| |||||||
Habitats, behaviour, & ecology | |||||||
|
|||||||
Much has been written on habitats, behaviour, and ecology of west-coast mud- and ghost-shrimps, but much less on “true” or caridean shrimps. Considered here are ghost shrimps, while MUD SHRIMPS and "TRUE" SHRIMPS are dealt with in another section. |
|||||||
Research study 1 |
|||||||
Resin casts of burrow structure show several bulbs or chambers used for turning and for storing organic debris such as small pieces of eelgrass Zostera for food (photo on Right).
Burrows in high-density beds show little inter-communication (see drawings lower Left).
The apparent cavity at the top of the left cluster is |
|||||||
Research study 2 |
|||||||
In the Fraser River estuary in British Columbia, densities of Neotrypaea californiensis burrow-openings may reach 350-450 . m-2. The burrows extend 20-50cm into the sediment and then branch horizontally for distances of up to 1m. Each system usually has 2 exits, and contains numerous bulbous turn-arounds and blind alleys throughout. There is no distinct lining to the burrow walls and they are thought to be temporary feeding burrows rather than permanent dwelling burrows. |
|||||||
Research study 3 |
|||||||
NOTE the data are based on counts of burrow openings, and a conversion factor of 1.5 burrow holes per shrimp for Upogebia and 1.2 burrow holes per shrimp for Neotrypaea |
|||||||
Research study 4 |
|||||||
Reports in the literature differ as to whether mud-shrimp and ghost-shrimp burrows are inhabited by a single individual or a male and female mating pair. Perhaps the 2 sexes only join up during reproductive time, or geographic differences may explain the differences. | |||||||
Research study 5 |
|||||||
NOTE lit. “low oxygen”; anoxic is “without oxygen”
The degree of "humped-ness" of ghost-shrimp burrows relates to whether the digging is |
|||||||
Research study 6 |
|||||||
In a study of space competition in sand-bottom habitats in Mugu Lagoon, California, 6 invertebrate species, including the ghost shrimp Neotrypaea californiensis, are found to account for almost 90% of the macrofaunal suspension-feeders present. The 6 species (4 bivalves, one sand dollar, and one ghost shrimp) are stratified such that their vertical distributions overlap only slightly (see figure on Right).
NOTE1 the small photo in the schematic on the Right is actually of the closely related N. obscurata NOTE2 the ghost-shrimp burrows extend to 50cm depth and generally have 2 or more openings. By living embedded in the wall of a shrimp’s burrow, Cryptomya effectively increases its depth distribution much more than its short siphons would otherwise allow NOTE3 all densities are based on areas of 0.06 m2 |
|||||||
Research study 7 |
|||||||
Another way that ghost shrimps might exclude a bivalve species is by clogging their filtering ctenidia with sediments that they stir up when burrowing and deposit-feeding. Thus, one trophic group, the deposit-feeding shrimps, could inhibit the presence of another trophic group, the suspension-feeding bivalves, in a process known as “trophic-group exclusion”. This concept is tested more generally in Coos Bay, Oregon by comparing abundances of 9 macrofaunal species of deposit-feeding invertebrates over a 2yr period in 3 adjoining areas: 1) within a dense intertidal bed of ghost shrimps Neotrypaea californiensis, 2) within a transitional zone characterised by spotty shrimp occurrence, and 3) outside the bed. The 9 deposit-feeding species, representing over 95% of the non-shrimp macrofaunal individuals present, include 3 species of tube-dwelling spionid polychaetes, 3 species of tube-dwelling crustaceans (2 amphipods and one tenaid), and 3 motile species (cumacean, oligochaete, amphipod). The results of seasonal assessments of abundance over a 2-yr period show that 7 of the 9 deposit-feeding species have highest densities when numbers of ghost shrimps are low or intermediate, thus providing evidence of trophic-group exclusion. Results for all species cannot be included, here, but one species, the spionid polychaete Streblospio benedicti, exemplifies the general effects of the shrimips (graph on Right). As expected, because they can run away, the most variable results are shown by the 3 motile species. Otherwise, 5 of the 6 sedentary species solidly support the trophic-group hypothesis. NOTE also known as “trophic-group amensalism” NOTE densities range from 70-130 individuals . m-2 |
|||||||
Research study 8 |
|||||||
Another type of exclusion mediated by burrowing activities of ghost shrimps Neotrypaea californiensis is that of seagrasses Zostera spp. Researchers from Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife find that in areas of Willapa Bay, Washington treated with the pesticide carbaryl to remove shrimp populations, the seagrass Z. japonica quickly colonises (see photograph). Comparison with untreated areas at the same intertidal level reveals that the exclusion occurs not so much at the time of sprouting of Zostera spores in early spring, but later in the season as the shrimps become more active. Zostera japonica is an introduced species that lives higher in the intertidal region where ghost shrimps are more abundant. The native seagrass Z. marina tends to favour lower-intertidal habitats, but is also responsive, to a lesser extent, to carbaryl spraying.
|
|||||||
Research study 9 |
|||||||
One positive feature of ghost-shrimp burrowing is enhancement of nitrogen fixation, a process identified by researchers at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles for Neotrypaea californiensis at Catalina Island. Nitrification is as important for the health of the soil in a mudflat as it is for soil in a wheatfield. Its deficiency significantly limits productivity. Ghost-shrimps aid in the process by introducing oxygen deep into their burrows by ventilatory activity. The oxygen reacts with ammonium ions produced from the breakdown of atmospheric nitrogen gas (N2) to form nitrate ions (NO3-), which is a form of “bioavailable” nitrogen (see schematic). The paper is rich with sediment chemistry, far too detailed to attempt to include here.
NOTE this is facilitated by nitrogenase enzymes that are present in sulphate-reducing bacteria, common in marine sediments. Nitrogenase catalyses the reduction of molecular nitrogen (N ) to ammonia |
|||||||
Research study 10 |
|||||||
To what extent do ghost shrimps Neotrypaea californiensis oxygenate their burrows and surrounding sediments by their pumping activities? This is investigated for shrimps in Yaquina Bay, Oregon using techniques of porewater pressure sensing, time-lapse photography, and oxygen sensing, all experiments being done in laboratory tanks. Results show that shrimps in a head-up orientation are actively pumping about 40% of the time, leading to pressurisation of the burrow, transport of oxygen into the surrounding sediment, and a net flow of anoxic water through the sediment-water interface of the sea bottom . During periods of head-down pumping (1-2 times per hour), however, these flows are reversed, and anoxic sediment water is drawn into the burrow (see schematic below). Such oxic/anoxic oscillations can be detected up to 4cm away from the burrow in more sandy sediments, but only to a few mm in mud sediments. The study contributes greatly to our understanding of the oscillatory bioirrigating effects of burrow-inhabiting macrofauna. NOTE the technique used is planar-optode imaging, referenced in the paper |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Research study 11 |
|||||||
A study by researchers from San Diego State University and University of California, Davis suggest that the interaction between ghost shrimps Neotrypaea californiensis and eelgrass Zostera may not be so one-sided as the account in Research Study 8 above suggests, especially in lower intertidal areas where Z. marina is the potential space-competitor. Through a series of 30wk-long translocation experiments in Tomales Bay the authors find that addition of eelgrass to ghost shrimp-dominated areas causes rapid decline in shrimp densities, and addition of ghost shrimps to eelgrass-dominated areas results in poor survival or displacement of the shrimps. In the first scenario the eelgrass may do so well that it expands vigorously into surrounding ghost-shrimp areas, leading to further displacement. Additionally, when structural mimics of eelgrass rhizomes and roots are implanted into ghost-shrimp habitats, the shrimps quickly move away, suggesting that the eelgrass may physically constrain the burrowing abilities or needs (e.g., the requirement for turn-around chambers in the burrow) of the shrimps. The researchers conclude that eelgrass habitat is generally resistant to modification by ghost shrimps. If the eelgrass is actually the competitive dominant in the system, how then do the species coexist in some areas? The authors note that when an eelgrass patch is damaged at its edges adult shrimps are able to quickly move into the area. Since such disturbances are common in shallow estuarine habitats, the authors suggest that they may be the primary faciltators of coexistence of the 2 species. Photograph of eelgrass and ghost-shrimp burrows (below Left) courtesy K.A. Hovel, California. NOTE other observations are made at Mission Bay near San Diego NOTE rhizome shapes are first carved into plywood sheets in 2 simulated densities (see photograph below), then cast in polyurethane adhesive |
|||||||
|
|||||||
RETURN TO TOP |