Next Article in Journal
Development of Genetic Tools in Glucoamylase-Hyperproducing Industrial Aspergillus niger Strains
Next Article in Special Issue
Impacts of Deoxygenation and Hypoxia on Shark Embryos Anti-Predator Behavior and Oxidative Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Nuclear Molecular Imaging of Disease Burden and Response to Treatment for Cardiac Amyloidosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Hypoxia on Coral Photobiology and Oxidative Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/biology11101394
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Camouflage and Exploratory Avoidance of Newborn Cuttlefish under Warming and Acidification

by
Mélanie Court
1,*,
José Ricardo Paula
1,2,
Marta Macau
1,
Eve Otjacques
1,3,
Tiago Repolho
1,2,
Rui Rosa
1,2 and
Vanessa Madeira Lopes
1
1
MARE—Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre & ARNET—Aquatic Research Network, Laboratório Marítimo da Guia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Nossa Senhora do Cabo, 939, 2750-374 Cascais, Portugal
2
Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal
3
Carnegie Institution for Science, Division of Biosphere Sciences and Engineering, Church Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2022, 11(10), 1394; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101394
Submission received: 25 August 2022 / Revised: 19 September 2022 / Accepted: 20 September 2022 / Published: 24 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impacts of Climate Change on the Marine Biota: From Molecules to Ecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Sub-lethal effects of climate change on organisms have received little attention to date. For instance, little is known concerning the ability of cuttlefish to camouflage and to explore under ocean acidification and warming. This study aimed to evaluate the physiology, camouflage performance, and exploratory avoidance behavior of cuttlefish hatchlings exposed to these stressors during embryogenesis. Hatchlings were placed in arenas with either sand or white and black gravel covering the bottom. Photographs were taken remotely to extract camouflage latency and pixel values in the cuttlefish body and the background. Mobility and proximity to the arena walls were recorded. Despite survival being lower under acidification and warming combined, our results indicate that camouflage was strengthened under warming, whilst no effect was found on spatial exploration. This study shows that cuttlefish mobility and exploratory avoidance behaviors are unlikely to be impacted by changes in climate. Moreover, camouflage, an anti-predator strategy essential to the survival of cuttlefish newborns, is not impeded and might be enhanced by future levels of ocean acidification and warming.

Abstract

Ocean warming and acidification have been shown to elicit deleterious effects on cephalopod mollusks, especially during early ontogeny, albeit effects on behavior remain largely unexplored. This study aimed to evaluate, for the first time, the effect of end-of-the-century projected levels of ocean warming (W; + 3 °C) and acidification (A; 980 µatm pCO2) on Sepia officinalis hatchlings’ exploratory behavior and ability to camouflage in different substrate complexities (sand and black and white gravel). Cuttlefish were recorded in open field tests, from which mobility and exploratory avoidance behavior data were obtained. Latency to camouflage was registered remotely, and pixel intensity of body planes and background gravel were extracted from photographs. Hatching success was lowered under A and W combined (AW; 72.7%) compared to control conditions (C; 98.8%). Motion-related behaviors were not affected by the treatments. AW delayed camouflage response in the gravel substrate compared to W alone. Moreover, cuttlefish exhibited a higher contrast and consequently a stronger disruptive pattern under W, with no changes in background matching. These findings suggest that, although climate change may elicit relevant physiological challenges to cuttlefish, camouflage and mobility of these mollusks are not undermined under the ocean of tomorrow.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The world’s climate has undergone extensive changes since the pre-industrial era, a process described by Duarte [1] as Anthropogenic Global Change, i.e., “the global-scale changes resulting from the impact of human activity on the major processes that regulate the functioning of the Biosphere”. Jointly, warming, acidification, and deoxygenation are viewed as the “deadly trio” due to their central role in most historical global mass extinctions and their alarming importance in modern world change [2,3]. The rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to ocean acidification (OA) [4] and ocean warming (OW) resulting from an increased greenhouse effect. Due to its high density and low specific heat, the ocean acts as a heat reservoir, and consequently buffers changes in climate [5]. Indeed, it is estimated that the ocean has absorbed 91% of the energy released by global warming between 1971 and 2018 [6], most of it accumulating in the upper 700 m of the ocean [7]. End-of-the-century sea surface temperature change projections range from stabilization at current temperatures to a ~5°C temperature increment [6], depending on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) and the global effective radiative forcing. The direct effects of Ocean Warming (OW) on organisms include increased metabolism costs, hindered oxygen delivery to tissues and consequent narrower ecological niche [8], and increased vulnerability to disease, which often results in mass mortalities [9,10,11]. Accordingly, fisheries are susceptible to a decrease in the maximum catch potential of many fish stocks, averaging a circa 4% decrease per decade [12]. Nevertheless, OW also induces lasting changes in communities through altered species interactions, such as changes in bottom-up forcing due to a predominance of resistant plankton species [13].
Similarly, owing to CO2’s high solubility in water, the ocean is estimated to have absorbed from 20% to 30% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the late 1980s, corresponding to a decrease in ocean pH of 0.1 units. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this drop is expected to persist, with pH declining as far as an additional 0.32 units by 2100 under a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5) [12], and an additional ~ 0.4 units if the SSP is accounted for, under fossil fuel-based development (SSP5-8.5) [14]. Ocean acidification has several detrimental effects on marine biota. With respect to the adverse impacts, it compromises the ability of certain organisms to develop skeletons, namely corals, calcareous plankton, and other calcium carbonate shell-forming groups [4]. Furthermore, elevated CO2 and subsequent acidification result in higher energetic costs for animals, as consumers require additional energy for acid-base regulation, ultimately affecting growth, survival, and reproduction [15]. Severe repercussions of OA are expected to also alter species interactions, for example, through increased competition from organisms that are more resilient to or benefit from OA [16,17]. Nevertheless, organismic responses to OA are often species-specific and vary according to the environment. Species in naturally low pH environments, e.g., hydrothermal vents, oxygen-minimum zones, and upwelling sites, or environments with high pH spatial and temporal variability, such as coastal zones and shelf-seas, seem less affected by OA. Yet, as they are often near their biological limits, these species might be exposed sooner to harmful thresholds [18].
