Notes from a California naturalist

The nature of Nature

Menu
  • About me
  • Contact me
Menu

Category: Marine biology

Confounded

Posted on 2016-04-162023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

Remember that one batch of sand dollar larvae that were looking weird on Monday? Well, they still look weird. In fact, all of the larvae looked the same yesterday as they did on Monday, which seems strange, considering how quickly they galloped through development for the first three weeks of larval life. It’s as though they’ve entered some stasis period during which developmental progress slows way down. Or maybe I just can’t see the signs of change.

Pluteus larva of Dendraster excentricus, age 23 days. 15 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of Dendraster excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F2xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas only
15 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

If I had seen these larvae for the very first time yesterday, I might not suspect that anything was strange. But having watched them twice weekly since fertilization and knowing how different they looked a week ago, my Potential Weirdness-o-Meter™ is redlining. These larvae have definitely changed in a week, and not in the way that I’m used to echinoid larvae developing. With their much shorter arms and overall stunted appearance, these guys appear to be regressing. However, they aren’t dying and they don’t really look bad. As I said on Monday, they just look . . . weird.

Remember how I said I’d split this cohort of larvae into two batches and fed them different things? At first I thought this strange appearance was due to the change in diet from a Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture to Rhodomonas only. The larva in the photo above was from the Rhodomonas-only jar, and perhaps its odd appearance could be explained by some deficiency in the monoculture diet. Then I continued on my rounds and looked at the larvae from the same mating that were still on the Rhodo/Dun diet.

Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 23 days. 15 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F2xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture.
15 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larvae of D. excentricus, age 23 days. 15 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larvae of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F2xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture.
15 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

All the larvae in these photos remained on the mixed diet, and they look pretty much the same as their siblings eating the monoculture diet. So I don’t think the change in diet explains the appearance of the larvae.

Okay, then. If it’s not the food that accounts for what these larvae look like, maybe it’s something about the mating itself. These larvae, from both food treatments, are all full siblings from one mother mated with one father. As full sibs they share, on average, 1/4 of their DNA with each other, which could account for the similarity in their appearances. Perhaps this “strange” look is due more to genetics than to the environment (i.e., food).

I can test this hypothesis by examining larvae from the other crosses. Rather fortuitously, as it turns out, when I spawned the adult sand dollars a little over three weeks ago now, only one male contributed enough sperm for me to use. Three females spawned usable amounts of eggs, so I set up three matings:

  • F1xM1
  • F2xM1
  • F3xM1

The female designated F2 gave the most eggs, and her offspring are the ones that I split into the Rhodo-only and Rhodo/Dun diets. Note that all of the larvae in this little experiment have the same father. This gives me the opportunity to test for maternal effects on development; in other words, having controlled for the effects of different fathers–ha! I make it sound as though I did that on purpose–I can now assume that differences (in growth rate, survivability, and successful metamorphosis if we get that far) between the different matings are at least partially due to differences in egg quality among the three mothers. Or to differing gamete compatibilities between each female and the one male.

So now let’s take a look at the larvae from other matings. We’ll start with F1xM1:

Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F1xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mix. 15 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F1xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture.
15 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

This larva looks normal to me, or at least what I’ve come to assume is normal. And wow, that was one filthy cover slip,wasn’t it?

The offspring of the F3xM1 mating look very much the same:

Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F3xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture. 15 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F3xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture.
15 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larvae of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F3xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture. 15 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larvae of D. excentricus, age 23 days. Mating: F3xM1. Diet: Rhodomonas/Dunaliella mixture.
15 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

And here’s a short video of that same pair of larvae. They look like they’re singing a duet. If I were the clever sort I’d dub in some music; alas, I’m not that clever. Does somebody want to do this for me?

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

What are they up to?

Posted on 2016-04-122023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

These sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) larvae that I’ve been raising will be 21 days old tomorrow, and they are still on the fast track. They’re developing much more quickly than any of the sea urchin cohorts I have raised. Some of them already have juvenile rudiments with tube feet visible. With the urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) this is the age when I worry about the cultures crashing for no apparent reason, and so far these sand dollar plutei look great. I hope I didn’t jinx them by writing that. In any case, the sand dollars are known to go through larval development more quickly than their sea urchin cousins, so my larvae appear to be playing by the book, at least as far as timelines go.

Just for kicks I took the largest full-sib cohort I had and split it into two batches. One batch I’m feeding the recommended combination of Rhodomonas sp. (red) and Dunaliella tertiolecta (green), and the other I’m feeding Rhodomonas sp. only. I’ve been able to raise urchin larvae through metamorphosis on a diet of Rhodomonas so I assumed that this food might work for the sand dollars as well. It turns out, however, that the Rhodomonas-fed larvae look a little strange now.

Pluteus larvae of Dendraster excentricus, age 19 days. 11 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larvae of Dendraster excentricus, age 19 days.
11 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

Their bodies have become more opaque and compact; they’ve shrunk to a length of 450-500 µm. I wonder if this is the first stage in metamorphosis. I didn’t see a well-defined juvenile rudiment in any of the larvae I examined but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And although they look weird and deformed, they don’t necessarily look bad. They just don’t look . . . right.

On the other hand, there may indeed be something wonky going on. I have a jar of siblings of these larvae being fed a red/green diet, and they look totally different.

Pluteus larvae of Dendraster excentricus, age 19 days. 11 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 19 days.
11 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

This is a beautiful 8-armed pluteus larva. It looks great! The arms are nice and long but none of the arm spines are poking through the ends. They appear to be eating well and have grown to a length of 700-800 µm. This is a ventral view, and that oblong blob on the left side of the pigmented stomach is the juvenile rudiment.

Here’s a close-up view of the rudiment:

Pluteus larvae of Dendraster excentricus, age 19 days. 11 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larvae of D. excentricus, age 19 days.
11 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

See how the rudiment is crowding into the stomach? And if you squint you might be able to talk yourself into seeing a couple of round blobs in the rudiment. These would be tube feet, which I can see as I focus the microscope up and down through the animal’s body but which don’t show up very well in a photograph.

The next day that I change the water and have a chance to look at these guys under the microscope is Friday. It’s only three days from now, but given how quickly the larvae are developing, a lot could happen between now and then. I’m a little nervous.

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Sexy time for sea anemones

Posted on 2016-04-092023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

This morning I went out on the first morning low tide of the season. I was so excited to have the morning lows back that I got to the site early and had to wait for the sun to come up. Awesome thing #1 about early morning low tides: Having the intertidal to myself.

Dawn over Davenport Landing. 9 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Dawn over Davenport Landing.
9 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

The purpose for the trip was to collect some algae for a talk I’m preparing; I’ll be speaking to the docents at Natural Bridges State Beach at their monthly meeting this coming Wednesday. They invited me to talk to them about algae. I already have a lecture on algae prepared, but last year I set the bar pretty high with this particular audience and want do something a little different. So I’ll talk to them for a bit, show them some of my pressings, and invite them to press a couple of specimens. This morning I collected a few pieces of algae and took a bunch of pictures.

The Anthopleura anemones continue to fascinate me. At Davenport Landing there’s an area where the rock has eroded and forms a sort of channel. In this channel at low tide the water comes about up to my knees. The rock in the channel remains clear of algae but sometimes contains sand. Scattered over the bottom of this channel are several A. artemisia anemones, which can burrow into the sand when it is present. I’ve photographed these animals many times, as they are magnificently photogenic and in deep enough water that I can just stick my camera below the surface and click away.

This morning the first anemone I looked at in this channel had some orange gunk on its oral surface. At first I thought it had latched onto a piece of bleached algae, but then noticed that others had the same thing. My second thought was, “Ooh, eggs!” If I were at the lab I’d have sucked up some of the gunk and examined it under the microscope.

Spawning female Anthopleura artemisia at Davenport Landing. 9 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Spawning female Anthopleura artemisia at Davenport Landing.
9 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

Usually when animals spawn the gametes are quickly dispersed by water currents. But this channel is high enough that at low tide it doesn’t exchange water with the ocean so there are no currents except those generated by the wind. Awesome thing #2 about early morning low tides: No wind. Once I used the camera as a sort of underwater microscope I could see the granular texture of the orange gunk, which told me that these were, indeed, eggs. Cool! Because I was on a hunt for algae I didn’t spend a lot of time censusing these anemones, but I figured that statistically speaking they couldn’t all be females. And sure enough, after a very short search I found some males.

