Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo

Filtrates of cultures of 10 of 12 common freshwater zooplankton species induced posterior spines in the rotifer Keratella testudo. Filtrates of cultures of Asplanchna spp. and those of crustacean zooplankton, including cladocerans and cyclopoid and calanoid copepods, generally produced the strongest...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecology
Main Authors: Stemberger, Richard S., Gilbert, John J.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 1987
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1939268
http://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2307%2F1939268
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2307%2F1939268
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2307/1939268
id crwiley:10.2307/1939268
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.2307/1939268 2024-09-09T20:14:20+00:00 Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo Stemberger, Richard S. Gilbert, John J. 1987 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1939268 http://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2307%2F1939268 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2307%2F1939268 https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2307/1939268 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Ecology volume 68, issue 2, page 370-378 ISSN 0012-9658 1939-9170 journal-article 1987 crwiley https://doi.org/10.2307/1939268 2024-08-06T04:18:16Z Filtrates of cultures of 10 of 12 common freshwater zooplankton species induced posterior spines in the rotifer Keratella testudo. Filtrates of cultures of Asplanchna spp. and those of crustacean zooplankton, including cladocerans and cyclopoid and calanoid copepods, generally produced the strongest induction responses. The filtrates of Daphnia pulex culturers, at densities as low as 0.4 individuals/L, promoted significant posterior spine development. This is the first known case of a competitor—controlled developmental polymorphism in zooplankton. Filtrates of cultures of the herbivorous rotifer Synchaeta pectinata and the fourth instar larvae of the dipteran Chaoborus punctipennis were ineffective as spine—promoting agents. In some, but not all, interactions with inducing species, the posterior—spined Keratella phenotype and higher survivorships than the unspined one. Spined individuals were significantly more protected than unspined ones against injury by mechanical interference by Daphnia. Direct observations showed that the spined phenotype was more rapidly rejected after entering the branchial chambers of Daphnia. This decreased the retention time in the branchial chambers and, consequently, reduced the likelihood of injury by the filtering limbs and mouthparts of Daphnia. The ability of this rotifer to respond to many zooplankton species seems advantageous, because the spined phenotype is less vulnerable to predation and interference competition from a variety of larger, co—occurring zooplankton than is the unspined phenotype. Article in Journal/Newspaper Copepods Rotifer Wiley Online Library Ecology 68 2 370 378
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description Filtrates of cultures of 10 of 12 common freshwater zooplankton species induced posterior spines in the rotifer Keratella testudo. Filtrates of cultures of Asplanchna spp. and those of crustacean zooplankton, including cladocerans and cyclopoid and calanoid copepods, generally produced the strongest induction responses. The filtrates of Daphnia pulex culturers, at densities as low as 0.4 individuals/L, promoted significant posterior spine development. This is the first known case of a competitor—controlled developmental polymorphism in zooplankton. Filtrates of cultures of the herbivorous rotifer Synchaeta pectinata and the fourth instar larvae of the dipteran Chaoborus punctipennis were ineffective as spine—promoting agents. In some, but not all, interactions with inducing species, the posterior—spined Keratella phenotype and higher survivorships than the unspined one. Spined individuals were significantly more protected than unspined ones against injury by mechanical interference by Daphnia. Direct observations showed that the spined phenotype was more rapidly rejected after entering the branchial chambers of Daphnia. This decreased the retention time in the branchial chambers and, consequently, reduced the likelihood of injury by the filtering limbs and mouthparts of Daphnia. The ability of this rotifer to respond to many zooplankton species seems advantageous, because the spined phenotype is less vulnerable to predation and interference competition from a variety of larger, co—occurring zooplankton than is the unspined phenotype.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Stemberger, Richard S.
Gilbert, John J.
spellingShingle Stemberger, Richard S.
Gilbert, John J.
Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo
author_facet Stemberger, Richard S.
Gilbert, John J.
author_sort Stemberger, Richard S.
title Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo
title_short Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo
title_full Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo
title_fullStr Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo
title_full_unstemmed Multiple‐Species Induction of Morphological Defenses in the Rotifer Keratella Testudo
title_sort multiple‐species induction of morphological defenses in the rotifer keratella testudo
publisher Wiley
publishDate 1987
url http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1939268
http://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2307%2F1939268
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2307%2F1939268
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2307/1939268
genre Copepods
Rotifer
genre_facet Copepods
Rotifer
op_source Ecology
volume 68, issue 2, page 370-378
ISSN 0012-9658 1939-9170
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.2307/1939268
container_title Ecology
container_volume 68
container_issue 2
container_start_page 370
op_container_end_page 378
_version_ 1809816021263974400