Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:21:57.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Method For Marking Small Juvenile Gastropods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Louis A. Gosselin
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9, Canada & Bamfield Marine Station, Bamfield, British Columbia, VOR 1B0, Canada

Extract

Methods used to identify individual organisms consistently over time have been invaluable tools in ecological studies, enabling reliable assessments of time-dependent parameters such as growth and mortality, and an accurate determination of their variance. These methods have proved to be particularly amenable to gastropods owing to the presence of an external shell on which marks or tags can be applied with little or no adverse effects on the animal. Marking and tagging techniques have enabled the study of several ecological parameters in adult marine gastropods, including growth (Frank, 1965; Hughes, 1972; Palmer, 1983; Gosselin & Bourget, 1989), mortality (Frank, 1965; Hughes, 1972), movements (Frank, 1965; Chapman, 1986), and foraging behaviour (Menge, 1974; Hughes et al., 1992). Small organisms, however, can pose considerable problems for individual marking (Southwood, 1978). As a result, marking and tagging methods have seldom been applied to newly hatched or recently settled juvenile marine gastropods. Several methods have been developed for simultaneously labelling large numbers of invertebrate larvae (Levin, 1990), and some of these methods may be applicable to juvenile gastropods. The usefulness of these methods, however, is limited because all animals receive the same label and, consequently, individual animals cannot be recognized. To my knowledge, no method of individually marking very small juvenile marine gastropods has been documented. In fact, it is sometimes perceived that small juveniles cannot be individually marked due to their small size and sensitivity (Frank, 1965; Palmer, 1990). The object of this paper is to present a simple method of marking early juvenile gastropods, which consists of applying colour codes to the shells of individuals as small as 0·9 mm in length.

Type
Short Communications
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1993

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

Chapman, M.G., 1986. Assessment of some controls in experimental transplants of intertidal gastropods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 103, 181201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, P.W., 1965. The biodemography of an intertidal snail population. Ecology, 46, 831844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosselin, L.A. & Bourget, E., 1989. The performance of an intertidal predator Thais lapillus, in relation to structural heterogeneity. Journal of Animal Ecology, 58, 287303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosselin, L.A. & Chia, F.-S., in press. Feeding habits of newly hatched juveniles of an intertidal predatory gastropod, Nucella emarginata (Deshayes). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.Google Scholar
Hughes, R.N., 1972. Annual production of two Nova Scotian populations of Nucella lapillus (L). Oecologia, 8, 356370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, R.N., Burrows, M.T., & Rogers, S.E.B., 1992. Ontogenetic changes in foraging behaviour of the dogwhelk Nucella lapillus (L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 155, 199212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Largen, M.J., 1967. The diet of the dog-whelk, Nucella lapillus (Gastropoda Prosobranchia). Journal of Zoology, 151, 123127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, L.A., 1990. A review of methods for labelling and tracking marine invertebrate larvae. Ophelia, 32, 115144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menge, J.L., 1974. Prey selection and foraging period of the predaceous rocky intertidal snail, Acanthina punctulata. Oecologia, 17, 293316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, A.R., 1983. Growth rate as a measure of food value in thaidid gastropods: assumptions and implications for prey morphology and distribution. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 73, 95124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A.R., 1990. Predator size, prey size, and the scaling of vulnerability: hatchling gastropods vs barnacles. Ecology, 71, 759775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittschof, D., Williams, L.G., Brown, B. & Carriker, M.R., 1983. Chemical attraction of newly hatched oyster drills. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 164, 493505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E., 1978. Marking invertebrates. In Animal marking. Recognition marking of animals in research (ed. B., Stonehouse), pp. 102106. London: MacMillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spight, T.M., 1976. Hatching size and the distribution of nurse eggs among prosobranch embryos. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 150, 491499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar