Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T15:02:32.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can mandible morphology help predict feeding habits in Antarctic amphipods?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2020

Loïc N. Michel*
Laboratory of Systematics and Animal Diversity, Freshwater and Oceanic Sciences Unit of reSearch (FOCUS), University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium Laboratory of Oceanology, Freshwater and Oceanic Sciences Unit of reSearch (FOCUS), University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium Current address: Ifremer, Centre de Bretagne, REM/EEP, Laboratoire Environnement Profond, F-29280 Plouzané, France
Fabienne L. Nyssen
Laboratory of Systematics and Animal Diversity, Freshwater and Oceanic Sciences Unit of reSearch (FOCUS), University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium
Patrick Dauby
Laboratory of Systematics and Animal Diversity, Freshwater and Oceanic Sciences Unit of reSearch (FOCUS), University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium
Marie Verheye
Laboratory of Oceanology, Freshwater and Oceanic Sciences Unit of reSearch (FOCUS), University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium


In Antarctica, amphipods form a highly diverse group, occupy many different ecological niches and hold an important place in food webs. Here, we aimed to test whether differences in Antarctic amphipod feeding habits were reflected in their mandible morphology, and if mouthpart specialization could be used to describe amphipod trophic ecology. To do so, we compared mandible morphology in nine species spanning seven families and five functional groups (grazers, suspension feeders, generalist predators, specialist predators and scavengers). Mandible morphology adequately depicted some aspects of amphipod trophic ecology, such as the trophic level at which animals feed or their degree of dietary specialization. On the other hand, links between mandible morphology and amphipod diet were seldom unambiguous or straightforward. Similar adaptations were found in distinct functional groups. Conversely, mandible morphology could vary within a single functional group, and phylogenetic effects sometimes complicated the interpretation of form-function relationships. Overall, mandible morphology on its own was generally not sufficient to precisely predict amphipod feeding strategies. However, when combined with other methods (e.g. gut contents, trophic markers), it constitutes a valuable source of information for integrative studies of amphipod ecological diversity in the Southern Ocean.

Biological Sciences
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2020

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.)


