The
Effects of Lighting on Bulb-tip Development in the Bulb Tentacle
Anemone, Entacmaea quadricolor (Rüppell and Leukart, 1828), with
Additional Observations on Sexual Reproduction in E. quadricolor
and Stichodactyla gigantea (Forsskål,
1775)
by J. Charles Delbeek
Sponsored in part by:
Introduction The bulb tentacle anemone, Entacmaea
quadricolor is one of the more popular anemone species
in the aquarium trade and luckily, one of the easiest to keep.
Their colors are highly variable from brown to green to red
(the most desirable of which are the rose-colored varieties)
with various combinations and patterns. In reading through the
literature, both print and on the Internet, one can find a lot
of speculation on its ecology and behaviour.
Entacmaea
quadricolor on a reef in Sulawesi, Indonesia.
J.C. Delbeek
Male
Premnas biaculeatus in E. quadricolor,
Solomon Islands. Note that not all the tentacles
have bulb-tips; some are even intermediate in form.
J.C. Delbeek
One of the most perplexing
phenomena involves the formation of bulbs on the tips of the
tentacles. In aquaria, the tentacles of bulb tipped specimens
commonly become gradually "stringy" for lack of a
better term, loosing the characteristic bulb tips in the process.
Some have speculated that feeding is important, others that
anemonefish need to be present to stimulate the anemone while
some have felt that light intensity may play a role. However,
in the specimens that I have seen in the wild, bulb tips are
commonly observed even in areas or depths that may not immediately
be presumed to have high light levels. It is also not unusual
to find specimens with a mixture of bulb tips and smooth tips
in the same animal.
Proud
sponsor of this column
At the Waikiki Aquarium, there was a 350-gallon anemone
and clownfish exhibit that had been in operation for about 8
years. This was an open system with a slow trickle of water
from a saltwater well. There was a bottom filter plate covered
with coral gravel and live rock, with an airlift in each corner.
A Little Giant 3MD pump was attached to one of the airlift pipes
and water was returned via a subsurface return to create a gentle
current. The exhibit contained a collection of anemones including
a Merten’s sea anemone Stichodactyla mertensii, several Heteractis crispa, and a large number of
E. quadricolor (these had multiplied via
fission several times over the years producing over twenty offspring).
Each anemone was fed pieces of previously frozen shrimp once
a week. The tank also contained fifteen tank-raised Amphiprion
ocellaris, a pair of A.
leucocranos clownfish, a mimic filefish (Paraluteres prionurus), a Valentin’s toby (Canthigaster valentini), two coral beauties
(Centropyge bispinosus),
a six-bar angelfish (Pomacanthus
sexstriatus) that was replaced in 1996 with a gold
flake angelfish (Apolemichthys xanthopunctatus) as the six-bar
had gotten too large and was moved to another exhibit. The tank
was lit by two 250 W, 5500 K metal halide pendants when first
set up in 1994, as well as receiving direct natural sunlight
through overhead acrylic roofing for about two hours in the
middle of the day. In 1996 one of the fixtures failed and was
never replaced. In 2000 the remaining fixture was replaced due
to failure with a four foot fluorescent fixture containing two
48 W actinic/white URI lamps. During this entire period the
Entacmaea rarely
exhibited bulb tips. In some cases, a few tentacles on an anemone
would develop bulbs, and in some cases an entire anemone would
exhibit bulb tips for a few weeks but not in any predictable
pattern and not all the Entacmaea in the tank would exhibit bulb
tips. Since the some of the anemones without bulb tipped tentacles
had clownfish and they were all feed on a regular basis, this
left light as the remaining suspected factor to be investigated.
