Potentially Misidentified Species:
A number of other caprellid amphipods belonging to genus Caprella
and Paracaprella co-occur in the IRL with C. penantis.
Differentiation of these animals is generally beyond the scope of amateur
naturalists and typically involves morphometric analysis of a number of
body parts. Caine (1989) has demonstrated a high degree of
environment-mediated morphological plasticity (e.g., body and appendage
robustness), and questions the reliability of using body and appendage
proportions for taxonomic purposes.
Caprella equilibra, the most common congener in the southeastern US,
is typically larger than C. penantis (around 2 cm, versus 1.3 cm)
and has no rostrum. Paracaprella tenuis, another common caprellid,
typically reaches only 1 cm and lacks a rostrum as well as regularly
arrayed setae on the antennae (Rupert and Fox 1988).
II. HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION
Caprella penantis is a cosmopolitan species, widespread in tropical,
subtropical, and temperate waters of the world's oceans (Vassilenko 1991).
Along the east coast of the US, Caprella penantis occurs from
Florida (both coasts) northward to north of Cape Cod, MA (Fox and Bynum
The reported Florida distribution of Caprella penantis includes the entire IRL system.
III. LIFE HISTORY AND POPULATION BIOLOGY
Age, Size, Lifespan:
Caprella penantis is fairly large, around 1.3 cm in length.
Bynum (1978) suggests that female C. penantis from North Carolina
live for approximately one year.
Caprella penantis can be encountered in abundance. Bartholomew
(2002) lists it as the fourth most abundant mobile invertebrate colonizing
artificial seagrass plots in experiments conducted in York River, VA,
Zostera beds. More than 5,000 individuals were collected from the
plots during two one-week sampling periods.
Marsh (1973) reported C. penantis as the 12th most abundant
epifaunal species in the York River. In the Zostera beds he
examined, C. penantis occurred in 37 of 48 collected samples and
represented more than 2% of the total fauna collected.
Fox and Bynum (1975) list C. penantis as common and widespread in NC
estuaries, and very abundant on pilings and exposed open beaches. Marsh
(1973) noted that Caprella penantis was common in the York River,
VA, Zostera beds only during the colder months of the season.
Williams and Bynum (1972) indicate that C. penantis was present in
North Carolina samples from all months except October, and was most
abundant in May-June.
Bynum (1978) studied aspects of the reproduction of Caprella
penantis in North Carolina. Males grasp females with the posterior
periopods, in contrast to male gammaridean amphipods which employ the first
gnathopods for this purpose. Males defend grasped females from competing
Breeding occurred year-round with a peak in the spring and a lesser peak in
the late summer and early fall. Females probably live for one year and
produce several broods during their life (Bynum 1978).
Vassilenko (1991) reports that female C. penantis in his studies
from Japan had broods of approximately 16-21 eggs and that they ranged
between 0.25-0.30 mm in diameter. Egg-bearing females ranged between
approximately 15-30 mg in weight.
Embryology is typical of peracarid crustaceans, with fertilized eggs
carried in the brood pouch of the female and direct-developing young
emerging as crawl-away juveniles with no free-living planktonic larval
stage (Aoki 1997).
Although prolonged co-habitation of mother and young emerged from the brood
pouch has been observed in some caprellid amphipods (Lim and Alexander
1986, Aoki and Kikuchi 1991), Aoki (1997) reports that C. penantis
shows no such interaction between mother and emerged young in experimental
trials. Instead, newly emerged juveniles immediately dispersed onto the
experimental substratum (algal thalli or hydroid branches).
IV. PHYSICAL TOLERANCES
Broad distribution along the east coast of the US from Florida to north of
Cape Cod indicates a broad thermal tolerance for this species.
Widespread distribution in coastal ocean habitats as well as inshore
estuarine habitats demonstrates that Caprella penantis can persist
within a relatively broad salinity range.
Sagasti et al. (2000) indicate that Caprella penantis persists in the face
of frequent summer hypoxic stress (O2 concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm) in
the shallow epifaunal community of the York River, VA. Vassilenko (1991)
calculated weight-based oxygen consumption rates for several Japan Sea
caprellids (including C. penantis) and demonstrated that the
metabolic rate of caprellids is 1.5 times lower than that of gamarideans.
V. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY
Feeding is accomplished both by scraping and by filter feeding (Caine
1974). Gnathopods are used to scrape encrusting diatoms, epiphytes, and
detritus from the surfaces of the host substratum, while entrapment of
suspended particles occurs via the setose antennae (Caine 1978). Luczkovich
et al. (2002) confirmed epiphyte-grazing as the primary feeding strategy.
