Replicate samples of live coral, dead massive coral, dead branching coral, and live & dead

coral were studied. The surface area, volume, percentage cover, biomass and percentage

available living space were determined for molluscan cryptofauna in each habitat. The

gastropods Pyrene versicolor, Drupa sp. and Cerithium sp. were common in branching corals.

The bivalves Saccostrea cllecullata, Area sp., Isognomon sp., Pinctada sp. and

Lithophaga sp. were common in dead parts of ramose corals. Mytilids were rare in living

parts of ramose corals. Pyrene sp., Drupa sp., Cerithium sp. and Lambis sp. were found

crawling on the surface of the massive corals 

Asir Ramesh, D

Jeyabaskaran, R

Paul Pandian, A L

CMFRI Digital Repository

Phuket Marine Biological Center Special Publication no. 16 (1996): 215-219 215 • DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF MOLLUSCAN CRYPTOFAUNA FROM KARAICHALLI ISLAND (GULF OF MANNAR), SOUTHEASTERN COAST OF INDIA By R. Jeyabaskaran, D. Asir Ramesh & A. L. Paul Pandian Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai -608502, India ABSTRACT Replicate samples of live coral, dead massive coral, dead branching coral, and live & dead coral were studied. The surface area, volume, percentage cover, biomass and percentage available living space were determined for molluscan cryptofauna in each habitat. The gastropods Pyrene versicolor, Drupa sp. and Cerithium sp. were common in branching cor-als. The bivalves Saccostrea cllecullata, Area sp., Isognomon sp., Pinctada sp. and Lithophaga sp. were common in dead parts of ramose corals. Mytilids were rare in living parts of ramose corals. Pyrene sp., Drupa sp., Cerithium sp. and Lambis sp. were found crawling on the surface of the massive corals . • INTRODUCTION Cryptofauna refers to the fauna living in coral substrates and certain fauna living on the surface of the substrates (Peyrot-Clausade 1974). However, the term epifauna is also used for animals living on surfaces. Cryptofauna can be divided into two com-ponents: the 'true borers' and the 'opportun-istic' species. The 'opportunistic species' can-not bore. They utilize cracks, crevices, or live at the bases of long coral branches where they are completely hidden. Most of the bivalves belong to the boring cryptofauna and the gastropods belong to opportunistic cryptofauna (Richard 1973). There is no clear distinction between opportunistic cryptofauna and epifauna. But we use the term cryptofauna in accordance with Rich-ard (1973). • Habitat structure is an ecological topic in its own right, and should not be treated sim-ply as a routine component of all systems (McCoy et al. 1991). Qualitative and quan-titative work has shown that coral reef cryptofauna is diverse and abundant (Ebbs 1966; Reish 1968; McCloskey 1970; Grassle 1973; Kohn & Lloyd 1973; Hutchings et ai., 1992). Several studies have been made on the molluscs associated with corals in other reefs (Tailor 1971; Patton 1975; Hadfield 1976; Morton 1984). The aim of this study is to document the distribution and abun-dance of molluscan cryptofauna from Karai-challi Island of Gulf of Mannar, southeast-ern coast ofIndia. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study area is shown in Fig. 1. Replicate coral samples were collected during Decem-ber 1994 at the southern tip of Karaichalli Island (8°57'N; 78°14'E) in the Gulf of Mannar, 18 km northeast of Tuticorin, southeastern coast ofIndia. Extensive coral reefs occur only at depths from 1-6 m at the northern and southern tips of this island. The coral reef is composed oflarge boulders with intermittent sandy spaces. Every year during the southw.est monsoon (April to October) several corals die due to the sedi-mentation. During that season, the branch-ing corals are subjected to considerable dam-age by the mechanical force of high waves. 