The
Waikiki Aquarium’s Reef Partners exhibit, highlighting
clownfish and anemones, 1997. Photo taken with natural
light. Note a few tentacles with bulb tips here and
there. J.C. Delbeek
The
Reef Partner’s exhibit in 1999, note the total lack
of any bulb tips on any of the anemones. J.C. Delbeek
The skylight system over the old gallery
space. The Reef Partners exhibit was situated near the bottom
of the picture where the PVC pipes supplying seawater can
still be seen. J.C. Delbeek
The
new Reef Partners exhibit in the newly renovated
south Pacific gallery, July, 2002. J.C. Delbeek
The
Reef Partners exhibit installed in its new location
on the outside deck (the tank skirt, workbench and
graphics have not yet been installed). Note the heavy
shade cloth over the exhibit that was in place for
the first few months. The umbrella was removed when
the deck was opened to the public. J.C. Delbeek
In October 2001 this exhibit was taken down and moved
to an outside location due to renovations that were to be done
to the South Pacific Gallery the exhibit was located in. The
outside location was on a wooden deck in the public area and
was placed in full sun next to a tree. Feeding, water source,
water motion and filtration remained the same. The fish population
was slightly changed with a copperband butterflyfish and a pair
of bicolor angels (Centropyge bicolor) added to replace the
coral beauties.Due to
concerns of possible light shock as well as increased ultraviolet
light exposure, an acrylic panel was placed over the tank along
with a double layer of shade cloth. The shade cloth was removed
in December but the acrylic cover remained until the animals
were moved. Once the shade cloth was removed, the Entacmaea began to lighten slightly in color
and just about all of them developed a bi-color pattern with
white to cream colored tips, some even with green hi-lights,
and a bulb present on each tentacle. In late May of 2002 the
animals were moved into their new exhibit inside the building
and the tank was removed.
In 1999 I had taken light
measurements in the anemone exhibit. Upon observing the presence
of bulb tips in the anemones in the outdoor exhibit in 2002
I decided to measure light levels in this exhibit when the chance
arose and compared it to the data I had gathered in 1999.
Proud
sponsor of this column
Methods In August 1999, a LiCor LI-1000 data logger was used
in combination with a calibrated LiCor LI-193SA spherical
quantum sensor to measure PAR (photosynthetically active
radiation) levels over a three-day period, at a depth of 24”.
The LiCor unit took continuous PAR measurements from 07:15 until
18:30. Every fifteen minutes the maximum and mean PAR values
from this time period were calculated and stored in memory.
Measurements were cut short on the third day due to exhibit
maintenance. The data was then transferred via an ASCII dump and
serial cable from the data logger unit into a computer and
graphed using MS Excel.
On August 1st, 2nd and 3rd
of 2002 it was decided to take PAR measurements again. The
original tank had been removed but another, identical tank was
still outside so this was moved into the exact same position as
the anemone tank. The tank was filled with water and gravel
placed inside, and the LiCor sensor was placed 24” below the
surface.The same acrylic cover as originally used was
then placed over the tank and PAR measurements were taken. Shade
cloth was then added and PAR measurements were again taken on
August 16th, 17th and 18th (thedelay was due to several weeks of high cloud and
overcast conditions). No values were collected prior to 08:30 or
after 18:00 since the threshold PAR level of 50 uM/m2/s
was not reached and the data logger was not triggered to record.
The mean and maximum values for both shaded and normal
conditions were then graphed and compared to those taken in 1999
(figures 1 to 8).
Results Figures 1 and 2 (mean and maximum PAR) show that light
levels in the indoor tank began to gradually increase at 07:00
as the sun rose into the sky. The greatest increase began at
10:30 corresponding to the sun rising above the concrete wall
of the building and shining directly onto the tank. There was
then a slight drop in PAR around 11:15 and again at 12:45. These
dips in light intensity between 11:15 and 12:45 each day were
due to the shadow of one of the skylight support beams falling
over the sensor (see photo 5). However, since the shadow was
narrow, other areas of the tank would still have received full
sunlight. The greatest PAR levels occurred between 11:00 and
13:15 reaching a maximum 1448 uM/m2/s at 12:00 when
the sun was shining directly into the tank and no shadows from
the skylight hardware were over the sensor. The sharp drop after
13:15 was due to the sun passing behind the concrete wall on
the ocean side of the building and thus, direct sunlight no
longer fell on the water surface of the tank, though indirect
light continued to impact the exhibit until sunset. Drops in
PAR seen on one day but not others were most likely due to passing
clouds. From 07:15 to 10:45, and from 13:15 to 18:15 PAR levels
did not exceed 300 uM/m2/s. Therefore, for 8.5 hours
PAR levels were less than 300 uM/m2/s and maximum
levels were attained for only 2.5 hours.
Figure
1. Mean PAR levels recorded over three successive
days in the indoor anemone exhibit in August 1999.
Figure
2. Maximum PAR levels recorded over three successive
days in the indoor anemone exhibit in August 1999.
