Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:24:49.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Motographic Analysis of Foraging Behaviour in Intertidal Chitons (Acanthopleura Spp.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

G. Santini ,
P. Della Santina  and
G. Chelazzi
G. Santini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e Genetica dell’ Universita & Centro di Studio per la Faunistica ed Ecologia Tropicali del Cnr, Via Romana 17, 1–50125 Firenze, Italy
P. Della Santina
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e Genetica dell’ Universita & Centro di Studio per la Faunistica ed Ecologia Tropicali del Cnr, Via Romana 17, 1–50125 Firenze, Italy
G. Chelazzi
Affiliation:
Author to whom reprint requests should be sent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The behaviour of two intertidal chitons (Mollusca: Polyplacophora) from the western Indian Ocean (Acanthopleura gemmata and A. brevispinosa) and one from the Caribbean Sea (A. granulata) were analyzed in order to assess the spatial and temporal organization of their foraging activity. Individual paths were recorded in the field using a motographic method based on LED-tracking and the speed variation during each excursion used to reveal the places where the animals slowed down or stopped for the purpose of grazing. Foraging segments of each trajectory were selected according to a threshold speed which was individually calibrated. The three species of Acanthopleura exhibited graded foraging strategies of different spatial complexity. Acanthopleura gemmata focused its foraging on a few large feeding sites well separated from its permanent home. Acanthopleura brevispinosa exploited more subdivided feeding grounds not distinctly separated from its rest area. Acanthopleura granulata spreads its grazing activity over many small segments, throughout each excursion. Due to different tidal and diel constraints on their activity the three species allocated different absolute time to foraging, but the fraction of time spent foraging relative to the total excursion was similar in each.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , November 1991 , pp. 759 - 769
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1991

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

REFERENCES

Boyden, C.R. & Zeldis, J.R., 1979. Preliminary observations using an attached michrophonic sensor to study feeding behaviour of an intertidal limpet. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Sciences, 9, 759–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branch, G.M., 1981. The biology of limpets: physical factors, energy flow and ecological interactions. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review, 19, 235–380.Google Scholar
Chelazzi, G., Della Santina, P. & Parpagnoli, D., 1987. Trail following in the chiton Acanthopleura gemmata: operational and ecological problems. Marine Biology, 95, 539–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelazzi, G., Della Santina, P. & Parpagnoli, D., 1990. The role of trail following in the homing of intertidal chitons: a comparison between three Acanthopleura spp. Marine Biology, 105, 445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelazzi, G., Focardi, S. & Deneubourg, J.L., 1983a. A comparative study on the movement patterns of two sympatric tropical chitons (Mollusca: Polyplacophora). Marine Biology, 74, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelazzi, G., Focardi, S. & Deneubourg, J.L., 1988. Analysis of movement patterns and orientation mechanisms in intertidal chitons and gastropods. In Behavioural Adaptation to Intertidal Life (ed. Chelazzi, G. and Vannini, M.), pp. 173–184. New York, London: Plenum Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelazzi, G., Focardi, S., Deneubourg, J.L. & Innocenti, R., 1983b. Competition for the home and aggressive behaviour in the chiton Acanthopleura gemmata Blainville (Mollusca: Polyplacophora). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 14, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelazzi, G., Innocenti, R. & Della Santina, P., 1983c. Zonal migration and trail following of an intertidal gastropod analyzed by Led tracking in the field. Marine Behaviour and Physiology, 10, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chelazzi, G. & Parpagnoli, D., 1987. Behavioural responses to crowding modification and home intrusion in Acanthopleura gemmata (Mollusca, Polyplacophora). Ethology, 75, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S.B. & Cook, C.B., 1981. Activity pattern in Siphonaria populations: heading choice and the effects of size and grazing interval. journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 49, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Focardi, S. & Chelazzi, G., 1990. Ecological determinants of bioeconomics in three intertidal chitons (Acanthopleura spp.). Journal of Animal Ecology, 59, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnoll, R.G., 1986. The monitoring of limpet movement: a review. Progress in Underwater Sciences, 11, 137–146.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S.J. & Hartnoll, R.G., 1983. Grazing of intertidalalgae by marine invertebrates. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review, 21, 195–282.Google Scholar
Kitting, C.L., 1979. The use of feeding noises to determine the algal foods being consumed by individual intertidal molluscs. Oecologia, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, J.B., 1960. The fauna of rocky shores of Barbados, West Indies. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 38, 391–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, C., 1989. Factors governing patterns of foraging activity in littoral marine herbivorous molluscs. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 55, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, C. & Stirling, P., 1985. Patterns of foraging activity in the limpet Patella vulgata L. - a preliminary study. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 89, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, A.J., 1977. Movements of intertidal gastropods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 26, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar