Kelp consumption curtailed by señorita

Miranda Haggerty was diving through a kelp forest, and noticed that many kelp bore a large number of tiny limpets that were housed in small scars that they (or a fellow-limpet) had excavated on the kelp’s surface. This got her thinking about how these scars might affect the kelp, and equally relevant, whether there were any limpet predators that might lend the kelp a hand (or a mouth) by removing limpets.

Jerry Kirkhart

A limpet grazes on a kelp frond. Credit: Jerry Kirkhart

Feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii) is a foundation species within the subtidal marine system off the California coast, providing food and habitat for many species that live on or among its fronds. The tiny seaweed limpet, Lottia insessa, specializes on feather boa kelp, grazing on its fronds and living within the scars. Many invertebrates and fish live within the kelp forest, but the most abundant fish is the señorita, Oxyjulis californica. Haggerty wondered whether the señorita might benefit the kelp (directly) by removing limpets, or (indirectly) by scaring limpets away – what ecologists call a trait-mediated indirect interaction.

bigsenorita.jpg

The señorita – a fearsome predator of limpets.  Credit: Miranda Haggerty

The first order of business was to determine whether the limpets were actually harming the kelp.  Haggerty and her colleagues approached this in two ways.  First they chose 94 kelp plants from kelp forests off the California coast.  From each individual they chose one grazed and one ungrazed frond (each 3 m long). Grazed fronds averaged 5-10 scars and at least 2 limpets per meter of length.  Every three weeks they visited their kelp to score for broken fronds. In 29 of 30 cases, the grazed frond broke before the ungrazed frond (in the remaining cases the entire plant was missing, or both fronds broke and the researchers could not tell which had broken first).

HaggertyFigS1

Photo of feather boa kelp showing grazing scars, including one housing a limpet (left).  Diagram of feather boa kelp showing multiple fronds (right).

But the researchers were concerned that perhaps limpets chose to graze on weaker fronds, so the breakage was not caused by grazing scars, but by limpet choice.  To account for this concern, Haggerty and her colleagues chose 43 ungrazed kelp plants, placed three  limpets on one frond, and chose a second, equal-sized frond as an unmanipulated control. Once again, they visited their plants every three weeks, and discovered that grazed fronds broke first in all 20 pairs that the sequence of frond breakage could be determined.  Clearly, limpet grazing is bad news for feather boa kelp.

How does the señorita fit into this system? The researchers designed a laboratory experiment to address this question.  They used 10 large tanks (1700 L), and set up five different experimental treatments to compare direct effects of predation, and indirect effects of predator presence, on limpet grazing, and ultimately on kelp survival. To isolate the direct effects of predation from the indirect effects of predator cues on limpets, Haggerty and her colleagues placed four kelp fronds into fish exclosure cages, which were housed in the large tanks, and placed three limpets onto some of these fronds.  To mimic actual predation (CE treatment in Table below), they removed limpets by hand at a constant rate typical of señorita predation. For the NCE treatment (testing indirect effects of predator presence) they introduced señorita into the large tank so the limpets experienced the predator cues, but were not eaten. The different treatments are summarized in the table below. These experiments ran for one week and each treatment was replicated 10 times.

HaggertyTableFinalEach day the researchers monitored the number of limpets and grazing scars.  After one week, Haggerty and her colleagues counted the number of grazing scars, and measured the breaking strength of each frond by clamping the frond’s end to a table and pulling on the opposite end with a spring scale until it broke. They then recorded the amount of force needed to break the frond.

brokenkelp.jpg

Clamped kelp frond whose breaking strength has been tested.  Notice that the frond broke at a grazing scar (right). Credit Miranda Haggerty.

Not surprisingly, the predator control (PC) kelp (limpets present without señorita) had the most scars and lost the greatest amount of tissue.  Kelp receiving the consumptive predator effect treatment (CE) had fewer scars and lost less tissue than PC.  But interestingly, kelp receiving NCE and TPE treatments had significantly fewer scars than the CE kelp, and were statistically indistinguishable from each other.  Thus, in the laboratory, the presence of señorita cues (NCE treatment) was more important than actual predation (CE treatment) in reducing kelp scarring and tissue consumption (top and middle graph below).  As a result, the NCE treated kelp were stronger (had greater breaking strength) than were the CE treated kelp (bottom graph below).

HaggertyFig2

Mean (+ standard error) number of grazing scars (top), mass of tissue consumed (middle) and breaking strength (bottom) of kelp in response to five experimental treatments. CE = consumptive effect, NCE = non-consumptive effect, TPE = total predator effect, PC = predator control, LC = limpet control. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences between the means when comparing treatments.

Haggerty and her colleagues replicated this experiment, with a few experimental design modifications, in a field setting.  As with the laboratory experiment we’ve just discussed, the researchers found a very strong non-consumptive effect. The researchers suspect that these limpets respond to chemical cues emitted by their señorita predators. They could not respond to many types of sensory cues because they lack auditory organs, and the experimental design prevented fish from transmitting any shadows (visual cues) or vibrational cues. In addition previous studies have shown that some limpet species use chemoreception for predator avoidance, foraging and homing. However, the nature of this chemical cue is yet to be discovered for this predator-prey system.

senoritaschool.jpg

Schooling señorita. Credit: Miranda Haggerty

Trophic cascades occur when the effects of one species on another species cascade down through the ecosystem. In this case, señorita predators directly and indirectly reduce limpet density, which increases the survival of kelp – a foundation species for this ecosystem. The researchers point out that this trophic cascade only occurs in the southern feather boa kelp range, because señorita are absent further north.  We don’t know if limpets have other predators in the northern range, but we do know that the kelp are structurally more robust further north, so they (and the ecosystem) may be relatively immune to limpet-induced destruction.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Haggerty, M. B., Anderson, T. W. and Long, J. D. (2018), Fish predators reduce kelp frond loss via a trait‐mediated trophic cascade. Ecology, 99: 1574-1583. doi:10.1002/ecy.2380. Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2018 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.

Finding fish fluorescently

Very early in my teaching career at Carleton College in Minnesota, I was thrust into the position of teaching students about things that I knew very little about.  I quickly learned that things went well, so long as I confessed my ignorance – the very bright students at that college were always happy to help me with my education. My ignorance of things biological stemmed from my undergraduate training in psychology, which had only a smattering of biology and chemistry in the coursework.  So when we extracted chlorophyll from a plant, shone a bright high-energy (probably UV) light on it, and it glowed a beautiful red, my reaction was “wooo…, that’s cool.”  My colleague, who was much more broadly trained, explained that this process, biofluorescence, occurred because the chlorophyll’s electrons were excited by the high energy light, and that they emitted the red light when they returned to a lower-energy state.

Marteenfig1Solenostomus cyanopterus

Robust ghost pipefish, Solenostomus cyanopterus, is cryptic in ambient daylight (left), but biofluoresces red when lit at night by a high-intensity LED torch (right).

 

Many threatened or endangered marine species are cryptic, providing challenges to conservation biologists who must assess the abundance of these species.  Usually, marine biologists use underwater visual censuses to measure abundance and distribution of marine species, but small or cryptic species are often missed or undercounted.  Maarten de Brauwer reasoned that conservation biologists could use biofluorescence as a tool to find small or cryptic marine organisms.  He knew from a paper that recently came out in the literature, and from his own experience as a diver, that a number of cryptic species do fluoresce. But how large is that number?

marteenfig2

A diver searches for biofluorescent species. Credit: J. A. Hobbs

DeBrauer, working with five other researchers, surveyed reef fish at four locations in Indonesia, as well as two locations outside Indonesia (Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands).  Indonesia was a conservation priority as it contains the world’s greatest abundance of marine fish species. Using high-energy LED torches, the researchers surveyed 31 sites at the six locations, assessing each fish they detected for whether it was cryptic or non-cryptic, and whether it fluoresced. Of 95 cryptic species, 83 fluoresced.  In contrast, only 12 of 135 non-cryptic species fluoresced.

MarteenEcolFig1

Number of cryptic and non-cryptic species showing biofluorescence in the survey.

Why are cryptic species more likely to biofluoresce?  As it turns out, we don’t know the answer to this question.  De Brauwer suggests that some small species, like gobies and triplefins, may use flourescence, which is particularly well-defined around the head region, as a way of communicating without predator detection.  These species fluoresce in red, a very-short-range light, so predators won’t see them unless they are very close. Some species of scorpionfish that live in algae and seagrass also fluoresce red, which allows them to blend in well with the red fluorescence emitted by the algal and seagrass chlorophyll.

