A Comparative Study of Some Population Characteristics Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1975-04-01 A comparative study of some population characteristics of Calyptraea fastigiata Gould, Crepidula lingulata Gould, and Crepidula nummaria Gould (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia) Roger Harold Goodwill Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Goodwill, Roger Harold, "A comparative study of some population characteristics of Calyptraea fastigiata Gould, Crepidula lingulata Gould, and Crepidula nummaria Gould (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia)" (1975). Theses and Dissertations. 7935. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/7935 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SOME POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS OF CALYPTRAEA FASTIGIATA GOULD, CREPIDULA LINGULATA GOULD, Pi.ND CREPIDULA NUMM.�IA GOULD (GASTROPODA, PROSOBRANCHIA) A Thesis Presented to the Department of Zoology Brigham Young University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science v by Roger Harold Goodwill April 1975 This thesis, by Roger Harold Goodwill, is accepted in its present form by the Department of Zoology of Brigham Young University as satisfying the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science. Typed by Katherine Shepherd ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Lee Braithwaite for his help and friendship throughout my grad uate studies at BYU. I also offer my thanks to Dr. James Barnes and Dr. Melvin Carter who gave of their time freely and offered many helpful suggestions. Likewise, I am indebted to Bruce Stone who not only offered suggestions but acted as my diving partner throughout this study. Special thanks and appreciation go to my wife and children who stood by me without complaint. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . iii LIST OF TABLES •• V LIST OP FIGURES . vii INTRODUCTION ••• . 1 MATERIALS AND .METHODS 4 I:IABITAT • • • • • • • • • • • 8 SIZE FREQUENCY •••••••• 10 SEX RA'rros •• 10 ASSOCIATIONS • • • • • • • • 12 PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONSHIPS 12 Al'JALYSIS 14 RESULTS 15 HABITAT . 15 SIZE FREQUENCIES. 23 SEX RATIOS. • •• 28 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY. 30 ASSOCIATIONS 33 PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONSHIPS . 33 DISCUSSION •••••••••• . 37 CONCLUSIONS ••• . - . 46 LITERATURE CITED. 49 APPENDIX •••• - . 52 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Range and Mean Rock Size Preferred for Each Species ••••••••••••• 17 2. Percentage of Those Species Found Under- neath Rocks • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 3. Vertical Distribution (Numbers per 1/16 m2) • • • • • • • • • • .. • • 21 4. Mean Sizes for Each Species at Different Localities . 25 5. Sex Ratios for Each Species at Different Localities . 29 6. Percentages of Females with Eggs . 30 7. Mean Nu.ilber of Capsules per Female and Mean Number of Eggs peE Capsule • • • 32 8. Hean Dimensions of Egg Capsules 32 9. Percentages of Intraspecific and Inter- specific Associations .••••••• 34 10. List of Probable Invertebrate Predators 35 11. Analysis of Male-Female Differences in Pre- ferred Substrate •••••••••• ~ • • 53 12. Analysis of Substrate Difference Between Areas . • . • • • • .. • • • . • .. • 54 13. Analysis of Substrate Difference Between Species • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 54 14. Ai.~alysis of Position Differences (on Top Versus Underneath) • • . • • • . • • • 55 15. Substrate Comparison (Cliffs Versus Loose Rock) . • . • • .• • . • • . • • 56 16. Analysis of Vertical Distributions. 57 V vi Table Page 2 17. Regression Analysis on Numbers per 1/16 m Versus Percent Loose Rock • • • • • • • • 58 2 18. Regression Analysis on Numbers per 1/16 m Versus Depth. • • • • • . • • • • • • 59 19. Size Comparisons Between Males and Females . 60 20. Size Comparisons Between Areas . 61 21. Size Comparisons Between Species . 62 22. Regression Analysis on Size Versus Depth . 63 23. Regression Analysis of Size Versus Rock Size ( Substrate Size) . • . • • • • . 64 24. Analysis of Sex Ratios for Each Species 65 25. Analysis of Sex Ratio Differences Between Species . 66 26. Analysis of Sex Ratio Differences Between Areas • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 66 27. Analysis of Differences Between Areas for Intraspecific Associations .••••• 67 28. Analysis of Sex Ratios for Intraspecific Associations •••••••••••.• 68 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Study Areas on and in the Vicinity of San Juan Island ••••••.•••••• 5 2. Anatomical Differences in Sexes 11 3. Size of Surface Area (Rock Size) Preferred for Each Locality • • . • • • • • . • • 16 4. Size of Surface Area (Rock Size) Preferred with all Localities Combined. • • • • • • 19 5. Vertical Distribution at Different Local- ities • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 6. Size Frequency of C. fastiaiata at Differ- ent Localities. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26 7. Size Frequency for c. lingulata at Differ- ent Localities •••• -~. • • • • • • • • • 27 vii INTRODUCTION Most marine gastropods of the family Calyptraeidae are protandrous filter feeders which group together by stacking. Being essentially sessile, movement is limited to the males moving about on the stack from one female to another. Several species of the group, however, do not display this stacking behavior~ movement for them is proba- bly much more extensive. Coe (1938b) reports that the males of Crepidula lingulata and Crepidula nummaria, two non- stacking species, associate with the females only during breeding periods, though they may be found in close prox- imity to them. The same holds true for the non-stacking European species, Calyptraea chinensis (Wilbur and Yonge, 1964). Nothing has been reported concerning the intra- specific behavior of the non-stacking .American species, Calyptraea fastigiata. In fact, most of the information about the genus Calyptraea comes from work done on C. chinensis (Bacci, 1951; Pellegrini, 1949; Wyatt, 1957, 1960, 1961). The major behavioral difference separating the two genera is the ability of Creuidula males, at least in the stacking forms, to be influenced by other members of the species, particularly females, into changing sex earlier or later than normal (Gould, 1919; Coe, 1938a, 1948). This 1 2 is not the case for c. chinensis where all males of the same generation will transition at the same time regardless of association (Bacci, 1949, as reported by Hyman, 1967). Most members of the family are found attached to hard surfaces such as rocks and shells (Coe, 1942a; Dris- coll, 1967). Some inhabit the inside of gastropod shells, living in association with hermit crabs, while others are found attached to the outside of the shell (Coe, 1938a, 1942a~ Moritz, 1938). As a family, they are found on rocky· substrates and on hard surfaces which are raised off of soft bottoms (Fretter and Graham, 1962). Competition for living space occurs between oysters and some members of the family. Crepidula fornicata, a stacking species introduced into England, forms masses inches deep over the bottom of oyster grounds~ through the accumulation of faeces and pseudofaeces causes a deposition of mud that prevents oyster larvae from settling (Fretter and Graham, 1962). Previous research has centered around the protandrous nature of the family. Very little work has been done on their general biology or autecology, especially in the non- stacking forms. It therefore seemed appropriate, in light of their possible economic importance, to make a comparative study of some of the population characteristics of several non-stacking members. Such items as habitat, vertical dis- tribution, intraspecific association, size, reproductive behavior, and predator-prey relationships are considered. 3 For this purpose Crepidula lingulata, Crepidula nummaria, and Calyptraea fastigiata were chosen. MATERIALS AND METHODS Research was conducted between 1 March and 15 June 1974 at the University of Washington's Friday Harbor Marine Laboratories located on San Juan Island in the San Juan Arch- ipelago, Washington. The primary study area was located just south of a cove known locally as Colin's Cove. Two other sam- pling areas located nearby were situated just north and south of the Cantilever Pier of the Friday Harbor Laboratories. A fourth sampling area, Smuggler's Cove, was located on the northwest side of San Juan Island (Figure 1). Three dredge hauls were made along the northeast side of the island between Friday Harbor Laboratories and Spieden Island. The first haul was east of Limestone Point at a depth of 50-65 fathoms on a shell fragment substrate over a mud bottom. The second dredge haul was between Speiden and Sentinel Islands at a depth of 21 fathoms on a solid bottom. The third haul, like- wise on a solid bottom, was east of O'Neil Island at a depth of 25-30 fathoms. The four sampling areas were typified by different substrates. The area south of Cantilever Pier was primarily a solid substrate with a gentle slope. A uniform substrate of small rocks (1-6 cm in diameter) lying upon silt char- acterized the site north of Cantilever Pier, whereas Smuggler's Cove was characterized by a steep incline with a substrate ranging from large rocks (diameter 12 cm and 4 5 Spieden I. ~ . 0 Sentia?1~ Limestone Pt. ~-v-~-- .." Smuggler's Cove Cantilever JUANISLAND Figure 1 Study Areas on and in the Vicinity of San Juan Island 6 over) to silt-free solid rock slopes and