Duffy (1990) reports that C. penantis significantly reduced the
growth of epiphytes (primarily diatoms and the filamentous brown alga
Ectocarpus siliculosus) on the brown macroalga Sargassum
filipendula in experimental mesocosms, but left the macroalgal
Caine (1979, 1983) notes a particular instance in which the efficiency of
C. penantis particle capture by direct interception was modified by
the use of an adherent substance on the filtering structures. The adherent
substance was mucus from the associated sea whip Leptogorgia
virgulata. Its presence on the filtering antennae of C.
penantis resulted in improved filtering efficiency and retention of
materials finer than the setal spacing. Laboratory studies by Morgan
(1989) indicate that C. penantis is also at least capable of
facultatively feeding on planktonic crab zoeae.
Intraspecific competition between male Caprella penantis for mates
has been described. Males aggressively defend grasped females from
competing males and often may employ a poison tooth on the second
gnathopods to inflict mortal injury on competitors (Bynum 1978, Caine
The dual ability to scrape food from host substrata and to filter food from
the water column likely minimizes the need to compete for dietary
Phytal amphipods are an important component in the diet of several fish
species associated with macrophytes. Orth and Heck (1980) observed C.
penantis remains in the guts of juvenile (140-165 mm) black sea bass,
Centropristis striata. Teixeira and Musick (1995) record that C.
penantis was among the top three amphipod species consumed by northern
pipefish, Syngnathus fuscus, in Zostera beds of the lower
York River, VA. Caine (1983) lists a number of fish species, including
pinfish, blennies, gobies, and pipefish, observed feeding on the C.
penantis-dominated Leptogorgia virgulata epibiont community in
the Thallassia seagrass beds of northwest Florida. Analysis of
pinfish gut contents revealed that C. penantis was the only
Leptogorgia epibiont consumed.
Predatory invertebrates such as nemertean worms are also capable of preying
on C. penantis (McDermott 1976). Thiel and Kruse (2001) also list C.
penantis as among the amphipod prey of the nemertean Tetrastemma
Caprella penantis is strongly associated with a variety of
macrophyte substrata including seagrasses and macroalgae. The conspicuous
presence of C. penentis within the Florida Gulf Leptogorgia
virgulata epibiont community has been noted previously. Frick et al
(2004) list C. penantis as one of 12 new records of species
encountered as epibionts on loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
Caprella penantis is described by Boesch et al (1976) as an
opportunistic species with demonstrated capacity to quickly colonize
habitats after a disturbance in response to relaxed biotic pressure. It is
a common inhabitant of seagrass habitats, and in particular has been
observed as the primary epibiont of the sea whip Leptogorgia
virgulata within northwest Florida Thalassia testudinum beds
This amphipod can be found in association with several species of
macroalgae (e.g., Sanchez-Moyano and Garcia-Gomez 1998) in exposed and
protected sites, and has also been recorded as a minor component of the
sand-beach amphipod assemblage on the east coast of Florida (Charvat et al
1990). The stout, short segmented body and periopods of C. penantis
are well-suited for clinging to macroalgae in exposed environments
(Hirayama and Kikuchi (1980).
VI. SPECIAL STATUS
The species has no direct economic value, but it is an ecologically
important community component, both as a prey resource to other species and
as a potential mediator of the health of phytal substrata. Duffy (1990)
states that the species composition of a phytal amphipod community
determines whether the amphipods increase or decrease the fitness of the
phytal habitat components. Whereas the amphipod Ampithoe marcuzii
consumed host Sargassum Caprella penantis significantly
reduced algel epiphytes without negatively affecting the Sargassum
Aoki M and T Kikuchi. 1991. Two types of maternal care for juveniles
observed in Caprella monoceros Mayer, 1890 and Caprella
decipiens Mayer, 1890 (Amphipoda: Caprellidae). Hydrobiologia
Aoki M. 1997. Comparative study of mother-young association in caprellid
amphipods: Is maternal care effective? Journal of Crustacean Biology
Bartholomew A. 2002. Faunal colonization of artificial seagrass plots: The
importance of surface area versus space size relative to body size.
Boesch DF, Diaz RJ, and RW Virnstein. 1976. Effects of Tropical Storm Agnes
on soft-bottom macrobenthic communities of the James and York Estuaries and
the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science 17:246-259.
Bynum KH. 1978. Reproductive biology of Caprella penantis Leach,
1814 (Amphipoda: Caprellidae) in North Carolina, U.S.A. Estuarine and
Coastal Marine Science 7:473-485.
Bynum KH. 1980. Multivariate assessment of morphological variation in
Caprella penantis Leach, 1814 (Amphipoda: Caprellidae). Estuarine
and Coastal Marine Science 10:225-237.
Caine AE. 1974. Comparative functional morphology of feeding in three
species of caprellids (crustacea, amphipoda) from the northwestern Florida
gulf coast. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 15:81-96.
Caine EA. 1978. Habitat adaptations of North American caprellid amphipoda
(Crustacea). Biological Bulletin 155:288-296.
Caine EA. 1979. Functions of swimming setae within caprellid amphipods
(Crustacea). Biological Bulletin 156:169-178.
Caine EA. 1983. Community interactions of Caprella penantis Leach
(Crustacea: Amphipoda) on sea whips. Journal of Crustacean Biology
Caine EA. 1989. Relationship between wave activity and robustness of
caprellid amphipods. Journal of Crustacean Biology 9:425-431.
Caine EA. 1998. First case of caprellid amphipod-hydrozoan mutualism.
Journal of Crustacean Biology 18:317-320.
Charvat DL, Nelson WG, and TA Allenbaugh. 1990. Composition and seasonality
of sand-beach amphipod assemblages of the east coast of Florida. Journal of
Crustacean Biology 10:446-454.
Diaz YJ, Guerra-garcia JM, and A Martin. Caprellids (Crustacea: Amphipoda:
Caprellidae) from shallow waters of the Caribbean coast of Venezuela.
Organisms, Diversity and Evolution 5:249-251.
Duffy JE. 1990. Amphipods on seaweeds: partners or pests? Oecologia
Frick MG, Williams KL, Markesteyn EJ, Pfaller JB, and RE Frick. 2004. New
records and observations of epibionts from sea turtles. Southeastern
Fox RS and KH Bynum. 1975. The amphipod crustaceans of North Carolina
estuarine waters. Chesapeake Science 16:223-237.
Hirayama, A., and T. Kikuchi. 1980. Caprellid fauna associated with
subtidal algal beds along the coast of the Oshika Peninsula, Tohoku
District.-Publications from the Amakusa Marine Bio- logical Laboratory 5:
Lim STA and CG Alexander. 1986. Reproductive behavior of the caprellid
amphipod, Caprella scaura typical Mayer, 1890. Marine Behaviour and
Luczkovich JJ, Ward GP, Johnson JC, Baird D, Neckles H, and WM Rizzo. 2002.
Determining the trophic guilds of fishes and macroinvertebrates. Estuaries
Marsh GA. 1973. The Zostera epifaunal community in the York River,
Virginia. Chesapeake Science 14:87-97.
McCain JC. 1968. The Caprellidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda) of the Western
North Atlantic. United States National Museum Bulletin 278:1-147.
McDermott JJ. 1976. Observations on the food and feeding behavior of
estuarine nemertean worms belonging to the Order Hoplonemertea. Biological
Morgan SG. 1989. Adaptive significance of spination in estuarine crab
zoeae. Ecology 70:464-482.
Orth RJ and KL Heck, Jr. 1980. Structural components of eelgrass
(Zostera marina) meadows in the Lower Chesapeake Bay: Fishes.
Rupert EE and RS Fox. 1988. Seashore Animals of the Southeast. A Guide to
Common Shallow-Water Invertebrates of the Southeastern Atlantic Coast.
University of South Carolina Press. 429 p.
Sagasti A, Schaffner LC, and JE Duffy. 2000. Epifaunal communities thrive
in an estuary with hypoxic episodes. Estuaries 23:474-487.
Sanchez-Moyano JE and JC Garcia-Gomez. 1998. The arthropod community,
especially crustacea, as a bioindicator in Algeciras Bay (Southern Spain)
based on a spatial distribution. Journal of Coastal Research 14:1119-1133.
Teixeira RL and JA Musick. 1995. Trophic ecology of two congeneric
pipefishes (Syngnathidae) of the lower York River, Virginia. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 43:295-309.
Thiel M and I Kruse. 2001. Status of the Nemertea as predators in marine
ecosystems. Hydrobiologia 456:21-32.
Vassilenko SV. 1991. Eco-physiological characteristic of some common
caprellid species in the Possjet Bay (the Japan Sea). Hydrobiologia
Williams AB and KH Bynum. 1972. A ten-year study of meroplankton in North
Carolina Estuaries: Amphipods. Chesapeake Science 13:175-192.
J. Masterson, Smithsonian Marine Station
Submit additional information, photos or comments
Page last updated: October 1, 2008