Vectors with autonomy: what distinguishes animal-mediated nutrient transport from abiotic vectors?

Animal movements are important drivers of nutrient redistribution that can affect primary productivity and biodiversity across various spatial scales. Recent work indicates that incorporating these movements into ecosystem models can enhance our ability to predict the spatio-temporal distribution of nutrients. However, the role of animal behaviour in animal-mediated nutrient transport (i.e. active subsidies) remains under-explored. Here we review the current literature on active subsidies to show how the behaviour of active subsidy agents makes them both ecologically important and qualitatively distinct from abiotic processes (i.e. passive subsidies). We first propose that animal movement patterns can create similar ecological effects (i.e. press and pulse disturbances) in recipient ecosystems, which can be equal in magnitude to or greater than those of passive subsidies. We then highlight three key behavioural features distinguishing active subsidies. First, organisms can transport nutrients counter-directionally to abiotic forces and potential energy gradients (e.g. upstream). Second, unlike passive subsidies, organisms respond to the patterns of nutrients that they generate. Third, animal agents interact with each other. The latter two features can form positive- or negative-feedback loops, creating patterns in space or time that can reinforce nutrient hotspots in places of mass aggregations and/or create lasting impacts within ecosystems. Because human-driven changes can affect both the space-use of active subsidy species and their composition at both population (i.e. individual variation) and community levels (i.e. species interactions), predicting patterns in nutrient flows under future modified environmental conditions depends on understanding the behavioural mechanisms that underlie active subsidies and variation among agents' contributions. We conclude by advocating for the integration of animal behaviour, animal movement data, and individual variation into future conservation efforts in order to provide more accurate and realistic assessments of changing ecosystem function

Utilization of algal and bacterial extracellular polymeric secretions (EPS) by the deposit-feeding brittlestar \u3cem\u3eAmphipholis gracillima\u3c/em\u3e (Echinodermata)

Like many deposit-feeding organisms, the burrowing brittlestar Amphipholis gracillima feeds on particulate organic matter in surface sediments. Microbial exopolymeric secretions (EPS) are carbohydrate-enriched polymers produced by microalgae and bacteria that bind aggregates and form dense biofilms near the sediment-water interface. EPS are assimilable by some benthic infauna and may be utilized as a significant carbon source. EPS are absorbed by some deposit-feeders, including a holothurian, and may be supplemental sources of nutrition. The burrowing brittlestar A. gracillima is a deposit-feeder that was used in a mass balance approach to model the incorporation of radiolabeled EPS by bottom feeders. Brittlestars were fed 14C-labeled, laboratory cultured EPS from the marine bacterium Pseudoalteromonas atlantica and a benthic diatom (Nitzschia sp.) via sediment-bound and aqueous exposures. Comparison of absorption efficiencies (AE) showed that both polymer types are highly absorbed by A. gracillima (AE = 83 to 99%). Absorption of sediment-bound bacterial and algal EPS was similar (92.2 and 90.1%), but bacterial EPS absorption was significantly (p\u3c0.05) higher in sediment-bound (92.2%) than aqueous (83.3%) exposures. Algal EPS absorption was significantly higher in aqueous (99.9%) exposures. These findings suggest that EPS may represent a significant energy source for this deposit-feeding ophiuroid and other organisms with similar feeding habits. Additionally, A. gracillima appears to be especially adept at utilizing EPS resources from benthic diatom communities

Nutrient Translocation during Early Disc Regeneration in the Brittlestar Microphiopholis gracillima (Stimpson) (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea)

Volume: 180Start Page: 167End Page: 18

Ophionereis reticulata (Echinodermata, Ophiuroidea)

This study compared the arm regeneration frequencies in two different populations of Ophionereis reticulata (Say, 1825) in São Sebastião, Southeast Brazil and observed arm regeneration between age classes (juvenile and adults) and sexes (male and female). From the 1,170 individuals sampled, 1,089 (92.2%) showed signs of arm regeneration. The relative frequencies of regenerating arms in the two areas were not different (Baleeiro Isthmus: 91.3% and Grande Beach: 99.5%). Both areas also presented similar values for the number of arms regenerating/individual and in the frequency of regenerating individuals. The major part of the regenerating scars was concentrated in the distal portion of the arm. Sub-lethal predation is most likely the cause to the high rates of arm regeneration in O. reticulata. There was no significant differences in the regeneration rates between females (3.57 ± 1.36 arms regenerating/individual) and males (3.47 ± 1.42)

Ophiuroids Discovered in the Middle Triassic Hypersaline Environment

Echinoderms have long been considered to be one of the animal phyla that is strictly marine. However, there is growing evidence that some recent species may live in either brackish or hypersaline environments. Surprisingly, discoveries of fossil echinoderms in non-(open)marine paleoenvironments are lacking. In Wojkowice Quarry (Southern Poland), sediments of lowermost part of the Middle Triassic are exposed. In limestone layer with cellular structures and pseudomorphs after gypsum, two dense accumulations of articulated ophiuroids (Aspiduriella similis (Eck)) were documented. The sediments with ophiuroids were formed in environment of increased salinity waters as suggested by paleontological, sedimentological, petrographical and geochemical data. Discovery of Triassic hypersaline ophiuroids invalidates the paleontological assumption that fossil echinoderms are indicators of fully marine conditions. Thus caution needs to be taken when using fossil echinoderms in paleoenvironmental reconstructions