Having shown that cryptic species tend to bioflouresce, the next challenge was to see whether bioflourescence surveys worked better than standard underwater visual censuses. First, the researchers focused their efforts on two species of pygmy seahorses (Hippocanpus bargibanti and H. denise) that live on seafans, searching for two minutes, either with or without a flourescence torch.  They followed with a similar study on two species of reef fish, the largemouth triplefin (Ucla xenogrammus) and the highfin triplefin (Enneapterygius tutuilae); but this time surveying 20m x 2m transects, either with or without a fluorescence torch.

marteenfig3.jpg

A diver searches a seafan for pygmy seahorses. Credit: J. A. Hobbs.

Unfortunately, the pygmy seahorses are tiny (as you might suspect from their name) and probably rare, so only 32 H. bargibanti and 7 H. denise were detected. These seahorses fluoresce red primarily in their tail region and green from their eyes.

MarteenEcolFig3

Two cryptic pygmy seahorses “seen” under ambient light (left, circled in red) and in the underwater biofluorescence census (right).

The numbers of H. denise were too small to include in the analysis. But for the other three species, the bioflourescence surveys detected more individuals than did the underwater visual surveys.

MarteenEcolFig4

Mean number of individual H. bargibanti (left), U. xenogrammus (center) and E. tutuilae (right) detected with underwater visual surveys (UVC) vs. underwater biofluorescence surveys (UBC).

The researchers discovered that bioflourescence is very common in these cryptic and rare species, which means this technique can be used to assess abundance in species most likely to be overlooked using standard underwater visual surveys. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which (among other tasks) is responsible for assessing the extinction risk of species worldwide, has only been able to do so for less than 44% of fish belonging to three large cryptic families of reef fish.  Of 2000 species in these three families, 21% are listed as data-deficient because they have been so difficult to survey.  This novel approach should help inform conservation biologists about species that are in dire straits, so they can focus conservation efforts in a productive and useful direction.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Conservation Biology. The reference is Brauwer, M., Hobbs, J. A., Ambo‐Rappe, R., Jompa, J., Harvey, E. S. and McIlwain, J. L. (2018), Biofluorescence as a survey tool for cryptic marine species. Conservation Biology, 32: 706-715. doi:10.1111/cobi.13033. You should also check out Dr. De Brauwer’s blog at crittersresearch.com. Thanks to the Society for Conservation Biology for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2018 by the Society for Conservation Biology. All rights reserved.

Indirect effects of the lionfish invasion

I’m old enough to remember when ecological studies of invasive species were uncommon.  Early on, there was a debate within the ecological community whether they should be called “invasive” (which conveyed to some people an aggressive image akin to a military invasion) or more dispassionately “exotic” or “introduced.” Lionfish (Pterois volitans), however, fit this more aggressive moniker. Native to the south Pacific and Indian Oceans, lionfish were first sighted in south Florida in 1985, and became established along the east Atlantic coast and Caribbean Islands by the early 2000s. They are active and voracious predators, consuming over 50 different species of prey in their newly-adopted habitat. Many population ecologists study the direct consumptive effects of invasive species such as lionfish.  In some cases they find that an invasive species may deplete its prey population to very low levels, and even drive it to extinction.

Lionfish

A lionfish swims in a reef. Credit: Tye Kindinger

But things are not always that simple. Tye Kindinger realized that lionfish (or any predator that feeds on more than one species) could influence prey populations in several different ways.  For the present study, Kindinger considered two different prey species – the fairy basslet (Gramma loreto) and the blackcap basslet (Gramma melacara). Both species feed primarily on zooplankton, with larger individuals monopolizing prime feeding locations at the front of reef ledges, while smaller individuals are forced to feed at the back of ledges where plankton are less abundant, and predators are more common.  Thus there is intense competition both within and between these two species for food and habitat. Kindinger reasoned that if lionfish depleted one of these competing species more than the other, they could be indirectly benefiting the second species by releasing it from competition.

Basslets

Fairy basslet (top) and blackcap basslet (bottom). Credit Tye Kindinger.

For her PhD research, Kindinger set up an experiment in which she manipulated both lionfish abundance and the abundance of each basslet species.  She created high density and low density lionfish reefs by capturing most of the lionfish from one reef and transferring them to another (a total of three reefs of each density).  She manipulated basslet density on each reef by removing either fairy or blackcap basslets from an isolated reef ledge within a particular reef.  This experimental design allowed her to separate out the effects of predation by lionfish from the effects of competition between the two basslet species.  Most of her results pertained to juveniles, which were about 2 cm long and favored by the lionfish.

KindingerTable

Alex Davis

Alex Davis captures and removes basslets beneath a ledge. Credit Tye Kindinger.

Kindinger measured basslet abundance in grams of basslet biomass per m2 of ledge area.  When lionfish were abundant, juvenile fairy basslet abundance decreased over the eight weeks of the experiment (dashed line) but did not change when lionfish were rare (solid line).  In contrast, juvenile blackcap basslet populations remained steady over the course of the study, whether lionfish were abundant or rare. Kindinger concluded that lionfish were eating more fairy basslets.

KindingerFig12A

Abundance of juvenile fairy basslets (left) and blackcap basslets (right) as measured as change in overall biomass. Triangles represent high lionfish reefs and circles are low lionfish reefs.

Competition is intense between the two basslet species, and can affect feeding position and growth rate.  Kindinger’s manipulations of lionfish density and basslet density demonstrate that fairy basslet foraging and growth depend primarily on the abundance of their blackcap competitors. When competitor blackcap basslets are common (approach a biomass value of 1.0 on the x-axis on the two graphs below), fairy basslets tend to move towards the back of the ledge, and grow more slowly.  This occurs at both high and low lionfish densities.

KindingerFig1BC

Change in feeding position (top) and growth rate (bottom) of fairy basslets in relation to competitor (blackcap basslet) abundance (x-axis) and lionfish abundance (triangles = high, circles = low)

In contrast, blackcap basslets had an interactive response to fairy basslet and lionfish abundance. Let’s look first at low lionfish densities (circles in the graphs below).  You can see that blackcap basslets tend to move towards the back of the ledge (poor feeding position) at high competitor (fairy basslet) biomass, and also grow very slowly.  But when lionfish are common (triangles in the graphs below), blackcap basslets retain a favorable feeding position and grow quickly, even at high fairy basslet abundance.

KindingerFig2BC

Change in feeding position (top) and growth rate (bottom) of blackcap basslets in relation to competitor (fairy basslet) abundance (x-axis) and lionfish abundance (triangles = high, circles = low)

By preying primarily on fairy basslets, lionfish are changing the dynamics of competition between the two species. The diagram below nicely summarizes the process.  Larger fish of both species forage near the front of the ledge, while smaller fish forage further back.  But there is an even distribution of both species.  Focusing on juveniles, they are relatively evenly distributed in the rear portion of the ledge (Figure B).  When fairy basslets are removed experimentally, the juvenile blackcap basslets move to the front of the rear portion of the ledge, as they are released from competition with fairy basslets (Figure D).  Finally, when lionfish are abundant, fairy basslets are eaten more frequently, and juvenile blackcaps benefit from the lack of competition (Figure F)

KindingerFig3

Kindinger was very surprised with the results of this study because she knew the lionfish were generalist predators that eat both basslet species, so she expected lionfish to have similar effects on both prey species.  But they didn’t, and she does not know why.  Do lionfish prefer to eat fairy basslets due to increased conspicuousness or higher activity levels, or are blackcap basslets better at escaping lionfish predators? Whatever the mechanism, this study highlights that indirect effects of predation by invasive species can influence prey populations in unexpected ways.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Kindinger, T. L. (2018). Invasive predator tips the balance of symmetrical competition between native coral‐reef fishes. Ecology99(4), 792-800. Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2018 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.

Parrotfish put on their big boy pants

While it would be awesome if parrotfish were named for their conversational abilities, it turns out that they earn their moniker for their specialized teeth that are fused together for scraping algae from coral, thus resembling a parrot’s beak. Despite lacking verbal skills these fish are incredible. Approximately 100 species occupy reefs, rocky coastlines and eelgrass meadows in tropical and subtropical waters. Many species are sequential hermaphrodites, beginning life as females and then changing into males after reaching a certain size. While female reproductive success is limited by the number of eggs she can produce, male reproductive success can be much higher if he can fertilize the eggs of many females.  So if a parrotfish transitions into a large male, and can control access to numerous females, he will enjoy greater reproductive success than if he had remained a female.

C. spilurusBrettTaylor

Two Chlorurus spilurus parrotfish show off their teeth and colors.  The large colorful fish on the right is a male, while the smaller darker fish to his left is a female. Credit: Brett Taylor.

Phenotypic plasticity describes the ability of an individual with a particular genetic makeup to vary in a variety of traits (such as what it looks like, or how it behaves) in response to different environmental conditions. About 15 years ago, Nick Gust’s PhD research on tropical reef fish revealed that tremendous variation in parrotfish traits existed over a distance of a few kilometers. But what causes this variation? When funding became available, Brett Taylor jumped at the opportunity to pinpoint the causes, focusing on the diverse parrotfish community in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).

GBRChlorurus_microrhinos_AD_RR6_2

Eastern slope of the Great Barrier Reef hosts a diversity of fish and coral species. Credit: Brett Taylor.

Taylor and his colleagues surveyed 82 sites within 31 reefs across 6 degrees of latitude in the northern GBR. To standardize data collection, divers, armed with a multitude of cameras and GPS devices, swam at a standardized rate (about 20 meters/minute) for 40 minutes per survey, recording each parrotfish along a 5 m wide swath. They collected data about the habitat and the environment, about the physical traits of each individual parrotfish (such as size and sex), and about the type and abundance of parrotfish and their predators present at each site.

DiverKendraTaylot

Researcher takes notes while conducting a dive.  Credit Kendra Taylor.

The researchers wanted to identify what factors influenced growth rate, maximum body size, and the size at sex change, and how these factors related to the parrotfish mating system. Four species of parrotfish were sufficiently abundant across the GBR to allow researchers to do this type of analysis.

TaylorFig1

Four parrotfish species  abundant along exposed outer shelf (yellow sites) and protected inner shelf (blue) regions of the Great Barrier Reef. Males are larger and more colorful.

The GBR varies structurally across a relatively small spatial scale of 40 – 100 km, with outer shelf regions (eastern) exposed to wave action, and inner shelf regions (western) relatively protected. All four species tended to change sex at a larger size in protected sites than they did at exposed sites. However, the differences are only compelling for two of the species: C. spilurus and S. frenatus. There were fewer data points for the other two species, so it is possible (but unknown) that they too would show a more pronounced trend if more data were available.

TaylorFig1bottom

Proportion terminal phase (sex-changed males) in relation to body size (measured to the fork of the tail) in exposed (yellow) and sheltered (blue) sites.

Not surprisingly, parrotfish grew larger in protected areas. Presumably, less wave action provided a more benign environment for rapid growth, both of parrotfish and their preferred food items (algae growing on rocks and coral).

TaylorFig2I

Standardized maximum size (Lmax) attained by parrotfish in sheltered vs. exposed sites.

The researchers were somewhat surprised that most other factors, such as latitude, coral cover, sea surface temperature, and predator abundance, had very little effect on the size at sex change. Rather, the size at sex change appears to be strongly influenced by the local size distribution. In protected habitats, parrotfish grow large and change sex at a large size, while in exposed habitats, parrotfish are smaller, and change sex at a smaller size.

But sex is never simple. Nick Gust’s PhD research showed that C. spilurus had different patterns of sexual allocation in protected vs. exposed areas. In protected areas, the mating system is haremic, with a large male defending a territory and servicing a harem of females. In exposed areas, the mating system is mixed; there still are large territorial males with their harems, but they compete with many more small males, and group spawning is much more prevalent. Theoretically, the presence of these small males may make it less worthwhile for a female to transition into a male, and may influence the optimal size for transitioning in exposed reefs. Given that we still don’t know the mating system details of the other parrotfish in this study, it will be fascinating to see if they too show similar patterns of haremic vs. mixed mating systems in relation to habitat structure.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Taylor, B. M., Brandl, S. J., Kapur, M., Robbins, W. D., Johnson, G., Huveneers, C., Renaud, P. and Choat, J. H. (2018), Bottom-up processes mediated by social systems drive demographic traits of coral-reef fishes. Ecology 99(3): 642-651. doi:10.1002/ecy.2127. Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2018 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.

River restoration responses

The Lippe River in Germany has been subjected to many decades of channelization, deepening, floodplain drainage, straightening and consequent shortening, with one result being that the modern Lippe is 20% shorter than it was two centuries ago. Beginning in 1996, conservation managers began reversing this trend by widening the river, raising the level of the river bed, constructing small islands within the river and terminating floodplain drainage operations over a stretch of 3.3 km. As a result of these activities, a small portion of the river looks much like it did 200 years ago.

rivrestfig1

A section of the Lippe River before (left) and after (right) restoration.

Over a 21-year period, researchers from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Biologischer Umweltschutz have conducted systematic surveys of fish communities at the restored and unrestored sections of the river. Researchers sampled the fish community with electrofishing – inputting a direct electrical current into the river – which causes the fish to swim towards the boat where they are easily collected with nets, identified by species, and returned unharmed into the river. A data set over this length of time in association with a restoration project is very unusual; oftentimes (in part due to funding issues) only one survey is conducted to assess the fish community response to river restoration.

About eight years ago, while a postdoctoral researcher at Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt, Germany, Stephan Stoll was asked to analyze some river restoration outcomes, and, as he describes, “became hooked to the topic.” To evaluate the response of the Lippe River fish community to restoration, a group of researchers headed by Stephanie Höckendorff, a Master’s student with Stoll, first asked a very simple question – how did fish abundance and species richness (the number of fish species) compare in the restored and unrestored regions of the river.

The graph below shows several striking trends. Abundance peaked about 2-3 years after restoration, declined sharply the next year, and recovered in subsequent years to about three times the abundance found in unrestored sections. Importantly, abundance varied extensively year-to-year. For example, if you had done only one survey in 2000, you would have erroneously concluded that restoration had no effect, which is why the researchers emphasize the importance of collecting data over a long stretch of time.

rivrest2a

Abundance of fish in restored (Rest-gray curve) and unrestored (Cont-black curve) sections of the Lippe River.  The gray vertical bar indicates the start of the restoration project in 1997.

Species richness increased sharply, but did not reach its peak until nine years after restoration. Again, there was extensive year-to-year variation in species richness.

rivrest2b

Fish species richness in restored (Rest-gray curve) and unrestored (Cont-black curve) sections of the Lippe River.  The gray vertical bar indicates the start of the restoration project in 1997.

Höckendorff and her colleagues were intrigued by this delay in species richness, and turned their attention to understanding what types of species benefited most from the restoration. Their analyses indicated that colonizing species, such as common minnows and three-spined sticklebacks, tended to have short life spans, early female maturity, several spawning events per year and a fusiform body shape – a body that is roughly cylindrical and tapers at both ends. Interestingly, some of the most successful colonizers took quite a long time to get well-established within the community.

Minnow

Common minnows, Phoxinus phoxinus. Credit: Carlo Morelli (Etrusko25)

Stickleback

The three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Credit: Ron Offermans

The restored habitat was highly dynamic, experiencing periodic flooding and the formation of temporary shallow bays and shifting sandbanks. These types of habitats tend to select for minnows, sticklebacks and other opportunistic species that are attracted to periodic disturbances. These opportunistic species were quick to move in, and continued to increase in abundance over time. Importantly, several rare and endangered species also colonized the restored habitat. However, large, deep-bodied, slow maturing and long-lived species did not benefit (at least over the 17 years of the survey), as these types of species are generally favored in less dynamic habitats, which are more stable and uniform.

Overall, these findings demonstrate the benefits of river restoration to the fish communities they harbor. But some species are more likely to benefit than others, and the time-scale over which recolonization occurs is highly variable. Surveys must be repeated over a long time-scale to tell conservation managers whether their restoration efforts are successful, and how they might change their future river restoration efforts.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Conservation Biology. The reference is Höckendorff, S., Tonkin, J. D., Haase, P., Bunzel-Drüke, M., Zimball, O., Scharf, M. and Stoll, S. (2017), Characterizing fish responses to a river restoration over 21 years based on species’ traits. Conservation Biology, 31: 1098–1108. doi:10.1111/cobi.12908. Thanks to the Society for Conservation Biology for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2017 by the Society for Conservation Biology. All rights reserved.

Sushi in Disguise

As an ecology researcher, I’ve always been attracted to systems where you might be able or inclined to eat your organism after you completed your experiment or observations. Alas, I spent my research career studying spiders, dragonflies and zebrafish, all of which are high on nutrients but low on succulence. Thus I read with considerable gastronomic anticipation an article by Demian Willette and his colleagues that studied nine different species of fish served up at local sushi restaurants in Los Angeles, California.

Sushi

Mackerel, salmon and tuna (front to back) served at a Los Angeles sushi restaurant. Credit Demian Willette.