Spawning male A. artemisia at Davenport Landing. 9 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Spawning male A. artemisia at Davenport Landing.
9 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong
Spawning male A. artemisia at Davenport Landing. 9 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Spawning male A. artemisia at Davenport Landing.
9 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

So today I learned that April is when the A. artemisia anemones have sex. Makes sense, as spring is the time of year when many organisms (algae and invertebrates) in the intertidal reproduce. Reproduce sexually, that is.

Some animals reproduce clonally as well as sexually, and while sexual reproduction tends to be seasonal, clonal reproduction doesn’t seem to be. Along the coast of central/northern California we have four species of anemones in the genus Anthopleura:

  • A. artemisia, the moonglow anemone (see above)
  • A. elegantissima, the aggregating anemone
  • A. sola, the sunburst anemone
  • A. xanthogrammica, the giant green anemone

Of these four species, only A. elegantissima clones readily. It does this by ripping its body in half in a process called binary fission. The two halves of the animal pull away from each other and the tissue between them gets stretched thinner and thinner until it rips. Then each former-half heals the wound and gets on with life, completely independent of the other. It sounds rather awful but is a very effective way to form clones of genetically identical units that can monopolize large areas in the intertidal.

Anemone (Anthopleura elegantissima) undergoing binary fission, at Davenport Landing. 9 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Anemone (Anthopleura elegantissima) undergoing binary fission, at Davenport Landing.
9 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

It’ll probably take this anemone another day or two to completely tear itself into two pieces. Anemones can continue to clone like this, with each individual splitting into a pair of individuals, for a long time. Eventually this process can form large clones. More about the ecology of these clones in a separate post some time.

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

A day in the life

Posted on 2016-04-032023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

Friday 1 April was the last day of my spring break, and tomorrow I go back to teaching. Spring break felt very short this year, and I was busy the entire week. I decided to spend my last day of freedom doing my favorite lab-related things: looking through microscopes at tiny organisms. I had already planned on spending a few hours dealing with my two batches of larvae, and figured I might as well make a day of it and collect a plankton sample on my way in.

It was a beautiful morning out on the bay.

Morning on Monterey Bay. 1 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Morning on Monterey Bay.
1 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

Alas, as gorgeous as the outdoor scenery was, I couldn’t linger long once I’d collected the plankton sample so I headed to the lab. If you’ve ever wondered what a marine biologist’s desk looks like, here’s mine:

My desk at the marine lab. 1 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
My desk at the marine lab.
1 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

The dissecting scope on the left belongs to me, as it was a graduation gift I bought for myself when I finished graduate school. The compound scope on the right belongs to the lab, but I’m the person who uses it most frequently. I find that, when looking at something like plankton, it’s easiest to start by looking at a bit of the sample in a small dish under the dissecting scope; then, when I find interesting critters I can pipet them out and put them on a microscope slide for observation under the compound scope. It may seem a little awkward, but this switching back and forth between “forest” and “tree” views works for me. And honestly, any field biologist worth her salt should be able to switch focus from “big picture” to “small detail” fairly easily. How else would she be able to develop a solid understanding of the system(s) she studies?

Now back to the plankton. Right off the bat I could see with the naked eye some big (by plankton standards) crustaceans zooming around. It wasn’t easy chasing them down with the pipet, but after a while I caught one and dumped it on a depression slide. It was a mysid shrimp.

A mysid shrimp collected in a plankton sample. 1 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
A mysid shrimp collected in a plankton sample.
1 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

Those big compound eyes are stereotypical of many crustaceans–think crabs, lobsters, large shrimps, etc. Looking carefully at the tail of this particular individual, can you see two small circular structures? Those are statocysts, the organs that give the animal information about its orientation with respect to gravity. The presence of two statocysts in the uropods (the appendages on the most posterior segment of the body) tell me that this animal is a mysid, rather than one of the gazillion other shrimplike crustaceans living in the sea. I saw at least half a dozen mysids in this plankton sample.

Overall, this wasn’t the most interesting plankton sample I’ve ever collected. When my students and I collected and examined a sample a week earlier, we saw much more animal diversity than I saw the other day. We had some strong winds on Monday-Thursday of last week (I’m writing this on Sunday) and the surface water temperature dropped to 12°C; I thought this would be the start of the spring upwelling season. If it was, then the phytoplankers hadn’t responded when I collected this plankton sample on Friday. In any case, it appears that the spring phytoplankton bloom hadn’t yet begun. I expect that in another week or two I’ll find more diatoms in the plankton.


After lunch it was time to tend and observe my larvae. There’s not much to report about the Dermasterias (leather star) larvae. If you remember, I’ve split these larvae into three different food treatments: (1) Dunaliella only; (2) a combination of Dunaliella and Isochrysis; and (3) Isochrysis only. At this point, 38 days into development, there is no discernable difference between treatments 1 and 2. The larvae in treatment 3, however, don’t look so good. They are stunted and appear to be regressing to earlier developmental stages.

On the other hand, the Dendraster (sand dollar) plutei continue to astound and fascinate me. They are stunning!

Pluteus larva of Dendraster excentricus, age 9 days. 1 April 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of Dendraster excentricus, age 9 days.
1 April 2016
© Allison J. Gong

They are happy and healthy and seem to be doing well. Their posterodorsal arms have grown and their pre-oral arms (the fourth and last pair to form) are poking out. The larvae are eating all the food I’m giving them and are putting it to good use. At this rate I expect to see their rudiments developing soon.

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Still on the fast track

Posted on 2016-03-292023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

Because I was so surprised at how quickly my sand dollar larvae (Dendraster excentricus) were developing, I checked my notebook from the invertebrate embryology course I took while in grad school to see if what I’m observing now is normal for these animals. It turns out that yes, Dendraster does develop at a much quicker rate than its cousin the sea urchin. And now that I think of it, when I took that 5-week embryology course the sand dollars were the only echinoids that we followed all the way to competence; we spawned and observed urchins as well, but none of them were as far along as the sand dollars by the time the class ended and we “graduated” our larvae off the dock.

Yesterday my Dendraster larvae were five days old. They already had two well-developed pairs of arms and were working on the third pair.

Pluteus larva of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus, age 5 days. 28 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus, age 5 days.
28 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

These larvae are big, too–500 µm long. Of course, they started from eggs that were over twice the size of urchin eggs, but they’ve still grown a lot in only five days. The fourth pair of arms will be the preoral arms. At the rate these larvae are developing, I wouldn’t be surprised if these arms show up in the next few days.

As beautiful as those long arms are, they may be a little too long. The larvae swim and gather food using a band of cilia that runs up and down all the arms; the entire body is ciliated, but the ciliated band is the primary locomotory system. I remember the instructor of my embryology course telling us that echinoid plutei will respond to lack of food by growing longer arms, which increases the length of the ciliated band and thus (presumably) the animal’s ability to capture the food that is available. There are two pieces of circumstantial evidence that my larvae may be a little food-deprived: (1) the really long arms; and (2) the lack of visible food cells in the stomachs. In urchin plutei that are feeding well I can see food cells churning away in the stomachs. These Dendraster plutei have beautifully transparent bodies, but I don’t see food in the guts. On they other hand, they are growing, so obviously they are eating. Just in case they are short of food, though, I’ll increase their food ration for the next few days and see how the animals respond.

In the meantime, I continue to be fascinated by the intricacy of the larval skeleton and the complexity of the skeletal rods themselves. Next time I’ll try to take photos of these.

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Fast!

Posted on 2016-03-262023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

My sand dollar larvae are developing very quickly! When I checked on them Thursday afternoon about 24 hours post-fertilization, I anticipated seeing them up in the water column because that’s how long it takes urchins to hatch. Remember, sea urchins and sand dollars are in the same taxonomic class (Echinoidea) and share a larval form called the echinopluteus. I’ve watched urchin development often enough that I have a sort of intuitive feel for how it goes, and am subconsciously comparing these sand dollars to the urchins’ time table. I need to stop doing that.