Cephalopods were observed by Doubleday et al. [19] to have undergone a population expansion between 1953 and 2013, whilst most fish populations were declining. This phenomenon co-occurred with large-scale processes, such as overfishing-driven competition and predation relaxation, and anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, ocean warming leads to faster growth rates and shorter life cycles, providing a competitive edge relative to longer-lived species [19]. Like most cephalopods, Sepia officinalis are highly adaptable to environmental conditions, considering their high fecundity and short life span [20,21]. Tolerance to climate-related changes is likely to differ between juveniles and adult cuttlefish, which can reach 310 mm in mantle length [22]. On the one hand, hatchlings must allocate considerable energy to rapid growth. On the other, they may have exhausted their maternal yolk supply and must contend with high food intake requirements due to a faster metabolism [23,24].
Cuttlefish embryonic stages were found to have lower survival rates and higher premature hatching under acidification and warming combined (+4 °C, Δ0.5 pH, ~1600 μatm CO2), as well as under warming alone [25]. Further, pre-hatching eggs display lower hypoxic thresholds when exposed to both stressors simultaneously (S. officinalis) [25]. However, acidification per se was found to have no impacts on cuttlefish hatchlings’ fitness, i.e., ability to reproduce [25,26], except for increased rates of calcification in the cuttlebone at 980 μatm (assuming cuttlefish are fed) [27], or starting from a decrease of 0.25 pH units [28] relative to current pH levels. Concerning behavior, Moura et al. [26] observed no effects of acidification on shelter-seeking, hunting, or detection of conspecifics in cuttlefish hatchlings. To date, the effects of warming on cephalopod behavior are unknown.
Animal movement tracking in a laboratory setting is commonly used to construe the animal’s foraging and anti-predator behaviors [29]. This method is useful to study the impact of climate changes on the movement of cuttlefish newborns, and therefore potential impacts on their foraging success. In addition, it allows us to determine whether cuttlefish exhibit thigmotactic behaviors, as the tendency to remain close to vertical surfaces is viewed as an attempt to take cover from predators. Thus, venturing into an open space, especially when accompanied by energy and time costs, represents a voluntary, curiosity-driven movement, often motivated by mating or hunger [30]. This exploratory behavior, a movement directed toward acquiring information about the environment, is evoked in animals of all phyla [31], and can, when inhibited, limit foraging opportunities.
Conversely, camouflage in the European cuttlefish has been extensively studied. They are uniquely equipped to dynamically camouflage, as they control their skin coloration and texture neurologically, based solely on their vision [32]. Apart from exhibiting an impressive repertoire of skin patterns and a sophisticated visual system, this characteristic allows them to change skin patterning instantly [32,33]. Despite being color-blind [34], cuttlefish are able to closely emulate background colors [35] and are particularly responsive to edges and differences in contrast [36,37]. Although this species displays a continuum of chromatic body patterns, three types are commonly recognizable based on the size of light and dark spots. It produces uniform (small spots) and mottle (medium-sized spots) patterns to match the background and hinder detection [32,36,38] and disruptive patterns (large spots, and other forms) in order to prevent recognition by creating the appearance of false edges and boundaries and hiding the animal’s true outline and shape [39]. Camouflage in juveniles is crucial for survival, as predation rates are high. Whilst adult cuttlefish use body patterning mostly in reproductive behaviors, juveniles use it primarily for concealment, wherein light mottle and disruptive patterns are most useful [32].
Sub-lethal effects of climate change on organisms should be considered when attempting to predict ecosystem changes, particularly for organisms occupying a central position in the food web, such as the cuttlefish. The aim of this study was to evaluate, for the first time, the effect of end-of-the-century projected levels of ocean warming (+ 3 °C; SSP2-4.5) and acidification (980 µatm pCO2; SSP3-7.0) on S. officinalis early development, exploratory avoidance behavior and ability to camouflage in different substrate complexities (sand and black and white gravel). More specifically, we investigated embryonic development time, hatching success, exploratory behavior (proximity of the novel object, acceleration and immobility rate) and ability to camouflage (latency, disruptiveness, background matching) under the different climate change-related treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethical Statement

