Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2148224798> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2148224798 endingPage "78" @default.
- W2148224798 startingPage "71" @default.
- W2148224798 abstract "MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 406:71-78 (2010) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08541 Evidence of a resource trade-off between growth and chemical defenses among Caribbean coral reef sponges Wai Leong, Joseph R. Pawlik* Department of Biology and Marine Biology, Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 5600 Marvin K Moss Lane, Wilmington, North Carolina 28409, USA *Corresponding author. Email: pawlikj@uncw.edu ABSTRACT: Like all organisms, sponges allocate resources to life functions such as growth and reproduction. Additionally, some sponges are defended by secondary metabolites that deter potential predators. Assuming resources are limiting, species that produce defensive metabolites should allocate fewer resources to growth and reproduction. To test the hypothesis that there is a trade-off between chemical defense and growth, predator exclusion experiments were conducted to compare the growth rates of 7 common Caribbean sponge species with similar branching morphologies: chemically undefended species Callyspongia armigera, Iotrochota birotulata and Niphates erecta, and defended species Amphimedon compressa, Aplysina cauliformis, Aplysina fulva and Ptilocaulis walpersi. Thirty field experiments lasting 124 to 195 d were performed over a 9 yr period on a total of 1158 sponges. A 3-factor ANOVA was used to compare the effects of chemical defense (undefended/defended), treatment (uncaged/caged) and season (summer/winter). Despite the fact that different sponge species could be allocating resources differently to reproduction, thereby potentially obscuring the interaction between growth and chemical defense, growth in cages was significantly greater for undefended than defended sponges (110.4 versus 65.8% growth yr–1). While the growth of chemically defended sponges inside and outside of cages was not different, growth of undefended sponges inside cages was significantly greater than outside cages, confirming that palatable sponge species were grazed by sponge-eating fishes. Growth during winter months was significantly less for both undefended and defended sponges compared to growth during summer months, but again, growth was greater for undefended sponges than for defended sponges. Differences in growth rates demonstrate that sponge species have evolved alternative allocation patterns to cope with resource constraints, as well as predation, and provide evidence that there is a metabolic cost associated with chemical defenses. KEY WORDS: Predation · Growth · Optimal defense · Tolerance · Coral reef Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Leong W, Pawlik JR (2010) Evidence of a resource trade-off between growth and chemical defenses among Caribbean coral reef sponges. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 406:71-78. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08541Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 406. Online publication date: May 10, 2010 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2010 Inter-Research." @default.
- W2148224798 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2148224798 creator A5013160838 @default.
- W2148224798 creator A5023623091 @default.
- W2148224798 date "2010-05-10" @default.
- W2148224798 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
- W2148224798 title "Evidence of a resource trade-off between growth and chemical defenses among Caribbean coral reef sponges" @default.
- W2148224798 cites W104357799 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W1965830908 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W1967276939 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W1975468136 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W1989251420 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W1990151103 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W1994860646 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2001051821 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2005953667 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2009270327 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2023386051 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2028143386 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2030544270 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2033483859 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2046382589 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2068402655 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2069388585 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2071683905 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2080747657 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2091777825 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2112513810 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2115292337 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2118384805 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2118403485 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2129668362 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2133238397 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2133845722 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2137795399 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2138553917 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2143014448 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2145765856 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2150904039 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2154616754 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2158361335 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2159787606 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2160082531 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2162063574 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2166205298 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2166390717 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2172127182 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2176752190 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2210980404 @default.
- W2148224798 cites W2324627711 @default.
- W2148224798 doi "https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08541" @default.
- W2148224798 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
- W2148224798 type Work @default.
- W2148224798 sameAs 2148224798 @default.
- W2148224798 citedByCount "61" @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982012 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982013 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982014 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982015 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982016 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982017 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982018 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982019 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982020 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982021 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982022 @default.
- W2148224798 countsByYear W21482247982023 @default.
- W2148224798 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2148224798 hasAuthorship W2148224798A5013160838 @default.
- W2148224798 hasAuthorship W2148224798A5023623091 @default.
- W2148224798 hasBestOaLocation W21482247981 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C131155167 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C143020374 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C188198153 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C188382862 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C2778849931 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C46325548 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C52660299 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C59659247 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C79367842 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C127413603 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C131155167 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C143020374 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C188198153 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C188382862 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C18903297 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C2778849931 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C46325548 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C52660299 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C59659247 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C59822182 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C78519656 @default.
- W2148224798 hasConceptScore W2148224798C79367842 @default.