216 Tropical Marine Mollusc Programme (TMMP) 78"14' .t·/'· Karichall i Island .' ~ Figure 1. Study area. The dotted pattern indicates reef areas. The habitats were classified into the four categories:. live coral , dead massive coral, dead branching coral, and corals with live and dead parts . Each colony was wrapped in a thin plastic sheet to determine the total colony displace-ment volume. Associated macrobenthic ani-mals were removed from the coral colony after breaking with a hammer and chisel. The volume of coral pieces was measured (colony volume). Total colony displacement volume minus colony volume is an index of colony internal space (Tsuehiya & Yonaha 1992). The corals were finally broken into small pieces to remove the associated mol-luscs. They were preserved in 10 % forma-lin for id~ntification and biomass measure-ments . Other cryptofaunal communities such as sponges, polychaetes, crustaceans, sipunculans and ascidians were not enumer-ated. The surface area of the sample was deter-mined by coating all surfaces of block, ex-cept the cut surface, with several layers of liquid latex until a coat of latex was built up. When dry, the latex was peeled off and the surface area measured with a planim-eter (Hutchings & Weate 1977). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The density of cryptofauna molluscs in dif-ferent habitats in relation to surface area, volume, weight and internal space are shown in Table 1. The list of molluscs col-lected from different habitats with theirrela-tive abundance are shown in Table 2. The percentage of molluscs in dead branched coral was higher than in the live branched coral. Dead massive coral harboured more molluscs than the live massive coraL The coral with live and dead parts had a higher percentage of molluscs than live coral. Table 1. Density of cryptofauna molluscs in different habitats. Habitst Total wet Total Internal Surface Weight of weight (g) volume (cc) space (ee) area (em') molluscs (%) Live Coral a . Montipora digitata 720 318 76 268 2.58 b. Porites solida 610 212 21 174 0.91 Dead br anched coral Acropora surculata 648 237 82 182 3.40 Dead Massive Coral Fauites uirens 564 196 48 169 . 1.62 Live & Dead Coral 8 . Pocillopora damicornis 570 260 62 154 2.72 b. Favia pal/ida 640 223 41 172 1.08 .' Phuket Marine Biological Center Special Publication no. 16 (1996): 215-219 217 Table 2. Moll uscs collected from different habitats together with their relative abundance. C.L.D.P.~ , Coral with live and dead parts; B~ Branched; M~Massive. Name of the species Live coral Dead coral C.L.D.P. • B M B M B M GASTROPODS Scutus unguis • Trochus radiatus • • T. stellatus • * • • T. tentorium • * Turbo intercostalis • • • Nerita albicilla • • • N. polita • Nodilittorina pyramidalis * * Planaxis sulcatus • * Cerithium obeliscus • • • C. citrinum • • * C. SCQ bridum • • • • Lambis lambis • • Cypraea caputserpentis • M ure:c uirgineus • • • Drupa tuberculata • • • '. D. margarUicola • • • Pyrene versicolor • • • • • • P. zebra • • • • Planispira {allo,ciosa • BIVALVES Barbatia {uscn • • • Area symmetrica • • • Lithophaga gracilis • • • • L. leuigata • • • L. nigra • • • • L. stramineus * • • I sognomon isognomum • * • • Pinctada anomoides • • • P. margaritifera • • Saccostrea cuccullata • • Venerupis macrophylla • • • Petricola diuergens • • P. lithophaga • • Gastrochaena gigantea • • G. im.pressa • • Pholadidea cheveyi • • Parapholas quadritozonata • * • • 218 Tropical Marine Mollusc Programme (TMMP) • The nature of the bottom, wave action, ex-posure, temperature, availability of suitable food and behavioural aspects of larvae and adults are involved in determining the dis-tribution and abundance of cryptofauna (Hutchings & Weate 1977). Roughgarden (1975) proposed three conditions necessary for a symbiotic relationship to evolve: i) the host should be easy to find . ii) the host should survive well with the symbiont. iii) the host should provide substantial benefit to the guest . In this case, corals provide food and shelter for the molluscs . Due to higher nutrient availability and plankton productivity, mol-luscs appeared more prominent on the bases and undersides of corals. Branching corals are better for byssus secreting forms, and massive corals are mm·e suitable for ce-mented or boring bivalves. Large dead mol-luscs could act as a substrate for coral set-tlement . However, the role of mollusc cryptofauna in different habitats of coral reefs is not fully understood. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Mr. N. Jesu Raja, SCUBA diver, for collecting the organisms. REFERENCES Ebbs, N. K. 1966. The coral-inhabiting polychaetes ofthe Northern Florida reef tract. Part 1. Aphroditidae, Polynoidae, Amphinomidae, Eunicidae and Lysaretidac. - Bulletin of Marine Science 16(3): 485-555. Grassle, J. F. 1973. Variety in coral reef communities. Pages 247-270 in O. A. Jones & R. Endean (eds.). The Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs , Volume II, Biology 1. -Academic Press, New York and London. Hadfield, M. G. 1976. Molluscs associated with living corals. - Micronesia 12: 133-148. Hutchings, P. A. & P. B. Weate. 1977. Distribution and abundance of cryptofauna from Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. - Marine Research in Indonesia 17: 99-112. Hutchings, P. A., W. E. Kiene, R. B. Cunningham & C. Donelly. 1992. Spatial and temporal patterns of non-colonial boring organisms (Polychaete, sipunculans and bivalve molluscs) in Porites at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. - Coral Reefs 11: 23-31. Kohn, A. J . & M. C. Lloyd. 1973. Polychaetes of truncated reef limestone substrates on Eastern Indian Coral Reefs: diversity, abundance and taxonomy. - Internationale Revue del' Gesamten Hydrobiologie 58(3): 369-399. McCloskey, L. R. 1970. The dynamics of the community associated with a marine scleractinian coral. - Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie 55(1): 13-81. McCoy, E. D., S. S. Bell & H. R. Mushineky. 1991. Habitat structure: Synthesis and per-spectives. Pages 427-430 in S. S. Bell, E. D. McCoy & H . R. Mushinsky (eds.). Habitat Structure: The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. - Chapman & Hall, Lqndon. Morton, B . S . 1984. Coral associated bivalves of the Indo-Pacific. Pages 140-224 in W. D. Russell-Hunter (ed.). The Mollusca, Vol. 5, Ecology. - Academic Press, New York. 695 pp. Patton, W. K. 1975. Animal associates of living coral reefs. Pages 1-36 in O. Jones & R. Endean (eds.). Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs, vol. 3, BioI. 2. - Academic Press, New York. Phuket Mari.ne Biological Center Special Publication no. 16 (1996): 215-219 219 Peyrot-Clausade, M. 1974. Ecological study of coral reef cryptobiotic communities. An analy-sis of the polychaete cryptofauna. Pages 269-283 in A. M. Cameron, B. M. Campbell, A. B. Cribb, R. Endean, J. S . Jell, O. A. Jones, P. Mather & F. H. Talbot (eds .). Proceedings of the second International symposium on Coral Reefs. Brisbane: Great Barrier Reef Committee, vol. 1. 793 pp. Reish, D. J. 1968. The polychaetous annelids of the Marshall Islands. - Pacific Science 22(2): 208-231. Richard, G. 1973. Abondances et dominances des Mollusques dans un ecosysteme corallien (Moorea, Polynesie francais e). - Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle 3rd series 163: 309-313. Roughgarden, J. 1975. Evolution of marine symbiosis - a simple cost benefit model. - Ecol-ogy 56: 1201-1208. Tailor, J. D. 1971. Reef associated molluscan assemblages in the western Indian Ocean. -Symposium on Zoological Society of London 23: 501-534. Tsuchiya, M. & C. Yonaha. 1992. Community Organization of associates of the scleractinian coral Pocillopora damicomis: Effects of colony size interactions among the obligate symbionts. - Galaxea 11(1): 169-173 . • 

Distribution and abundance of molluscan

cryptofauna from Karaichalli Island

(Gulf of Mannar), southeastern coast of India

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/7679/1/670._Jey.pdf

Distribution and abundance of molluscan cryptofauna from Karaichalli Island (Gulf of Mannar), southeastern coast of India

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CMFRI Digital Repository