Prey preference of the common long-armed octopus <i>Octopus minor</i> (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) on three different species of bivalves -- Journal of Oceanology and Limnology,2019,37(5):1595-1603

	Cite this paper:
	SONG Minpeng, WANG Jinhai, ZHENG Xiaodong. Prey preference of the common long-armed octopus Octopus minor (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) on three different species of bivalves[J]. Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 2019, 37(5): 1595-1603

Prey preference of the common long-armed octopus Octopus minor (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) on three different species of bivalves

SONG Minpeng¹, WANG Jinhai¹, ZHENG Xiaodong^1,2

1 Key Laboratory of Mariculture(Ocean University of China), Ministry of Education, Qingdao 266003, China;
2 Institute of Evolution and Marine Biodiversity, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266003, China

Abstract:

Octopus minor is widely distributed along the northern coast of China. To date, there is little information on the prey selection process of this species. To understand this process, several experiments were carried out. Three types of bivalves, namely, Ruditapes philippinarum, Mactra chinensis, and Mytilus galloprovincialis, were used to observe the prey selection of O. minor and to analyze the potential causes of prey selection from three aspects:prey profitability, adductor muscle tension and handling time. Under single-prey conditions, we found that the average (±SD) predation rates of O. minor on R. philippinarum, M. chinensis, and M. galloprovincialis were 1.73±0.50, 1.27±0.42, and 0.8±0.2/d, respectively. Under different prey combinations, octopods actively selected one type of prey over the other(s), and the order of prey preference was R. philippinarum, followed by M. chinensis and lastly M. galloprovincialis. Furthermore, the shells of the consumed prey showed that O. minor only consumed bivalves by pulling them apart since there was no evidence of drill holes on the shells. The prey selection of O. minor was related to the prey profitability and handling time; O. minor appeared to select preys with a higher profitability and a shorter handling time. However, the difficulty in opening the bivalve was not consistent with the prey preference of the octopods. These results suggest that O. minor prefers to consume R. philippinarum possibly due to a high profitability and a short handling time that supports the optimum Foraging Theory.

Key words: Octopus minor|bivalve|prey preference|prey selection|prey profitability

Received: 2018-08-20 Revised: 2018-10-08

Tools

PDF (586 KB) Free

Print this page

Add to favorites

Email this article to others

Authors

Articles by SONG Minpeng

Articles by WANG Jinhai

Articles by ZHENG Xiaodong

References:
Ambrose R F. 1984. Food preferences, prey availability, and the diet of Octopus bimaculatus Verrill. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 77(1-2):29-44, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90049-2.
Anderson R C, Mather J A. 2007. The packaging problem:bivalve prey selection and prey entry techniques of the octopus Enteroctopus dofleini. Journal of Comparative Psychology,121(3):300-305, https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.3.300.
Bo Q K, Zheng X D, Gao X L, Li Q. 2016. Multiple paternity in the common long-armed octopus Octopus minor(Sasaki, 1920) (Cephalopoda:Octopoda) as revealed by microsatellite DNA analysis. Marine Ecology, 37(5):1 073-1 078, https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12364.
Boulding E G. 1984. Crab-resistant features of shells of burrowing bivalves:decreasing vulnerability by increasing handling time. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 76(3):201-223, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90189-8.
Carlsson N O L, Sarnelle O, Strayer D L. 2009. Native predators and exotic prey-an acquired taste? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(10):525-532, https://doi.org/10.1890/080093.
Casey E. 1999. Intelligent predation by the California two-spot octopus. The Festivus, 31(2):21-24.
Chesson J. 1978. Measuring preference in selective predation.Ecology,59(2):211-215, https://doi.org/10.2307/1936364.
Dong Z Z. 1998. Chinese Journal of Animal (Mollusca:Cephalopoda). Science Press, Beijing, China. p.181-182.(in Chinese)
Fiorito G, Gherardi F. 1999. Prey-handling behaviour of Octopus vulgaris (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) on bivalve preys. Behavioural Processes, 46(1):75-88, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00020-0.
Gao X L, Zheng X D, Bo Q K, Li Q. 2016. Population genetics of the common long-armed octopus Octopus minor(Sasaki, 1920) (Cephalopoda:Octopoda) in Chinese waters based on microsatellite analysis. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 66:129-136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2016.03.014.
Guerra Á. 1978. Sobre la alimentación y el comportamiento alimentario de Octopus vulgaris. Investigacion Pesquera, 42(2):351-364.
Hanlon R T, Messenger J B. 1996. Cephalopod Behaviour.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.p.47-65.
Hartwick B, Tulloch L, MacDonald S. 1981. Feeding and growth of Octopus dofleini (Wulker). The Veliger, 24(2):129-138.
Hu N, Wang F, Zhang T, Song H, Yu Z L, Liu D P. 2016. Prey selection and foraging behavior of the whelk Rapana venosa. Marine Biology, 163(11):233, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-3006-8.
Hughes R N, Dunkin S D B. 1984. Behavioural components of prey selection by dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L.), feeding on mussels, Mytilus edulis L., in the laboratory. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 77(1-2):45-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90050-9.
Hughes R N, Seed R. 1981. Size selection of mussels by the blue crab Callinectes sapidus:energy maximizer or time minimizer? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 6(1):83-89, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps006083.
Hughes R N. 1980. Optimal foraging theory in the marine context. Oceanography and Marine Biology-An Annual Review, 18:423-481.
Iribarne O O, Fernandez M E, Zucchini H. 1991. Prey selection by the small Patagonian octopus Octopus tehuelchus d'Orbigny. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 148(2):271-282, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(91)90087-D.
Iwakoshi E, Hisada M, Minakata H. 2000. Cardioactive peptides isolated from the brain of a Japanese octopus, Octopus minor. Peptides, 21(5):623-630, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-9781(00)00201-1.
Kim D H, An H C, Lee K H, Hwang J W. 2008. Optimal economic fishing efforts in Korean common octopus Octopus minor trap fishery. Fisheries Science, 74(6):1 215-1 221, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2008.01645.x.
Kim D S, Kim J M. 2006. Sexual maturity and growth characteristics of Octopus minor. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 39(5):410-418, https://doi.org/10.5657/kfas.2006.39.5.410.
Leite T S, Haimovici M, Mather J. 2009. Octopus insularis(Octopodidae), evidences of a specialized predator and a time-minimizing hunter. Marine Biology, 156(11):2 355-2 367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1264-4.
Liszka D, Underwood A J. 1990. An experimental design to determine preferences for gastropod shells by a hermitcrab. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 137(1):47-62, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(90)90059-L.
Mascaró M, Seed R. 2001. Foraging behavior of juvenile Carcinus maenas (L.) and Cancer pagurus L. Marine Biology, 139(6):1 135-1 145, https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270100677.
McQuaid C D. 1994. Feeding behaviour and selection of bivalve prey by Octopus vulgaris Cuvier. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 177(2):187-202, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(94)90236-4.
Murdoch W W. 1969. Switching in general predators:experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecological Monographs, 39(4):335-354, https://doi.org/10.2307/1942352.
Nixon M. 1980. The salivary papilla of Octopus as an accessory radula for drilling shells. Journal of Zoology, 190(1):53-57, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1980.tb01422.x.
Onthank K L, Cowles D L. 2011. Prey selection in Octopus rubescens:possible roles of energy budgeting and prey nutritional composition. Marine Biology, 158(12):2 795-2 804, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1778-4.
Portela E, Simões N, Rosas C, Mascaró M. 2014. Can preference for crabs in juvenile Octopus maya be modified through early experience with alternative prey? Behaviour, 151(11):1 597-1 616, https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003206.
Pyke G H, Pulliam H R, Charnov E L. 1977. Optimal foraging:a selective review of theory and tests. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 52(2):137-154, https://doi.org/10.1086/409852.
Pyke G H. 1984. Optimal foraging theory:a critical review.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15:523-575, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002515.
Qian Y S, Zheng X D, Wang P, Li Q. 2010. Analysis and evaluation of nutritive composition of Octopus minor in Lake Swan. Marine Sciences, 34(12):14-18. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Qian Y S, Zheng X D, Wang W J, Yang J M, Li Q. 2016.Ultrastructure of spermatozoa and spermatogenesis in Octopus minor (Sasaki, 1920) (Cephalopoda:Octopoda).Journal of Natural History, 50(31-32):2 037-2 047, https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2016.1184343.
Robinson T B, Pope H P, Hawken L, Binneman C. 2015.Predation-driven biotic resistance fails to restrict the spread of a sessile rocky shore invader. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 522:169-179, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11167.
Savini D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A. 2006. Consumption rates and prey preference of the invasive gastropod Rapana venosa in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Helgoland Marine Research, 60(2):153-159, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10152-006-0029-4.
Schoener T W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 2:369-404, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.02.110171.002101.
Seibel B A, Drazen J C. 2007. The rate of metabolism in marine animals:environmental constraints, ecological demands and energetic opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 362(1487):2 061-2 078, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2101.
Seol D W, Lee J, Im S Y, Park I S. 2007. Clove oil as an anaesthetic for common octopus (Octopus minor, Sasaki).Aquaculture Research, 38(1):45-49, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01622.x.
Skein L, Robinson T B, Alexander M E. 2018. Impacts of mussel invasions on the prey preference of two native predators. Behavioral Ecology, 29(2):353-359, https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx172.
Steer M A, Semmens J M. 2003. Pulling or drilling, does size or species matter? An experimental study of prey handling in Octopus dierythraeus (Norman, 1992). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 290(2):165-178, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00076-5.
Stephens D W, Krebs J R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Journal of Ecology, 49(5):247.
Vincent T L S, Scheel D, Hough K R. 1998. Some aspects of diet and foraging behavior of Octopus dofleini Wülker, 1910 in its Northernmost Range. Marine Ecology, 19(1):13-29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1998.tb00450.x.
Wong M C, Barbeau M A. 2005. Prey selection and the functional response of sea stars (Asterias vulgaris Verrill)and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus Say) preying on juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin)) and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis Linnaeus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 327(1):1-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2005.05.018.
Xu R, Bo Q K, Zheng X D. 2018. A divergent lineage among Octopus minor (Sasaki, 1920) populations in the Northwest Pacific supported by DNA barcoding. Marine Biology Research, 14(4):335-344, https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2018.1427866.
Yamamoto T. 1942. On the ecology of Octopus variabilis typicus (Sasaki), with special reference to its breading habits. The Malacological Society of Japan, 12(1-2):9-20.
Zar J H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 3^rd ed. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs NJ, USA.
Zheng X D, Qian Y S, Liu C, Li Q. 2014. Octopus minor. In:Iglesias J, Fuentes L, Villanueva R eds. Cephalopod culture. Springer, Dordrecht, New York. p.415-426, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8648-5_22.