Planktonic oyster larvae optimize settlement decisions in complex sensory landscapes
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (Arcadia Science)
Abstract
The settlement of pelagic larvae constitutes a pivotal phase in the life cycle of benthic aquatic species. The choice of settlement location is critical for the recruitment to established populations and the colonization of unoccupied habitats. Consequently, the cues governing settlement decisions in larvae become particularly pertinent for human activities such as habitat restoration, mariculture, or biofouling prevention. Our study aims to enhance our comprehension of the underlying principles of how larvae optimize settlement decisions when exposed to multiple natural chemical cues simultaneously. Through a series of laboratory experiments, we investigate settlement patterns of Pacific oyster Magallana gigas larvae when exposed to different combinations of attractant and repellent cues. Our findings reveal additive increases in settlement rates in the presence of attractant cues originating from conspecifics and biofilms. Conversely, settlement attraction by conspecific water-borne cues was reduced in the presence of repellent cues emanating from predators. Notably, when repellent predator cues were presented alongside attractant cues linked to substrates (biofilms or shells from conspecific adults), the repellent effect was nullified.
Article activity feed
-
Predator cues did not decrease settlement significantly, however there was a non-significant trend showing a reduction of settlement
Is there any way to determine that the concentration of the predator cue was high enough to impact the oyster larvae? Is there another readout that could be used as a positive control to know that the larvae could sense the cue but did not respond?
-
Figure 1
The interpretability of this figure could be enhanced with some minor tweaks.
Labels for each column to distinguish plots from experiments 1, 2, or combined would be helpful if it is necessary to show all three plots for each variable. Alternatively, you could show only the combined experiments and put the plots for each experiment in the supplemental.
The plots show larval settlement in response to a given variable in two states: "sterilized" and "untreated." I do not see where in the methods or results these two conditions are described, and I found this confusing.
In addition, it's difficult to quickly get a sense of which factors significantly impacted larval settlement. Labeling the points with different letters invokes that they indicate significant differences determined by the Tukey's post hoc test. However, the table …
Figure 1
The interpretability of this figure could be enhanced with some minor tweaks.
Labels for each column to distinguish plots from experiments 1, 2, or combined would be helpful if it is necessary to show all three plots for each variable. Alternatively, you could show only the combined experiments and put the plots for each experiment in the supplemental.
The plots show larval settlement in response to a given variable in two states: "sterilized" and "untreated." I do not see where in the methods or results these two conditions are described, and I found this confusing.
In addition, it's difficult to quickly get a sense of which factors significantly impacted larval settlement. Labeling the points with different letters invokes that they indicate significant differences determined by the Tukey's post hoc test. However, the table shows that many of these factors did not impact settlement as determined by the model. Making these distinctions very clear to the reader in a visual way would greatly enhance the impact of the results.
-
