![]() | |||
![]() |
![]() |
||
Defenses | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Defenses of nudibranchs and their relatives include spicules, considered in this section, and |
|||
![]() Research study 1 |
|||
Many species of dorid nudibranchs contain spicules made of calcium carbonate. The role played by these spicules in defense, if any, is not clear. Ideas considered in the literature include interference with feeding and/or defecation, abrasion of gut linings, and adding of non-nutritive components to a consumer’s mouthful of food. Ash contents (including spicules) of 7 species of non-spiculated west-coast nudibranchs average about 3% of live body mass, while ash contents of 7 spiculated species average about 8%. Given the many experiments on possible defensive role of sponge spicules in the literature, possibly similar studies could be done on nudibranch spicules. NOTE with the exception of the dorid Triopha maculata these are all aeolid nudibranchs NOTE these are all dorid nudibranchs. A more interesting and perhaps more valid comparison would be if the author had compared non-spiculated vs. spiculated DORIDS (if that were possible) instead of intermixing dorids and aeolids as is done here |
|||
Research study 2 |
|||
Incorporation of spicules in an agar-based food at concentrations similar to those in Cadlina mantle tissue does not deter feeding by crabs3 Cancer productus and C. gracilis, and sea anemones Anthopleura elegantissima (see histograms lower Right). In comparison, secondary chemicals4 isolated from Cadlina and incorporated into “artificial” food in physiological concentrations significantly deters feeding by crabs, but not sea anemones (third bar from Left in each histogram). Finally, combination of spicules and secondary chemicals does not increase the deterrence of the chemicals for crabs, and only weakly increases the deterrence for sea anemones. From these data the author does not exclude a defensive role for the spicules, but concludes that their primary function is likely in body support. Photo of Cadlina courtesy Jeff Goddard, Santa Barbara and seaslugforum. NOTE1 the author explains that for technical reasons, these spicule masses may “slightly overestimate” the true values NOTE2 while spicule concentrations in the mantle and foot tissues are isometric with body size (slope b=0.96-1.03), those in the gills (b=1.38) and rhinophores (b=0.80) are slightly, but significantly, allometric with increasing body size. For the gills, this indicates a disproportionately greater investment of spicules into these organs as the nudibranch grows, and the reverse for the rhinophores (the author suggests that this negative allometry may have been a product of incorporating the rhinophore base in the calculations – spicules are few or absent in the base and would possiblly contribute disproportionately (and negatively) as the animal grows) NOTE3 omission of fishes, e.g., tidepool sculpins from this array of potential predators is somewhat surprising, in view of the potential importance of fishes as predators of nudibranchs, and perhaps they should be included in any future study NOTE4 body wall is extracted with a combination of methanol and carbon tetrachloride. The food is prepared from a 1:1 mixture of squid flesh and water, combined with 2% sodium alginate as a binder (set with 0.25mol . l-1 |
|||
![]() Research study 3 |
|||
NOTE some species spicules have no spicules |
|||
![]() |
|||
RETURN TO TOP |