Anyway, on Thursday the sand dollars had indeed hatched. The big surprise was that when I examined them under the microscope I saw that they were much further along than urchin embryos would be at the same age. I expected to see the embryos swimming around as blastulae (hollow balls of ciliated cells); however, these sand dollar embryos had almost completed the process of gastrulation to form their archenteron, or first gut.

Gastrulating embryo of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus, age 24 hrs. 24 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Gastrulating embryo of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus, age 24 hrs.
24 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

In echinoids the archenteron develops from an invagination into the blastula. Imagine a balloon. Now imagine poking your finger into the balloon–you’ve just made an invagination. If you continue the invagination across the entire balloon until your fingertip pops out on the other side, you’ve created a tube that penetrates through the balloon. This tube is the archenteron. Interesting tangent: You know that any one-way gut has two openings, right? One is the mouth and the other is the anus. The point in the blastula where gastrulation begins is called the blastopore. The fate of the blastopore is to be either the mouth or the anus of the archenteron. Echinoderms are deuterostomes (“second mouth”), a term that means the blastopore becomes the anus and the mouth is the second opening that forms when the invagination punches through to the other side of the blastula. Yes, sea urchins and sea stars and sand dollars all have an anus before they have a mouth. And guess what? So did you. The chordates, including us, are also deuterostomes.

These sand dollar embryos went from zygote almost to feeding larva in only 24 hours. In fact, some of them may have had mouths when I looked at them on Thursday. I had to start feeding them, so that food would be available as soon as they were able to eat.

Another 24 hours later, on Friday afternoon, I checked on the larvae again and they were bona fide plutei already. They had the cup-shaped body body of the pluteus larva and two pairs of arms, with complete guts. The stomachs in these larvae are huge, occupying almost the entire volume of the main body of the animal. Some of the larvae are also developing red pigment spots.

Early four-armed pluteus larva of Dendraster excentricus, age 2 days. 25 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Early four-armed pluteus larva of Dendraster excentricus, age 2 days.
25 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

See how big and round that tummy is?

And how could I have forgotten that the plutei of Dendraster have fenestrated arm rods??? They are so beautiful! This is the same animal as in the photo above, but I focused in on the skeletal rods in the postoral arms. See the fenestrations in the rods? The larva is about 300 µm long.

Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 2 days. 25 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Pluteus larva of D. excentricus, age 2 days.
25 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

For whatever reason, plutei of the local species of sea urchins don’t have fenestrated arm rods. This difference in larval morphology between the two most common echinoid species in the area should make it easy to identify plutei collected in plankton tows. We’re at the beginning of the spring bloom now, and I hope to keep an eye on how the plankton community develops through the spring and summer.

The next day I examine the larvae is Monday. I’ll see if they’re still on the fast track to metamorphosis.

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

A new obsession

Posted on 2016-03-232023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

This afternoon I met up with Joanna and Amy, who had come to the marine lab with some sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) to try to spawn. Since sand dollars are in the same taxonomic group (the Echinoidea) as sea urchins, I’d try the same techniques on these animals I’d never spawned before. I did have to modify some things a bit, mostly to account for the difference in body shape between sand dollars and urchins. Urchins are globular, with quite a large internal body volume, while sand dollars are flat. There’s much less space inside a sand dollar for gonads and guts.

Gravid echinoids such as urchins and sand dollars can be pretty easily induced to spawn by injecting their internal body cavity with a solution of KCl. We shot up all eight sand dollars and five of them spawned, two males and three females. One of the males didn’t give enough sperm to be collected, so we didn’t use his gametes. The other male, though, gave us lots of sperm. And they were good sperm, too.

Live sperm of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus, 400X magnification. 23 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Live sperm of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus, 400X magnification.
23 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

If you’ve never had a chance to see swimming sperm under a microscope, today is your lucky day!

And the eggs. Wow, sand dollar eggs are freakin’ cool! For one thing, they’re big, ~130 µm in diameter, compared to the 80 µm eggs of the purple urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Plus, they have a really thick jelly coat that contains red pigment cells; urchin eggs don’t have the pigment cells, either.

Eggs of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus. 23 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Eggs of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus
23 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

The eggs themselves were a little lumpy, not as perfectly round as I’m used to seeing with the urchins, but they fertilized just fine. In all three of the crosses, the fertilization rate was 90-95%. Apparently the sperm have no problem digging through the jelly coat to get to the egg surface.

Zygote of D. excentricus. 23 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Zygote of Dendraster excentricus
23 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

In this photo you can see the familiar fertilization envelope raised off the surface of the egg, as well as the red pigment cells in the jelly coat. This may very well be the most beautiful zygote I’ve ever seen. How many people can say things like that?

After an hour and 20 minutes sitting on my desk at room temperature the zygotes started to cleave:

2-cell embryos of Dendraster excentricus 23 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
2-cell embryos of Dendraster excentricus
23 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

The blastomeres are still a little wrinkled and lumpy, but I think they’ll be okay. I’ve poured them into 1000-mL beakers and they’re sitting in one of my seawater tables. Tomorrow afternoon I hope to see them swimming up in the water column. Fingers crossed!

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Seeing (wannabe) stars

Posted on 2016-03-212023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

So. I have a batch of larvae from a spontaneous spawning of the leather star, Dermasterias imbricata, that occurred four weeks ago tonight. Until now I’ve never had an opportunity to work with this species, even though we have quite a few of them at the marine lab. I had my own for several years, until they became casualties of the plague about a year into the current sea star wasting syndrome event. In any case, this is the first time I’ve been able to spend time with larvae of this species. At the very least I wanted to see how big they would get and how quickly they would develop, compared to the species I’m more familiar with, Patiria miniata (bat star) and Pisaster ochraceus (ochre star).

When the Dermasterias spawned, the first thing I noticed was that the eggs are huge. I measured them at 220 µm in diameter, which is big even compared to what I’ve seen in other stars. Hatch rates were pretty good, and four days later the larvae were already in the 400-430 µm range. Since I have no experience culturing this species, I thought I’d divvy up my larvae and put them into three feeding treatments to see which larval diet resulted in the best overall success. According to the literature, Dermasterias larvae can be raised on a mixture of the unicellular algae Dunaliella tertiolecta (green) and Isochrysis galbana (golden). My three feeding treatments are: Dun only, a Dun/Iso mix, and Iso only.

A week into the experiment there was a clear difference between the larvae eating only the green food, and those eating either a mixture of green and golden or only the golden. Larvae from all food treatments were about the same size, but the ones eating only Dunaliella had noticeably green guts.

Bipinnaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata. 29 February 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Bipinnaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed on Dunaliella tertiolecta, age 7 days.
29 February 2016
© Allison J. Gong
Bipinnaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed on a mixture of D. tertiolecta and I. galbana. 29 February 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Bipinnaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed on a mixture of Dunaliella tertiolecta and Isochrysis galbana, age 7 days.
29 February 2016
© Allison J. Gong
Bipinnaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed on I. galbana. 29 February 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Bipinnaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed on Isochrysis galbana, age 7 days.
29 February 2016
© Allison J. Gong

Fast forward two weeks, and the larvae were 20 days old. By this time they had progressed from the bipinnaria stage to the brachiolaria stage. The interesting thing was the absence of green pigment in any of the guts, even those that were eating only green food. The D. tertiolecta larvae looked good, actually. They were a little smaller than the other larvae but were perfectly formed.

Brachiolaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed D. tertiolecta, age 20 days. 14 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Brachiolaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed D. tertiolecta, age 20 days.
14 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong
Brachiolaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed D. tertiolecta and I. galbana, age 20 days. 14 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Brachiolaria larva of Dermasterias imbricata, fed D. tertiolecta and I. galbana, age 20 days.
14 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong
Brachiolaria larvae of Dermasterias imbricata, fed I. galbana, age 20 days. 14 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Brachiolaria larvae of Dermasterias imbricata, fed I. galbana, age 20 days.
14 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

Obviously all of the larvae are assimilating enough of their food to grow and develop normally. I looked at them today but didn’t have time to take pictures. Qualitatively there is no difference between the Dun larvae and the Dun/Iso larvae. In the Iso jars, however, there are many larvae at earlier stages; some are still at the “jellybean” stage. I don’t know if this is because these larvae are developing more slowly, or because of some nonrandom distribution of earlier stages into those jars when I was setting up the feeding treatments.

Next week I’ll measure the larvae again, and will have three data points to track growth trajectories.

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

A brief excursion between storms

Posted on 2016-03-062023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

After pretty much neglecting us in February, El Niño has returned with a bang in March. Late yesterday and last night a weather station near me, more or less at sea level, recorded 4.67 inches of rain and wind speeds of 15 mph. Stations in the Santa Cruz mountains recorded close to 6 inches of rain yesterday, and there were patchy power outages throughout the county. This morning I woke to sunny, clear skies. Beautifully clear, with white puffy clouds. The forecast calls for another storm to head in this evening, giving me a window of opportunity to run up the coast and grab some mussels.

I have to say, El Niño’s timing could be better. We have alternating weeks of spring and neap tides, and this winter the storms seem to be arriving during the spring tides. More than one tide series has been washed out because of storm surge and majorly big swell. I had figured that this would be the case today, so I didn’t expect to get very far down in the intertidal. However the only thing I absolutely had to collect was mussels and I don’t need a very low tide for those. It was very unlikely that I’d be unable to collect them, and at the very least I’d be able to take some photos.

Walking across the beach to the rocks, I noticed my first Velella of the season. As usual for these strangely wonderful animals they were gathered into windrows at the high tide level. Many of them were very small, less than 1 cm long, and the largest I saw was about the length of my thumb.

Velella velella stranded on the beach at Davenport Landing. 6 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Velella velella stranded on the beach at Davenport Landing.
6 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

While it is not at all unusual to find Velella washed up on the beach, I did find some in a place that I didn’t expect. More on that in a bit.

Conditions in and on the water were pretty rough. There were no surfable waves, therefore no surfers. They’d have been beat up by the waves crashing in all directions.

Rough water at Davenport Landing Beach. 6 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Rough water at Davenport Landing Beach.
6 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

On a calmer day, the water at this beach can be glassy smooth with very gently breaking waves. Not so today:

Easily accessible beaches such as this one are typically crowded for these afternoon low tides. Most of the people there are just hanging out with their friends, family, and dogs. Every once in a while, however, I run into people who might not be entirely on the up and up. Much of the coast in California is designated as a marine protected area (MPA), and while allowed activities vary from MPA to MPA, in general I don’t have permission to collect at any of them with my current state-issued scientific collecting permit. This means that collecting, both scientific and recreational, is concentrated into the few places where it is allowed.

Today I arrived at the parking area at the same time as a family of three adults and about five kids. The men were wearing wellies and carrying 5-gallon buckets. It was clear that they were going to be collecting something. I can’t really say that I looked any different, in my hip boots and with my own bucket, so I just smiled a greeting to them and headed out on my way. Given that there was so little exposed rock, we were bound to keep running onto each other. At one such meeting I asked what they were doing, and they said they were collecting mussels to eat. I said I was, too, to use as food for animals at the marine lab. They asked what the limit was. I told them that I didn’t know what the limit was for taking with a marine fishing license (assuming that they had one), but the limit for my collecting permit is 35. We nodded and went our separate ways.

Now, I’m not a game warden and it’s not my job to enforce the state’s rules about collecting, or even to see if other citizens have the appropriate permits or licenses. I generally feel that the better part of valor is to mind my own business. These guys today were friendly enough and completely non-threatening, but my gut instinct tells me that they didn’t have a fishing license. Is that any of my business? I don’t think so; yet as a citizen of this state I have a vested interest in protecting our wildlife from unlawful take. I know there aren’t enough wardens to patrol all beaches all the time, and now that I think about it I don’t know that I’ve ever been stopped by a warden on an afternoon low tide. The enforcement strategy seems to be to let citizens patrol each other, in the sense that skullduggery is less likely on a crowded beach in the broad daylight of afternoon than at the crack of dawn on a morning low tide.

Anyway, on to the matter at hand. I’ve noticed that recently my eye has been drawn to patterns that occur among whatever objects happen to be around. Scrambling down a little cliff and continuing up the coast I noticed these smears of algae growing on the vertical sandstone face. It’s not that I hadn’t seen them before, but because of the recent rain there was water running down the cliff face, which added a sheen to the green algae that they don’t have when they’re dry.

Streaks of green algae on sandstone cliff face at Davenport Landing. 6 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Streaks of green algae on sandstone cliff face at Davenport Landing.
6 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

At this site there are some little caves that you can get to at low tide. The tide wasn’t low enough to reach the caves that go back any appreciable distance, but I did get to a small one. It was more of deep fissure than a cave, really, large enough to duck into but only a couple of meters deep. The really cool thing about it was the waterfall cascading over the opening. Again, without the runoff from yesterday’s rain this little waterfall wouldn’t even exist.

Also, there is quite a bit of stuff living inside the cavelet. Not much in the way of algae, of course, with the exception of both encrusting and upright corallines, but in terms of animals there was more or less the same fauna that I’d expect in the high-mid intertidal.

Cavelet at Davenport Landing Beach. 6 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Cavelet at Davenport Landing Beach.
6 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

The biggest surprise in this little cave was Velella! A bunch of them had apparently gotten washed up into the fissure by the last high tide. I found them stuck amongst barnacles and algae.

Velella velella stuck to coralline alga inside cave at Davenport Landing. 6 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Velella velella stuck to coralline algae inside cave at Davenport Landing.
6 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

This one was maybe half the length of my thumb. On the opposite side of the cave a crab was taking advantage of this unusual bounty.

Small shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes) dining on a mangled Velella velella in a cave at Davenport Landing Beach. 6 March 2016 © Allison J. Gong
Small shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes) snacking on a mangled Velella velella in a cave at Davenport Landing Beach.
6 March 2016
© Allison J. Gong

I can’t imagine there’s much nutrition in a Velella for a crab, but the animal is always right even (especially?) when it doesn’t make sense to us. The crab knows what it’s doing.

All told, it was a short but very satisfying little jaunt to the intertidal. The clouds had spent the afternoon talking about whether or not to build to anything, and by the time I left they’d come to consensus. The wind is picking up now, the rain should start soon, and the National Weather Service says we may be in for thunderstorms tonight. I’m tucked up at home, warm and dry. Have a good evening, everybody!

Davenport Beach

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Swimming jellybeans

Posted on 2016-02-272023-01-06 by Allison J. Gong

When serendipity strikes, I try to go with the flow and ride it as long as I can. The latest wave is my batch of Dermasterias larvae, which are developing nicely for the first four days of life. And now they look just like jellybeans!

They have complete guts now and have already grown a bit, measuring 400-430 µm long. It’s not always easy to catch these guys in the right orientation to take a photo, as they are spinning and swimming through three-dimensional space, but I got lucky:

4-day-old dipleurula larva of Dermasterias imbricata. 26 February 2016 © Allison J. Gong
4-day-old dipleurula larva of Dermasterias imbricata.
26 February 2016
© Allison J. Gong

For now I’ve got the larvae divvied up into different feeding treatments. More on that later.

Share this:

  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • More
  • Share on Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...
  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • …
  • 20
  • Next

Categories

  • Bees
  • Birds
  • Field trip
  • General natural history
  • General science
  • Marine biology
  • Marine invertebrates
  • Photography
  • Travel
  • Uncategorized

Tags

algae beach bees bird birds citizen science cnidarians crustaceans desert drawing echinoderms ecology field trip fire fish forest gastropods herps hiking insects larvae mammal marine biology marine invertebrates microscopy mollusc molluscs mountains mushrooms natural history nature journal photography plankton plants river rocky intertidal sea stars sea star wasting sea urchins sponges teaching travel vertebrates weather worms

Recent Posts

  • Six months, and a big return 2026-01-02
  • Five weeks 2025-08-12
  • Afternoon mystery 2025-07-22
  • What to do in Vegas when you don’t “do” Vegas 2025-02-21
  • Spying on the hunter 2025-01-15
April 2026
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
« Jan    

Archives

© 2026 Allison J. Gong
All material mine unless otherwise specified  

©2026 Notes from a California naturalist
Notes from a California naturalist
Contact me / Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: MinimalistBlogger.
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d