All experiments were approved by the FCUL Animal Welfare Committee (ORBEA FCUL) and the Portuguese General-Directorate for Food and Veterinarian Contacts (DGAV), in accordance with National (Decreto-Lei 113/2013) and EU legislation (Directive 2010/63/EU) on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The number of animals used in this study was reduced to circa 80 per treatment, enough to ensure that differences between treatments were detected. After the experiments, animals were anesthetized following the recommended guidelines for animal welfare [40] and the tissues fixated to posteriorly analyze the brain chemistry of animals exposed to these climate-change-related stressors. The prospective severity of the procedures used in this experiment was assessed according to Cooke et al. [41] as between sub-threshold (behavioral trials) and moderate (exposure to physiological stress—acidification and warming). The severity estimation for the sacrifice of animals is non-recovery. The retrospective severity of these procedures on cuttlefish hatchlings is consistent with that which was previously evaluated.

2.2. Egg Collection and Husbandry

S. officinalis egg clutches (4) at early development stages were collected off Algés and Cascais, Portugal, by local fishermen, in May 2021 and transferred to the Laboratório Marítimo da Guia (Cascais). The eggs (n = 248) were separated from the clutches and placed in two semi-opened recirculating aquaria systems, each comprising two water-baths (four water-baths in total) and a sump. Each system, corresponding to one treatment, contained four 9-L plastic tanks (replicates), each connected to the bath through two small meshes, and receiving water directly from the sump (Figure S1). The eggs were distributed randomly and in equal number (within the treatment) between the tanks, acclimated during three days at control conditions and reared at (i) control (18 °C, pCO2 = 420 µatm, n = 80); (ii) warming (21 °C, pCO2 = 420 µatm, n = 80); (iii) acidification (18 °C, pCO2 = 980 µatm, n = 80) and (iv) warming and acidification combined (21 °C, pCO2 = 980 µatm, n = 88; as fewer successful hatchings are expected in this treatment). Water was pumped directly from the sea and filtered through a 1-µm mesh and sterilized by a 12-W UV-sterilizer (Vecton 120 Nano, TMC-Iberia, Lisbon, Portugal). Water was continuously renewed with a water drip system in each bath. Each system was connected to a 270-L sump by 50-W pumps (TMC, V2 Power Pump, 3000 L h−1), containing a protein skimmer (ReefSkimPro 400, TMC-Iberia, Lisbon, Portugal) and bioballs (ouriço®, Fernando Ribeiro Lda, Queluz, Portugal). Additionally, one 35-W pump (TMC, V2 Power Pump, 2150 L h−1) was connected to each bath, at 288–390 mL min−1 flow rate in each tank (renewal every ~30 min). The tanks were illuminated from above with LED, 8-W lights, under a photoperiod of 14 h light to 10 h dark, in accordance with the concurrent local diurnal cycle. Water was kept oxygenated using eight air stones, two in each sump, and one in each bath connected to an air compressor (Medo Blower LA-120A, Nitto Kohki, Tokyo, Japan, sourced from UK branch, Derbyshire). Temperature was maintained through a temperature controller (XH-W3002, accuracy ± 0.1 °C, hysteresis 0.3 °C) connected to water heaters (Eheim thermocontrol 150, Eheim GmbH & Co KG, Deizisau, Germany) and a water chiller (Hailea HC-150A). Via solenoid valves, pH was adjusted automatically, regulated by a Profilux controlling system (3N GHL, Kaiserslautern, Germany) connected to two pH probes (VWR, double junction epoxy BNC, Darmstadt, Germany, sourced through Avantor, Carnaxide, Portugal, hysteresis 0.05). pH values were read every 2 s and downregulated by injection of a certified CO2 gas mixture (Air Liquide, Algés, Portugal) through air stones, or upregulated by aerating the tanks with CO2-filtered air, using soda lime (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany). Alkalinity was tested thrice a week with a digital titrator (Sulfuric Acid 0.1600 N; Hach, Loveland, CO, USA) in order to adjust the pH corresponding to 980 µatm of pCO2 through the CO2SYS Program 01.05 [42]. Salinity (Hanna refractometer, accuracy ± 1 PSU), oxygen levels and temperature (oximeter VWR DO220, accuracy ± 1.5%, ± 0.3 °C respectively), and pH (pHmeter VWR pHenomenal, accuracy ± 0.005) were monitored daily (Table S1). Ammonia/ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate levels were monitored every week through saltwater colorimetric tests (TropicMarin, Hünenberg, Switzerland) and maintained below 0.02 mg L−1 (nitrites and ammonia/ammonium: accuracies ± 0.02 mg L−1 and ± 0.03 mg L−1, respectively) and 0.5 mg L−1 (nitrates: accuracy ± 0.5 mg L−1).

2.3. Hatching Success, Development Time and Size

Mantle length was inferred from novel object test videos in ImageJ 1.46r (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA), compared to a two-cent coin (EUR). Hatching success (number of hatchlings divided by the number of eggs) and development duration from the time the eggs were collected were registered upon hatching. After five days with no hatching, in all treatments, hatchings were considered unsuccessful. To discern individual specimens, newly-hatched cuttlefish were placed in plastic cups (labeled with cuttlefish number, treatment, replicate tank, and hatching date) with eight mesh-covered openings for water circulation, within their rearing tank.

2.4. Exploratory Avoidance Behavior Data Collection and Processing

Exploratory avoidance behavior was assessed through an open-field test with a novel object in the center [43]. From two to five days post-hatching (before the cuttlefish require feeding), 180 cuttlefish (45 per treatment), were placed with a black spoon in a white circular arena (12 cm diameter), with a purple bottle cap in the center (novel object), previously filled with 400 mL of water from the respective treatment (Figure S2). Black flaps surrounded the arena and prevented cuttlefish from seeing the observer. The light was directed above and reflected throughout the chamber with white styrofoam to diffuse it. A video camera (LEGRIA HF R56, 35 Mbps, Canon, Porto Salvo, Portugal) recorded the arena from above at a ca. 90° angle for 20 min upon placing the cuttlefish in the arena. From video recordings, cuttlefish movements were tracked using the animal tracking software ToxTrac v2.61 (see [44]), via the algorithm ToxId [45]. The detection rate (proportion of the video recording wherein the animal was detected by the software), average acceleration, immobility rate and duration of staying away from the walls and near the object (time spent in the region of interest—a circle [7 cm diameter] that is slightly elevated, thus disincentivizing exploration behavior), and inking events were extracted from videos. Video contrast was augmented beforehand by 130–150%. Results were considered exclusively when detection rates exceeded 90%.

2.5. Camouflage Data Collection and Processing

From two to five days post-hatching, and at least five hours after the open-field trial, 160 cuttlefish (40 per treatment) were placed, with the aid of a black spoon, in a white circular arena (12 cm diameter), with the bottom covered in either sand, to evoke a mottle pattern in the cuttlefish, or a gravel mixture of 60% black, 40% white (FishPlanet, Lisbon, Portugal), to evoke a disruptive pattern. Individual gravel area ranged from approximately 100% to 200% of the cuttlefish’s dorsal square area—a light region expressed under the disruptive pattern in the center of the mantle. The order of presentation of substrate patterns alternated between each trial, i.e., if a cuttlefish underwent the camouflage trial in sand first, and gravel immediately after, the following cuttlefish was placed in gravel first, then sand. Cuttlefish were attributed a random number displayed in videos and the observer was blind during the analysis, thus avoiding observer bias. The arenas were filled with water (400 mL) from the corresponding treatment and renewed between each trial. To register attempts at burying in the substrate, a video camera (GoPro Hero 3+, San Mateo CA, USA) recorded the arena for ten minutes after acclimation (considered when the cuttlefish remained stationary for more than five seconds). Concomitantly, photographs (Canon PowerShot G7X Mark II, white balance-calibrated, shutter speed 1/15, F-stop f/11, ISO 250, 1080p, 60 fps) were taken remotely (Canon Connect application for mobile phones) at a 90° angle approx., whenever cuttlefish changed camouflage pattern or intensified the present pattern. Time past acclimation was registered with the aid of a chronometer, upon taking each photograph.
Camouflage latency was assumed as the time following acclimation until the photo was taken, when cuttlefish camouflage was best suited to the environment (in sand, strong mottle; in gravel, dark uniform, or strong disruptive pattern). Due to latency data being highly zero-inflated, it was transformed to binary data (immediate—from 0 to 30 s, and delayed camouflage—upwards of 30 s). Further, the difference between minimum and maximum pixel values (grayscale) within the frontal and transversal body planes, and the difference in pixel integrated densities (grayscale) between the cuttlefish’s light region (dorsal square) and white substrate and dark region and black substrate (preference was given to gravel within the cuttlefish’s field of vision) were extracted from photographs taken in gravel substrate through the ImageJ software (Figure S3).

2.6. Anesthesia and Humane Killing

After the open-field test, cuttlefish were carefully transferred to 50-mL Falcon tubes containing water from their treatment bath and 2% ethyl alcohol (EtOH). After 10 min, they were placed in 4%-EtOH Falcons, where they remained for another 10 min. They were then examined for mantle and syphon contractions and the mantle was pinched to detect responses to noxious stimuli [40] (all were unresponsive). As their brains were needed for further analyses, their death was confirmed by a knife incision between the head and the mantle. The mantles were immediately frozen at −80°C, and the head tissue was fixated for posterior neuron quantification analyses.

2.7. Data Analyses

2.7.1. Survival Analysis

Hatching of cuttlefish over time was assessed through a Cox proportional hazards regression model (function “coxph”, package “survival”), with development time and successful hatchings (binary factor) as covariates and treatment as the predictor variable (four-level factor) (see [46]). The assumptions of the “coxph” model (proportional hazards, no over-influential observations and linearity of covariates) were tested by plotting the scaled residuals over time (Schoenfeld test; “ggcoxzph”). Since these were not met, a non-parametric “survdiff” model was fitted. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed, and p-values were adjusted through Bonferroni–Hochberg corrections, to avoid type I errors.

2.7.2. Generalized Linear Models

A Linear Model (LM) was fitted to mantle lengths, with treatment as the predictor variable.
Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) from the Beta family (log link function; function “betareg”, package “betareg”) were fitted to the percentage of time in the proximity of the object and immobility rate and an LM was fitted to average acceleration. The AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) function was used to determine whether the replicate, detection rate, mantle length and their interactions influenced the response variables.
LMs were used to assess pixel value differences between treatments (in the cuttlefish’s body planes and in comparison with the background). GLMs from the Binomial family (logit link function) were fitted to latency to camouflage, time of acclimation, burial in sand. The influence of replicates, first substrate presented, cuttlefish mantle length, and time elapsed between trials (and their interactions), was tested through the AIC function for each response variable. All GLM assumptions (independence, normality, and homoscedasticity of residuals) were tested. Type II Wald chi-squared tests (function “Anova”) were performed before each analysis to assess the influence of explanatory variables (treatment and first substrate presented) on the response variable. Post-hoc comparisons between treatments were performed (function “emmeans”, package “emmeans”). In order to avoid type I errors, p-values were adjusted through Tukey corrections. The admissible error was set at 0.05. Analyses were carried out in the RStudio, version 1.4.1717, PBC, software.

3. Results

3.1. Development Time, Hatching Success and Size

Cuttlefish exhibited a prolonged embryogenesis under Acidification (A; ~50 days, n = 50) relative to control conditions (~46 days; Cox model, n = 51, p < 0.001) (Table 1; post-hoc tests shown in Table S2), while Warming (W) caused cuttlefish to hatch sooner (~ 35 days; Cox model, n = 49, p < 0.001). Such effects were reduced under Acidification and Warming combined (AW; ~37 days; n = 55, p = 0.03).
The AW treatment decreased hatching success to 72.7% relative to control (98.8%), A (95.0%) and W (98.8%) conditions (Figure 1). Although no statistically significant effect of A (LM, z = 0.928, df = 167, p = 0.790) and W (LM, z = −2.508, df = 167, p = 0.059) on mantle length was detected compared to C conditions, AW-exposed cuttlefish presented reduced mantle length relative to W-exposed cuttlefish (LM, z = −3.33, df = 167, p < 0.01).

3.2. Exploration Avoidance

Exploratory avoidance and locomotory behaviors were inferred through the acceleration, immobility and distancing from the arena walls (proximity to the object) in an open-field test. Results are shown in Table 2. No significant differences on average acceleration (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3, χ2 = 1.35, p > 0.1) were observed among treatments (Figure S4).
Moreover, the time spent near the object was also not affected by the different treatments (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3, χ2 = 3.18, p > 0.1) (Figure S5), nor were ink ejections (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3, χ2 = 3.09, p > 0.1).

3.3. Camouflage

The ability to camouflage was assessed through the latency to camouflage, the intensity of the disruptive pattern and the matching to the background (comparison of pixel intensities) (statistical outputs are shown in Table 3, post-hoc comparisons in Table S2).
Latency to camouflage on the sand substrate did not change among treatments (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3, χ2 = 1.03, p > 0.1; Figure 2). Yet, fewer cuttlefish camouflaged immediately upon acclimation in the gravel under AW relative to W (GLM, z = 2.15, df = 167, p < 0.05). Camouflage in gravel was delayed when the gravel substrate was presented first (Wald chi-squared test, df = 1, χ2 = 5.65, p < 0.05).
With respect to body planes pixel intensity differences in gravel, both W (LM, z = −3.48, df = 134, p < 0.01) and AW (LM, z = 2.73, df = 134, p < 0.05) treatments significantly enhanced body pattern contrast compared with C (Figure 3). Moreover, body contrast was reduced when gravel was presented first (Wald chi-squared test, df = 1, χ2 = 8.72, p < 0.01).
Treatments did not affect the difference between the cuttlefish’s dark region and black gravel integrated pixel intensities (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3, χ2 = 4.92, p > 0.1) nor the difference between the cuttlefish’s light region (dorsal square) and white gravel integrated pixel intensities (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3, χ2 = 2.01, p > 0.1) (Figure S6). Pixel integrated density of the dark region did not fall lower than black gravel.
Latency to camouflage (immediate or delayed) was lower in sand (GLM, df = 1, χ2 = 3.95, p = 0.05) (Figure S7). Indeed, more cuttlefish were able to camouflage immediately in the sand (52%) than in gravel (40%). Time of acclimation did not vary significantly among treatments (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3; sand, χ2 = 2.59, p > 0.1; gravel, χ2 = 1.00, p > 0.1), nor did attempts at burying in the sand (Wald chi-squared test, df = 3, χ2 = 2.59, p > 0.1).

4. Discussion

To evaluate possible sub-lethal effects of expected climate changes on a cephalopod species, we have studied exploratory and anti-predator behaviors of Sepia officinalis hatchlings. We have found through open-field and camouflage tests that this species, despite exhibiting pronounced mortality during its embryonic development, is highly resistant with respect to behavior.
As previously reported [25,26,28] for lower pH (Δ pH 0.4, 0.5, and 0.4, respectively), acidification of Δ pH ~0.3 had no relevant effect on hatching success. CO2 partial pressures can be three times higher within the egg than surrounding seawater pCO2 [25,28], making them uniquely prepared for projected levels of OA. Moreover, cuttlefish are active swimmers and consequently need an efficient ion transport system to maintain a stable blood pH during exercise in order to cope with their respiratory CO2 [47]. Indeed, contrarily to most marine invertebrates, ectotherms with high metabolic rates, such as teleosts and cephalopods, are able to garner soft tissue mass and calcify under hypercapnia [26]. Additionally, as observed by Moura et al. [26], exposure to A during embryogenesis was found to not affect the size of newly-hatched cuttlefish. Similarly to squid under Δ pH 0.4 [48] and cuttlefish under 980 µatm pCO2 [27], our findings indicate that acidification prolongs embryogenesis. Thus, on the one hand, A may pose a physiological burden on cuttlefish hatchlings if paired with the downregulation of regulatory and metabolic genes [49]. Warming, on the other hand, led to shortened development times as a result of higher energy expenditures and turnover [25,50]. Yet, acidification and warming were found to have a synergistic negative effect on hatching success, reducing it substantially. This is corroborated by Rosa et al. [25], with more extreme conditions (+4 °C, ΔpH 0.5). However, Dorey et al. [28] found no effect (+3 °C, ΔpH 0.4), which might suggest intraspecific differences in heat and hypercapnia tolerances associated with local adaptation. The combined treatment (AW) did not affect cuttlefish size (mantle length) at hatching, possibly due to the existence of an antagonistic effect between stressors, or because cuttlefish have developed mechanisms to temporarily cope with these stressors, such as improved systemic oxygen delivery through cellular and mitochondrial regulation [51]. Interestingly, AW-exposed cuttlefish displayed intermediate development durations between A and W, suggesting that acidification might reduce the negative effects caused by warming.
Exploratory behavior is the spatial exploration of novel situations; thus, inhibited exploratory behavior can potentially limit foraging opportunities. In the present case, the time cuttlefish spent in the proximity of the novel object was not affected by the treatments. This was also expected, as A does not affect shelter-seeking and hunting behaviors [26]. Similarly, average acceleration and immobility rate were not affected by climate change-related stressors (W, A, and combined). Accordingly, Maneja et al. [52] found that cuttlefish’s ability to capture prey was only affected at 4000 µatm pCO2, a very distant value from projected levels for the end of the century. Other pre-natal sources of stress, such as predator cues, were found to have no effect on locomotor activity [53]. Defensive behaviors, e.g., approaching, retreating, and inking in the presence of a predator, were not influenced by embryonic exposure to predator cues in Sepia pharaonis and S. officinalis [53]. However, O’Brien et al. [54] observed that embryonic stress (odor cues from predators and artificial lighting) increased attempts at capturing prey. According to these authors, locomotor activity levels did not change as a result of embryonic stress, but increased from maternal stress (daily removal of the reproducing mother from water). As per the threat-sensitive predator-avoidance hypothesis [55], animals exhibit antipredator behavior proportionately to the perceived threat from a predator. Indeed, antipredator behaviors are costly as they reduce foraging and mating opportunities. Animals that can accurately assess predation risk and adjust their behavior accordingly have a better chance at survival. Concurrently, a shift in activity levels would likely impact survivorship. Such results could be explained by a broad phenotypic plasticity, characteristic of cephalopods [56], paired with frequent exposure to extreme conditions. For example, species in high pH spatial and temporal variability environments, such as coastal zones and shelf-seas, seem less affected by A [18]. However, the effects of prolonged exposure into adulthood to these stressors are unknown.
Cuttlefish is well adapted to sandy substrates, as it camouflaged more promptly in this substrate independently of the different climate change-related treatments. In addition to chromatic patterns, texture patterns are equally necessary to match a sand background. Cuttlefish which did not exhibit skin texture, through the expression of major lateral papillae, i.e., protrusions borne of muscle expansions [33], could not successfully blend in the sand. Furthermore, cuttlefish seem to perform more poorly if they are first presented with another substrate. Indeed, camouflage was delayed, body contrast in gravel was reduced, and cuttlefish displayed darker colors when gravel was the first substrate presented to cuttlefish. A possible reason for this is increased stress at being in a new environment where burial was less facilitated. For instance, Allen et al. [57] found that S. officinalis show no preference for a particular substrate, save when they can bury themselves.
In white and black gravel, a more complex substrate, the combined effect of A and W delayed cuttlefish camouflage relative to W per se. The optic lobe undergoes rapid development during embryogenesis, specifically structural components of the cortex and radial column zone, which are responsible for the processing of visual information [58]. Increased latency to disruptive camouflage might indicate that this development was compromised, due to an exacerbation of extreme conditions inside the egg (high pCO2, low O2), especially in late embryogenesis. Further, color change is likely to entail energetic or metabolic costs related to the synthesis of pigments and cells, or changes in the state of chromatophore cells [59]. Therefore, these processes might be impeded by the existing higher energy expenditure caused by warming. For example, guppies (Poecilia reticulata) were found to increase food consumption following color change and avoid further color changes [60], and S. officinalis L. intensified camouflage patterns only when exposed to visual [61] and small predators [62].
Given that camouflage in cuttlefish hatchlings is primarily a defense strategy, camouflage performance must be evaluated from the perspective of relevant predators [63]. Putative cuttlefish predators (di- and tri-chromatic fish) have been shown to rely minimally on color [64], which is why grayscale is considered a reliable measure of camouflage efficiency. Contrast in disruptive patterning is thus another indicator of camouflage performance, considering that cuttlefish adjust their contrast proportionately to the contrast of the background [65]. Interestingly, W, and, to a lesser extent, AW, enhanced body pattern contrast along the frontal and transversal body planes. Cuttlefish seemingly camouflage better when exposed to a stressor during embryonic development, or even when their progenitor is subjected to stress. Maternal stress (daily removal of the reproducing female from the water) was found to increase disruption in offspring [54]. Furthermore, embryonic exposure to predator chemical cues led to strengthened disruptive patterns in S. officinalis [63]. S. officinalis hatchlings face a higher predatory threat than embryos or adults [53]. However, their predators are expected to perish under future ocean conditions and overfishing [19]. This suggests that cuttlefish might waste resources by intensifying an anti-predator behavior in the absence of predators. However, these cuttlefish did not show improved background matching. This could be due to cuttlefish resorting to dark uniform patterns instead of the expected disruptive pattern in black and white gravel. It is important to note that gravel size was not controlled (cuttlefish only produce disruptive patterns if white gravel measures around 40% to 120% of their dorsal square [66]).
Success of hatching reflected a synergistic effect of temperature and acidity. This might indicate that a threshold of extreme conditions was reached, triggering energy allocation toward behaviors conducive to foraging and protection from predators (where no interacting effect was found) and penalizing growth and survival. Thus, although no effect was detected on behavior, its damaging effects on physiology cannot be disregarded.

