator types.

KEY WORDS: Jellyfish · Foraging · Time budgets · Ambush predation · Cruising predation

Full text in pdf format

Published in MEPS Vol. 253 (2003) on May 15
Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599. Copyright © Inter-Research, Oldendorf/Luhe, 2003

Copyright © 2003; Inter-Research
Webmaster: webmaster@int-res.com