These authors contributed equally to the manuscript and are co-first authors


Amsler, C.D., McClintock, J.B. & Baker, B.J. 1998. Chemical defense against herbivory in the Antarctic marine macroalgae Iridaea cordata and Phyllophora antarctica (Rhodophyceae). Journal of Phycology, 34, 10.1046/j.1529-8817.1998.340053.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, C.E., Berge, J. & Brandt, A. 2005. Mouthpart-atlas of Arctic sympagic amphipods - trophic niche separation based on mouthpart morphology and feeding ecology. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 25, 10.1651/C-2544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumack, C.F., Lowe, A.T., Amsler, C.D., Amsler, M.O., McClintock, J.B. & Baker, B.J. 2017. Gut content, fatty acid, and stable isotope analyses reveal dietary sources of macroalgal-associated amphipods along the western Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology, 40, 10.1007/s00300-016-2061-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caine, E.A. 1974. Comparative functional morphology of feeding in three species of caprellids (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from the northwestern Florida Gulf Coast. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 15, 10.1016/0022-0981(74)90065-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caine, E.A. 1977. Feeding mechanisms and possible resource partitioning of the Caprellidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Puget Sound, USA. Marine Biology, 42, 10.1007/BF00402195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, G.A. & Watkins, R.L. 1977. Hyalella montezuma, a new species (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Montezuma Well, Arizona. Hydrobiologia, 52, 10.1007/BF00036441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, C.O. 1989a. Gnathiphimedia mandibularis K.H. Barnard 1930, an Antarctic amphipod (Acanthonotozomatidae, Crustacea) feeding on Bryozoa. Antarctic Science, 1, 10.1017/S0954102089000519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, C.O. 1989b. On the nutrition of two Antarctic Acanthonotozomatidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Polar Biology, 9, 10.1007/BF00287425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, C.O. 1990. Bathypanoploea schellenbergi Holman & Watling, 1983, an Antarctic amphipod (Crustacea) feeding on Holothuroidea. Ophelia, 31, 10.1080/00785326.1990.10430862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, C.O. 1991. Redescription of Anchiphimedia dorsalis (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Iphimediidae) from the Antarctic, and functional morphology of mouthparts. Zoologica Scripta, 20, 10.1111/j.1463-6409.1991.tb00301.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, E. 1979. Deep-sea carrion feeding amphipods: evolutionary patterns in niche adaptation. Oikos, 33, 10.2307/3543994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, E. & Hessler, R.R. 1982. The crustacean lacinia mobilis: a reconsideration of its origin, function and phylogenetic implications. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 74, 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1982.tb01145.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauby, P., Nyssen, F. & De Broyer, C. 2003. Amphipods as food sources for higher trophic levels in the Southern Ocean: a synthesis. In Huiskes, A.H.L., Gieskes, W.W.C., Rozema, J., Schorno, S.M., van der Vies, S.M. & Wolff, W.J., eds. Antarctic biology in a global context. Leiden: Backuys, 129134.Google Scholar
Dauby, P., Scailteur, Y. & de Broyer, C. 2001a. Trophic diversity within the eastern Weddell Sea amphipod community. Hydrobiologia, 443, 10.1023/A:1017596120422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauby, P., Scailteur, Y., Chapelle, G. & de Broyer, C. 2001b. Potential impact of the main benthic amphipods on the eastern Weddell Sea shelf ecosystem (Antarctica). Polar Biology, 24, 10.1007/s003000100265.Google Scholar
De Broyer, C. & JaŻdŻewska, A. 2014. Biogeographic patterns of Southern Ocean benthic Amphipods. In De Broyer, C., Koubbi, P., Griffiths, H.J., Raymond, B., d'Udekem d'Acoz, C., van de Putte, A.P., et al. , eds. Biogeographic atlas of the Southern Ocean. Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, 155165.Google Scholar
De Broyer, C., Rauschert, M. & Scailteur, Y. 1999. Structural and ecofunctional biodiversity of the benthic amphipod taxocoenoses. Berichte zur Polarforschung, 301, 163174.Google Scholar
Dixon, I.M.T. & Moore, P.G. 1997. A comparative study on the tubes and feeding behaviour of eight species of corophioid Amphipoda and their bearing on phylogenetic relationships within the Corophioidea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B352, 10.1098/rstb.1997.0006.Google Scholar
Graeve, M., Dauby, P. & Scailteur, Y. 2001. Combined lipid, fatty acid and digestive tract content analyses: a penetrating approach to estimate feeding modes of Antarctic amphipods. Polar Biology, 24, 10.1007/s003000100295.Google Scholar
Guerra-García, J.M. & Tierno de Figueroa, J.M. 2009. What do caprellids (Crustacea: Amphipoda) feed on? Marine Biology, 156, 10.1007/s00227-009-1220-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haro-Garay, M.J. 2003. Diet and functional morphology of the mandible of two planktonic amphipods from the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia: Parathemisto pacifica (Stebbing, 1888) and Cyphocaris challengeri (Stebbing, 1888). Crustaceana, 76, 10.1163/156854003323009821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, B.T., Schwartz, B.F. & Nowlin, W.H. 2014. Morphological and trophic specialization in a subterranean amphipod assemblage. Freshwater Biology, 59, 10.1111/fwb.12440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klages, M. & Gutt, J. 1990. Observations on the feeding behaviour of the Antarctic gammarid Eusirus perdentatus Chevreux, 1912 (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in aquaria. Polar Biology, 10, 10.1007/BF00237823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manton, S.M. 1977. The Arthropoda: habits, functional morphology, and evolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 577 pp.Google Scholar
Mayer, G., Haug, J.T., Maas, A. & Waloszek, D. 2013. Functional aspects of the gammaridean mandibles with special reference to the lacinia mobilis (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Zoologischer Anzeiger - A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 252, 10.1016/j.jcz.2012.11.007.Google Scholar
Mayer, G., Maier, G., Maas, A. & Waloszek, D. 2009. Mouthpart morphology of Gammarus roeselii compared to a successful invader, Dikerogammarus villosus (Amphipoda). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 29, 10.1651/08-3056R.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekhanikova, I.V. 2010. Morphology of mandible and lateralia in six endemic amphipods (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) from Lake Baikal, in relation to feeding. Crustaceana, 83, 10.1163/001121610X504289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momo, F., Bogazzi, E. & Duttweiler, F. 1998. Amphipods of Potter Cove: community composition, biology and growth. Berichte zur Polar- und Meeresforschung, 299, 144149.Google Scholar
Moore, P.G., Rainbow, P.S. & Vader, W. 1994. On the feeding and comparative biology of iron in coelenterate-associated gammaridean Amphipoda (Crustacea) from N. Norway. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 178, 10.1016/0022-0981(94)90037-X.Google Scholar
Nyssen, F., Brey, T., Dauby, P. & Graeve, M. 2005. Trophic position of Antarctic amphipods - enhanced analysis by a 2-dimensional biomarker assay. Marine Ecology - Progress Series, 300, 10.3354/meps300135.Google Scholar
Nyssen, F., Brey, T., Lepoint, G., Bouquegneau, J.M., de Broyer, C. & Dauby, P. 2002. A stable isotope approach to the eastern Weddell Sea trophic web: focus on benthic amphipods. Polar Biology, 25, 10.1007/s00300-001-0340-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavesi, L. & Olesen, J. 2017. Functional morphology and environmental adaptations of mouthparts in the driftwood amphipod Macarorchestia remyi (Schellenberg, 1950), and a comparison with the sandhopper Talitrus saltator (Montagu, 1808) (Amphipoda: Talitridae). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 37, 10.1093/jcbiol/ruw006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poltermann, M. 2001. Arctic sea ice as feeding ground for amphipods - food sources and strategies. Polar Biology, 24, 10.1007/s003000000177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüber, L., Verheyen, E. & Meyer, A. 1999. Replicated evolution of trophic specializations in an endemic cichlid fish lineage from Lake Tanganyika. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 10.1073/pnas.96.18.10230.Google Scholar
Sainte-Marie, B. 1984. Morphological adaptations for carrion feeding in four species of littoral or circalittoral lysianassid amphipods. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 62, 10.1139/z84-244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, M.A., Campana, G.L., Deregibus, D., Quartino, M.L., Abele, D., Tollrian, R. & Held, C. 2017. Different feeding strategies in Antarctic scavenging amphipods and their implications for colonisation success in times of retreating glaciers. Frontiers in Zoology, 14, 10.1186/s12983-017-0248-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, D.H. & Steele, V.J. 1993. Biting mechanism of the amphipod Anonyx (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Lysianassoidea). Journal of Natural History, 27, 10.1080/00222939300770521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watling, L. 1993. Functional morphology of the amphipod mandible. Journal of Natural History, 27, 10.1080/00222939300770511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watling, L. & Thurston, M.H. 1989. Antarctica as an evolutionary incubator: evidence from the cladistic 415 biogeography of the amphipod family Iphimediidae. In Crame, J.A., ed. Origins and evolution of the Antarctic biota. Special Publication of the Geological Society of London, No. 47, 297313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar