Mouthpart Morphology of Gammarus roeselii Compared to a Successful Invader, Dikerogammarus villosus (Amphipoda)
Mouthpart Morphology of Gammarus roeselii Compared to a Successful Invader, Dikerogammarus villosus (Amphipoda)
复制标题
罗氏虾蟹 (Gammarus roeselii) 的口器形态与成功入侵者 Dikerogammarus villosus（片脚类）的比较
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Waloszek
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gerd Mayer;G. Maier;A. Maas;D. Waloszek
摘要 直到大约 20 年前，起源于巴尔干半岛的成熟的伽马科片足类动物 Gammarus roeselii 分布广泛，并且常常是德国及邻近国家河流、运河和大湖泊中的优势片足类物种。自 1989 年以来，Dikerogammarus villosus（一种滨里海的 pontogammarid）已成功入侵中欧和西欧的水生系统，减少甚至消灭了本地和较早建立的伽马目，包括 G. roeselii。现场观察和实验室实验表明，这两种伽马里亚物种具有不同的食性。在我们的 SEM 研究中，我们想要检验这样的假设：不同的食物获取方式通过口器和其他参与摄食的结构（例如触角和颌足类）的形态差异来表达，这可能表明 D. villosus 比 G. roeselii 更成功。尽管两种伽马里安人都有杂食性进食的工具，但比较确实揭示了参与食物获取的附肢的明显差异。在 G. roeselii 中，下颌骨的臼齿表面结构像锉刀，表明它们非常适合研磨坚硬的植物材料，而 D. villosus 的下颌骨结构较弱。在 G. roeselii 中，上颌骨的基足末端长有凿子状的尖刚毛，而上颌骨则长有扁平的尖刚毛，这可能是这些口器的特化，用于从基质上刮掉粘附的食物。我们没有在 D. villosus 的上颌骨和颌足上发现这种修饰。与 D. villosus 相比，G. roeselii 的触角和颌足类动物的排列稀疏且短。因此，滤食作为 D. villosus 的取食方式之一，似乎在 G. roeselii 的营养中发挥着次要作用。
Abstract Until about 20 years ago, the well-established gammarid amphipod Gammarus roeselii, originating from the Balkan Peninsula, was widespread and often the dominant amphipod species in rivers, canals, and big lakes of Germany and adjacent countries. Since 1989 Dikerogammarus villosus, a Ponto-Caspian pontogammarid, has successfully invaded the aquatic systems of mid and western Europe reducing and even eliminating native and earlier established gammarideans including G. roeselii. Field observations and laboratory experiments indicate that these two gammaridean species have different feeding habits. In our SEM study we wanted to test the hypothesis that different modes of food acquisition are expressed in differences in the morphology of the mouthparts and other structures involved in feeding, such as the antennae and gnathopods, possibly are indicative of the success of D. villosus over G. roeselii. Although both gammarideans have tools for omnivorous feeding, comparisons indeed revealed obvious differences in appendages involved in food acquisition. In G. roeselii, the molar surfaces of the mandibles are structured like rasps, suggesting they are well suited for grinding firm plant material, whereas those of D. villosus are only weakly structured. In G. roeselii, the basipodal endites of the maxillulae are armed with chisel-like cuspidate setae, and the maxillipeds bear flattened cuspidate setae, possibly a specialization of these mouthparts for scraping off adherent food from the substrate. We did not find such modifications on the maxillulae and maxillipeds of D. villosus. Compared to D. villosus, the setation of the antennae and the gnathopods in G. roeselii is sparse and short. Therefore, filter feeding, one of the feeding modes of D. villosus, seems to play a minor role in the nutrition of G. roeselii.