One of the co-authors, Sara Simmonds, had a great idea when she was a teaching assistant for the Introduction to Marine Science course at UCLA in 2012. Simmonds suggested that students in the class could investigate whether seafood served at sushi restaurants were always what they claimed to be, or might they sometimes travel under false identities. For example, is red snapper (which does not occur in California waters) really red snapper, or might merchants substitute one of 13 rockfish species in its stead? This project allowed students to investigate a real world marine-related topic, while also getting some experience using and applying molecular genetics tools.

Over the course of the four-year study, students ordered sushi from 26 different restaurants, confirmed the species identification with the wait-staff, and collected tissue samples from each order. They then subjected the samples to DNA barcoding, which amplifies and sequences an approximately 650 base pair segment of the mitochondrial COI gene. Once they determined the DNA sequence, students then compared it with known sequences using the Basic Local Assignment Search Tool database (National Center for Biotechnology Information).

Each year, between 40 and 52% of the fish were mislabeled. Though previous studies by other researchers had identified mislabeling, Willette and his colleagues were surprised that all 26 restaurants had at least one case of mislabeling, and that the mislabeling rate was so consistent from one year to the next.

SushiFig1

Percentage of sushi mislabelled (left y-axis – bar symbol) and number of restaurants sampled (right y-axis – diamond symbol) by year.  Number in bar is sample size for that year.

Overall substitution rates varied dramatically from one species to another. All fish species, except bluefin tuna, were mislabeled at least once, and two species – red snapper and halibut – were always mislabeled. Red snapper was often replaced with red seabream, while halibut was usually replaced with flounder.

SushiFig2

Percentage mislabeled (+ standard error) for each species in the study. Numbers above bars are number mislabeled (left) and total sample (right).  For example 6 out of 47 salmon were mislabeled.

Why should we care if we’re served the wrong species of fish, as long as it tastes good? As it turns out, there are several reasons. About 33% of halibut are substituted with olive flounder, which can harbor the parasite Kudoa septempunctata, which is known to cause severe food poisoning. In addition, some of the other halibut substitutes are actually overfished flounder species, so substituting these for halibut is depleting already at-risk fisheries. Similar problems, in which an at-risk species substitutes for the mislabeled species, were common in tuna and yellowtail as well.

The researchers recommend that seafood mislabeling must be attacked at all stages of the seafood supply chain. All seafood should be labeled to species, place of origin, and the type of fishing practice used. Inspectors must be trained to identify seafood – perhaps using portable, hand-held DNA sequencers. Retailers should be told when they sell mislabeled species, so they can insist that their suppliers deliver the correct goods. Finally social media can be used to inform the public of consistent mislabeling, so consumers can pressure retailers to make sure that a red snapper is what it claims to be.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Conservation Biology. The reference is Willette, D. A., Simmonds, S. E., Cheng, S. H., Esteves, S., Kane, T. L., Nuetzel, H., Pilaud, N., Rachmawati, R. and Barber, P. H. (2017), Using DNA barcoding to track seafood mislabeling in Los Angeles restaurants. Conservation Biology, 31: 1076–1085. doi:10.1111/cobi.12888. Thanks to the Society for Conservation Biology for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2017 by the Society for Conservation Biology. All rights reserved.

Subsidized Shorelines: where pelagic meets benthic

Chris Harrod met his wife, Christina Dorador, while both were working at the Max Planck Institute for Limnology in Germany.   Subsequently Dorador began a postdoctoral position in her native Chile, and Harrod went for a visit over Christmas, 2007. He was impressed by the beautiful rocky inshore habitat that was dominated by kelp forests and many species of invertebrates and fish.

Macroalgal forest

Rocky shoreline near Tocopilla, Chile. Credit: Chris Harrod.

As a fisheries biologist, Harrod soon immersed himself in the inshore kelp forest-dominated ocean, and was stunned by the sheer volume of stuff floating around. The water was green rather than blue, and filled with decaying phytoplankton and zooplankton. Where did all this stuff come from? Harrod knew that off the Peruvian and north Chilean coasts, prevailing winds move surface waters away from the shoreline, inducing upwelling of deeper nutrient-rich waters to the surface. This nutrient flux is the basis of a huge anchoveta fishery, which feeds humans, fish, marine invertebrates and marine mammals. He wondered whether the mass of floating debris in the inshore habitat might originate from offshore waters brought in from upwelling, and if the debris actually fueled some of the larger fish and molluscs that dominate inshore kelp forests. The prevailing opinion was that the energy for these fish and molluscs originated from the inshore photosynthetic kelp, rather than from photosynthetic phytoplankton further offshore that get their nutrients from upwelling.