Figures 3 and 4 show the mean and maximum PAR values
in August of 2002 without (8/1-8/3) and with (8/16-8/18) shade
cloth installed on the outdoor exhibit. At the outdoor location,
buildings and nearby trees impacted the light field at certain
portions of the day. The most noticeable ones can be seen in
figures 3 and 4 at 12:15 and 14:45 when there was a dramatic
drop in mean and maximum PAR values due to the shadow of a palm
tree passing over the sensor. When no shade cloth was used maximum
PAR values exceeded 500 uM/m2/s between 09:00 and
17:15 and between 09:45 and 15:45 maximum PAR values exceeded
1500 uM/m2/s. The maximum PAR value reached was 2634
uM/m2/s at 13:45. When shade cloth was added to the
cover, PAR values (both mean and maximum) were dramatically
lower and did not rise above 500 uM/m2/s over the
duration of any of the three days.
Figure
3. Mean PAR levels with and without shade cloth
recorded over three successive days in August 2002.
Figure
4. Maximum PAR levels with and without shade cloth
recorded over three successive days in August 2002.
Figures 5 and 6 compare the mean and maximum PAR values
of the indoor exhibit versus the values of the outdoor tank
without shade cloth. It is clear that the outdoor tank not only
received higher PAR levels but also did so for a much longer
duration.
Figure
5.
Comparison of mean PAR levels without shade cloth recorded
over three successive days in the outdoor tank in August
2002 and in the indoor exhibit in August 2002.
Figure
6. Comparison of mean PAR levels without shade
cloth recorded over three successive days in the outdoor
tank in August 2002 and in the indoor exhibit in August
2002.
Figures 7 and 8 compare the mean and maximum PAR values
of the indoor exhibit versus the values of the outdoor tank
with shade cloth. In this case, the outdoor tank tended to exhibit
two to three times higher PAR values than the indoor tank between
07:15 and 10:15, and between 13:15 and 17:15. However, from
10:15 to 13:15 the indoor tank exhibited much higher levels
than the outdoor tank.
Figure
7. Comparison of mean PAR levels with shade cloth
recorded over three successive days in the outdoor tank
in August 2002 and in the indoor exhibit in August 2002.
Figure
8. Comparison of maximum PAR levels with shade
cloth recorded over three successive days in the outdoor
tank in August 2002 and in the indoor exhibit in August
2002.
Discussion The factors that are involved in bulb tentacle development
in E. quadricolor have been speculated upon
for several years. Most of these have been based upon anecdotal
cause and effect observations, speculation and rumors perpetuated
via print and electronic media. To be sure, there are many instances
where bulb tips disappear and reappear for no apparent reason.
Combine this with the fact that there are at least two recognized
forms of E. quadricolor
(shallow and deepwater), and it becomes apparent that predicting
the behaviour of these animals becomes problematic. This study,
by no means the definitive word, offers documented evidence
for the role of light in the development of bulb tips.
Proud
sponsor of this column
There were several sources of potential error. Although
this investigation compared data over two distinct time periods
(1999 and 2002), they were taken in the same month (August)
and the differences in light levels between the indoor and outdoor
locations are significant and not likely due to differences
in the years. Another source of error may be that the light
measurements taken in 2002 occurred several months after the
animals were removed from the exhibit. This means that the light
levels from October 2001 till May 2002 may have been slightly
lower and the photoperiod would have been shorter than in August
2002. However, even under these conditions light levels would
still have been greater than those recorded indoors in 1999
and bulb tips did appear in the outdoors exhibit during this
time frame. Photoperiod would have been shorter than in August
of 1999, but since these difference would have been most apparent
at the beginning and end of the day, when the indoor exhibit
would not have received direct light anyway, it is unlikely
it would have had any great effect on the final results.
From this investigation it was readily apparent that
both light intensity and duration were extended in the outdoor
location compared to the indoor location. This makes it tempting
to assume that both factors may be of importance, but they may
also be mutually exclusive; unfortunately this cannot be determined
from the data in this study.
Since being moved indoors in May 2002, many of the
E. quadricolor in the new exhibit (basically
in the same position as the old indoor exhibit) have retained
their bulb tips but some show signs of loosing them. Several
E. quadricolor were also placed in a 5500
gallon reef exhibit that receives more hours of direct sunlight
than the new anemone exhibit. Several of the anemones in this
exhibit have moved to various locations in the tank (shallow
vs. deep, low current vs. high current) so it will be interesting
to note if they retain their bulb tips and for how long.
Observations on Sexual Reproduction
in Entacmaea and Stichodactyla Reproduction in E.
quadricolor takes two forms, sexual and asexual.
Asexual reproduction has been well-documented by hobbyists and
was a common occurrence in this exhibit as well resulting in
a large population of these anemones such that the live rock
was nearly invisible when all the anemones were expanded. Sexual
reproduction also occurs in this tank (see Sprung and Delbeek,
1997) and to the best of my knowledge, is the only such population
in captivity that regularly does so each year. Spawning usually
occurs between April and May between 0700 and 0900 a few days
after a full moon has occurred. In April 2002 we were fortunate
to once again witness not only the sperm release but also the
release of planulae. Sperm release can occur in the morning
but we have also observed it occurring in the late afternoon
and this was the case this year. The exhibit was found to be
rather cloudy in the late afternoon of April 25th
and the incoming water flow was increased to ensure the sperm
did not foul the water by being allowed to accumulate for too
long and lowering oxygen levels. Four days later, on the morning
of April 29th numerous green sphere-like objects
were observed floating in the water. Upon closer examination
it was found that the tentacle tips of several colonies of E. quadricolor contained these same spheres. Occasionally a
few were observed being released from the tips of the tentacles.
From previous experiences we knew these to be anemone embryos
(see Sprung and Delbeek, 1997 for photos of the embryos and
settled juveniles). A few days later there were still some visible
in the tentacles and these were observed to be actually rotating
and moving within the tentacles, and were more oblong in shape.
It appeared as if the embryos had developed into planulae in
the anemone and would shortly be released as such into the water.
From my observations it would appear that E.
quadricolor is dioecious, with males releasing sperm
into the water column to be taken in by the females where their
eggs are fertilized internally. A few days later embryos/planulae
are released into the water column via the tentacle tips. Sprung
and Delbeek (1997) also documented the presence of zooxanthellae
in juvenile E. quadricolor
only a few days after settlement. This time a few embryos were
placed under a microscope and were found to contain zooxanthellae
as well. Therefore, not only does the female brood the embryos
for a short period but she also supplies them with their initial
supply of zooxanthellae. As a result it is probable that these
planulae can either settle very quickly and metamorphose into
fully functional anemones, or they can spend a great deal of
time in the plankton till they find a suitable substratum to
settle on, without the need for feeding.
Embryos/planulae
are clearly visible in the bulb tipped tentacles. J.C. Delbeek
As an aside, Stichodactyla
gigantea is also dioecious in nature with the females
ingesting the sperm and fertilizing their embryos internally.
However, unlike E. quadricolor, the embryos are internally
brooded, developing into miniature copies of the adult. These
juveniles are then egested from the mouth where they then drift
in the current till they settle onto the substratum (L. Sharon,
pers. comm., 1999). We were lucky to receive four of these juveniles
in October 1999 from a coral farm in Belau (Palau); two green
ones and two brown ones with an average oral disc diameter of
approximately 4 cm (1.6 inches). These were placed in floating
baskets in outdoor holding tanks in direct sunlight. Within
the following three years one of the brown ones developed blue
tentacles and all four had grown such that they had to be separated
into individual baskets. At the present time (August 2002) the
oral disk diameters of all four average approximately 30 cm
(12 inches) when fully expanded. That means that there has been
an almost eight fold increase in diameter in three years. I
am confident that if the anemones had been directly feed on
a regular basis they would have grown even larger (and perhaps
faster) in those three years.
This brings up the question of
age. Fautin and Allen (1992) proposed that large anemones could
be more than a century old. While I do not dispute that some
anemones may indeed be very long lived, to infer that something
must be old simply because it is large is not entirely valid
in my opinion. In the case of our S. gigantea, I think it would be safe to say that they should
attain a diameter of close to a meter in less than ten years.
We also have a S. mertensii
that we have had for 12 years that is almost a meter in diameter
when fully expanded. However, I should point that, as with giant
clams (e.g. Tridacna gigas), the growth rates of partner
sea anemone species may be fairly rapid in the first decade,
only to slow with advancing age. So yes, old anemones may be
large but the opposite may not be necessarily true.
Newly
settled juvenile S. gigantea. L. Sharon
The
tank raised S. gigantea in the new Reef
Partners exhibit, a part of the new south Pacific
gallery, August 2002. J.C. Delbeek
Bibliography Fautin,
D.G. and G.R. Allen 1992. Field
Guide to Anemonefishes and Their Host Anemones. Western
Australia Museum, Perth, Western Australia.Sprung, J. and J.C. Delbeek. 1997. The Reef Aquarium. Volume 2. Ricordea Publishing, Coconut Grove,
FL, USA.