Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T14:08:32.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mechanism of active capture of animal food by the Sergestid Shrimp Acetes Sibogae Australis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Lachlan Mcleay  and
C.G. Alexander
Lachlan Mcleay
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Biology, James CookUniversity of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, 4811, Australia
C.G. Alexander
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Biology, James CookUniversity of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, 4811, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Combining the use of scanning electron microscopy and microcinematography with functional and behavioural observations has clarified many aspects underlying the feeding processes of the small planktonic sergestid shrimp Acetes sibogae australis. In captivity Acetes sibogae australis is an opportunistic feeder that uses four principal feeding modes to capture a wide size range of prey: Artemia nauplii (<0.33 mm), copepods (<1mm) and moribund Acetes (up to 25 mm). Prey capture is effected by combined actions of the first three pairs of pereiopods and the third maxillipeds before transfer to the more dorsal second maxillipeds. The second maxillipeds are the principal appendages used in securing, manipulating, sorting and rejecting prey before insertion into the vicinity of the inner mouthparts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , May 1998 , pp. 497 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1998

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

Alexander, C.G. & Hindley, J.P.R., 1985. The mechanism of food ingestion by the banana prawn Penaeus merguiensis. Marine Behaviour and Physiology, 12, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, C.G., Hindley, J.P.R. & Jones, S.G., 1980. Structure and Function of the third Maxillipeds of the Banana Prawn Penaeus Merguiensis. Marine Biology, 58, 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannerjee, R., Nandi, N. & Raut, S.K., 1988. Food and feeding habits of the estuarine crocodile Crocodylus porosus Schneider in captivity. Acta Biologica Cracoviensa Series Zoologica, 30, 95–98.Google Scholar
Chong, V.C. & Sasekumar, A., 1981. Food and feeding habits of the white shrimp Penaeus merguiensis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 5, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, H.A., 1975. Vertical distribution and feeding of sergestid shrimps (Decapoda: Natantia) collected near Bermuda. Marine Biology, 31, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efford, I.E., 1971. The antennule cleaning setae in the sand crab Emerita analoga (Stimpson) (Decapoda, Anomura). Crustaceana, 10, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felgenhauer, B.E. & Abele, L.G., 1989. Ultrastructure and functional morphology of feeding and associated appendages in the tropical freshwater shrimp Atya innocus (Herbst) with notes on its ecology. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 3, 336–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flock, M.E. & Hopkins, T.L., 1992. Species composition, vertical distribution and food habits of the sergestid shrimp assemblage in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 12, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, M.J., Winsor, H. & Alexander, C.G., 1992. Feeding by penaeid prawns: the role of the anterior mouthparts. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology, 160, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, S.M. & Orr, A.P., 1960. Feeding and nutrition. In The physiology of Crustacea. Vol. 1. Metabolism and growth (ed. T.H., Waterman), pp. 215–251. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mauchline, J., 1967. Feeding appendages of the Euphausiacea. Journal of Zoology, 153, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauchline, J. & Fisher, L.R, 1969. The biology of euphausiids. Advances in Marine Biology, 7, 1–454.Google Scholar
Omori, M., 1971. Preliminary rearing experiments on the larvae of Sergestes lucens (Penaeidae, Natantia, Decapoda). Marine Biology, 9, 228–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omori, M., 1974. The biology of pelagic shrimps in the ocean. Advances in Marine Biology, 12, 233–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H.J., Boyd, K.R. & Boyd, C.M., 1988. Omnivorous feeding behaviour of the Antarctic krill Euphausia superba. Marine Biology, 26, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymont, J.E.G., 1983. Plankton and productivity in the oceans. Vol. II. Zooplankton. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Renfro, W.G., & Pearcy, W.G., 1966. Food and feeding apparatus of two pelagic shrimps. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 23, 1971–1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, F.R. & Lewis, C.A., 1989. Functional morphology of feeding in the Nectiopoda. In Crustacean issues. Vol. 6. Functional morphology of feeding and grooming in Crustacea (ed. B.E., Felgenhauer et al.), pp. 115–123. pp. 15–26. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Shelton, R.G.J. & Laverack, M.S., 1970. Receptor hair structure and function in the lobster Homarus gammarus. journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 4, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassenberg, T.J. & Hill, B.J., 1987. Natural diet of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and Penaeaus semisulcatus. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 38, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watling, L., 1989. A classification system for crustacean setae based on the homology concept. In Crustacean issues. Vol. 6. Functional morphology of feeding and grooming in Crustacea (ed. B.E, Felgenhauer et al.), pp. 15–26. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Xiao, Y. & Greenwood, J.G., 1993. The biology of Acetes (Crustacea, Sergestidae). Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review, 31, 259–444.Google Scholar
Zheng, Zhong C.C., 1989. Marine planktology. Beijing: China Ocean Press.Google Scholar