Bilagay

Two bilagay, Cheilodactylus variegatus, swim among green algae in a debris-laden inshore habitat off the coast of Chile. Credit: Chris Harrod.

While you can ask a fish or mollusc what they had for dinner, it is very difficult to get them to respond. Fortunately, ecologists can use stable isotope ratios – the ratio of a rare (and nonradioactive) isotope of an element to its standard common isotope – to help get the answers they need. Harrod collaborated with several researchers in this study, including his Master’s student, Felipe Docmac, who collected and analyzed much of the data and was the first author of the paper. Docmac and his colleagues used the ratio of heavy and light isotopes of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) to calculate d13C (the ratio of 13C to 12C) and d15N (the ratio of 15N to 14N) to infer where inshore fish were getting their energy.

The basic question was whether the nutrients supporting the food web were primarily from pelagic or benthic sources. In this case, the pelagic source refers to phytoplankton from the offshore areas of upwelling, while the benthic source refers to kelp and green algae that grow on the bottom (benthos) of the inshore habitat. Docmac and his colleagues collected invertebrates and large fish from five different sites along the north Chilean Coast, and calculated 13C and 15N values from tissue samples. Invertebrates were divided into two groups: filter-feeders were represented by mussels, which fed on suspended materials (such as the prolific floating debris), while benthic grazers were gastropods (snails) that fed on benthic kelp and green algae.

Fig1A

Five collection sites along the northern coast of Chile.

I’m going to skip the precise details of how stable isotope analysis actually works; I’ll provide enough information so you can understand the findings. There are two important facts to keep in mind. First an animal’s stable isotope ratio is influenced by the stable isotope ratio of its food source. So an animal feeding on prey with high d13C and d15N will itself have higher stable isotope ratios than will an animal feeding on prey with lower d13C and d15N. Second, the stable isotope ratio increases as we go up the food chain in a predictable manner, because the lighter isotopes of carbon and nitrogen tend to be more readily excreted than are the heavier isotopes.

We are now ready to look at the data. First, notice that while there is some variation from location to location, the (Pelagic) mussels tend to have consistently lower d13C values than do the (Benthic) gastropods (X-axis of graph), but fairly equivalent d15N values (Y-axis of graph). The benthivorous fish have, as we would expect from animals higher up the food chain, much higher d15N values than either of the invertebrates. But here is the key. The benthivorous fish have a much lower d13C value than do the benthic invertebrates (gastropods). If gastropods (and presumably other grazers) were in the benthivorous fish food chain, then we would expect the fish to have a higher d13C value than do the benthic gastropods. The researchers thus conclude that these fish are deriving most of their energy from the pelagic debris that is washing in from ocean currents.

Fig1B

d13C (X-axis) and d15N (Y-axis) stable isotope values in benthivorous fish (black circles).  Bars emanating from each point indicate 95% confidence intervals (CI). Numbers inside symbols indicate the site of origin for each sample (see map above), Also shown are values for filter-feeding mussels (red up-pointing triangles) and grazing gastropods (blue down-pointing triangles). Gray lines indicated predicted values of diets that were based solely (100%) on pelagic or benthic sources.

The researchers were stunned by these findings. Going into the study, Harrod did not know what he would find, but would not have been surprised by a 15% contribution from pelagic sources, or maybe even 30%. But he was blown away that the data indicated estimates of greater than 90% pelagic contribution at most of the sites. Ecologists have long known that one ecosystem may subsidize a second ecosystem with resources. For example, salmon carcasses can provide nutrient subsidies to trees near riverways, or even deeper into the forest after being transported by bears. But the extent of the subsidy in this study is unprecedented. Docmac and his colleagues urge researchers to explore exactly how the pelagic materials get into the food web, and to see whether such subsidies are common near other upwelling zones worldwide so that coastal resources can be managed more effectively.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Docmac, Felipe, Miguel Araya, Ivan A. Hinojosa, Cristina Dorador, and Chris Harrod. 2017. Habitat coupling writ large: pelagic‐derived materials fuel benthivorous macroalgal reef fishes in an upwelling zone. Ecology doi:10.1002/ecy.1936. It was published online on Aug. 2, 2017, and should appear in print very soon. Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2017 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.