In San Francisco Bay, it is confined to the warmest parts of the estuary (Zullo et al. 2002), where it was first collected in 1938. There is an apparent gap in its range between Santa Monica Bay and San Francisco Bay (Carlton 1979 Wasson et al. Its usual habitats are the sheltered waters of harbors. ![]() On the Pacific Coast of North and Central America, Amphibalanus amphitrite is abundant on the coast of Panama and ranges at least as far north as San Francisco Bay, California (Carlton et al. ![]() North American Invasion History: Invasion History on the West Coast: 1972 Henry and McLaughlin 1975 Cohen and Carlton 1995 Carlton et al. Darwin (1854) observed that it was 'extremely common on ship's bottoms' and it has been introduced over much of its present range, including most of the Atlantic Basin (cryptogenic in the Mediterranean) and the Eastern Pacific, including Hawaii, and the North American Coast, from Panama to San Francisco Bay, California (Zullo et al. It was absent on pre-Columbian oyster shells from the Indian River lagoon examined by Boudreaux et al. Amphibalanus amphitrite invaded North American waters in the 20th century (Zullo 1966 Southward 1975 Carlton et al. In the West Pacific and Indian Ocean, it may be native from Southeastern Africa to Southern China, but it is a recent introduction in Eastern (Panama-California), Northwestern (Korea-Japan-Russia, 1st record Tokyo Bay, 1950), and Southwestern reaches of the Pacific, including New Zealand (Cranfield et al. amphitrite is part of a complex of similar species, and prone to transport on ships' hulls, its native range is difficult to determine (Utinomi 1960 Henry and McLaughlin 1975). Journal reference: Evolution (DOI: 10.1111/j. Non-native North American Tidal Record: 1914 First Non-native West Coast Tidal Record: 1914 First Non-native East/Gulf Coast Tidal Record: 1931Īmphibalanus amphitrite was described by Darwin (1854), using specimens collected from Portugal, the Mediterranean, West Africa, the West Indies, the Indo-Pacific, Australia, and New Zealand. He reasons that the waves were so rough at times that the barnacles with thin penises didn’t dare come out to look for a mate. Interestingly, Hoch noticed that in rough waters, barnacles with thin penises suffered fewer injuries and breaks than barnacles with more muscular members. However, barnacles with thin penises mating in calm waters fertilised the most eggs out of all the groups. ![]() They fertilised significantly fewer eggs compared with their lengthy counterparts that stayed in calm waters.īarnacles with thicker penises, on the other hand, fertilised just as many eggs in the harbour as they did in the open ocean. Predictably, barnacles raised in calm waters that grew thin, flexible penises struggled when forced to mate in choppier waters. At the end of the mating season, he counted up the number of fertilised eggs. A few months before breeding season and before penis growth started, Hoch collected barnacles from a site exposed to moderate waves and moved them into his two experimental love nests.Īfter their penises sprouted and mating began, Hoch quickly took half of the barnacles from the moderate site and transplanted them into the exposed site, and vice versa. To do this, he set up two experimental barnacle beds – one on the wave-exposed Atlantic shore and the other in a protected harbour near his university. Matt Hoch, a marine biologist at Stony Brook University in New York, who tested whether barnacle penis plasticity actually affects reproduction. “It’s kind of like toughness versus flexibility,” says J. ![]() However, in choppier waters, the barnacles develop more muscular penises with far less reach. In calm waters, acorn barnacles grow long, flexible members in order to reach as many mates as possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |