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
![](../../../images/pixel.gif) | ![](../../../images/pixel.gif) |
MEPS 260:209-217 (2003)
|
Abstract
|
![](../../../images/hline.gif)
Substrate selection by blue crab Callinectes sapidus megalopae and first juvenile instars
Jacques van Montfrans1,*, Clifford H. Ryer2, Robert J. Orth1
1Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, USA
2Fisheries Behavioral Ecology Program, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS/NOAA, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon 97365, USA
*Email: vanm@vims.edu
![](../../../images/hline.gif)
ABSTRACT: Various marine and estuarine species utilize chemical cues during settlement. We investigated responses by megalopae and first juvenile (J1) blue crabs to common Chesapeake Bay substrates in mesocosm and field experiments. Mesocosm trials
examined responses of megalopae or J1 crabs to sand, marsh mud, live oysters Crassostrea virginica, sun-bleached oyster shell, eel grass Zostera marina and artificial seagrass in replicate 160 l tanks. Either 10 megalopae or J1 crabs
isolated in each of 6 substrates were allowed total access after acclimation to test the null hypothesis of equal distribution among substrates after 13 h. Thirty-five percent of megalopae were recovered from Z. marina, with the remaining
substrates containing fewer than half that many. In contrast, 30 % of J1 crabs (with only 17% recovered from Z. marina) were found in live C. virginica. A field experiment quantified responses of ingressing megalopae to Z. marina,
marsh mud, and C. virginica. Overnight settlement was significantly higher in Z. marina (x = 3.3 ind.; 60% of total) when compared to mud (x = 0.9; 16 %) or C. virginica (x = 1.3; 24 %). Likewise, J1 crabs were significantly more
numerous in Z. marina (x = 3.7 ind.; 55% of total) than in C. virginica (x = 1.8; 27 %) and mud (x = 1.2; 18 %). J1 crab distribution in field plots likely reflected habitat selection by megalopae; laboratory results were equivocal and
probably due to artifacts associated with density-dependent agonism. The initial non-random distribution of blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay may be deterministic and due to habitat-selection behavior by megalopae. Selection for seagrass assures the greatest
likelihood of maximal survival and accelerated growth. Similar relationships may also exist in estuarine-dependent species with comparable habitat requirements and life-history characteristics.
KEY WORDS: Blue crab · Megalopae · First juvenile instar · Habitat selection · Zostera marina · Crassostrea virginica · Sand · Mud
Full text in pdf format
![](../../../images/hline.gif)
Published in MEPS Vol.
260
(2003) on September 30
Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599.
Copyright © Inter-Research, Oldendorf/Luhe, 2003
|