5. Conclusions

Cuttlefish seem to be particularly resilient to acidification, a stressor that solely prolonged embryogenesis. However, warming had direct impacts on cuttlefish growth, leading to shortened development times and higher mortality. The combined effect of these stressors markedly reduced hatching success, denoting an interacting effect. No effect of acidification or warming on hatchlings’ exploration behavior and activity levels was identified in this study. Conversely, disruptive camouflage was enhanced under warming. This demonstrates some capacity to withstand and adapt to change, similarly to adaptations to predator exposure, or even artificial stressors (e.g., LED lighting), which have never been encountered by the species in its natural environment [54]. However, maximum disruptive camouflage was delayed by acidification and warming combined in relation to warming alone, suggesting an underlying physiological or developmental burden of camouflage. If climate change were to hamper camouflage considerably, cuttlefish would lose their primary defense strategy against predators. The present findings increase our understanding on the biological impacts of these climate change-related stressors on cephalopods. However, impacts of deoxygenation, hypoxia, and acute events such as marine heatwaves merit further investigation. Concurrently, as shown by O’Brien et al. [54], maternal stressors have a larger impact on post-natal behaviors than direct embryonic stress. Thus, studying the impacts of combined climate change stressors on reproductive females and their offspring might provide valuable insights into an integrated climate change response. Furthermore, these impacts on gametes, zygotes, and early development should also be understood, as these stages lack the specialized ion-regulatory epithelia that enable resilience to ocean acidification [67].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biology11101394/s1, Figure S1. Aquaria system: (a) Recirculating system comprising two aquaria with two water-baths and a sump each, (b) four tanks in a bath (corresponding to a treatment); (c) cuttlefish eggs in a suspended net and cup containing a newborn cuttlefish. Figure S2: Photograph from a novel object test video frame. The purple cap is the novel object, and the green circle delineates the region of interest (in proximity of the object and slightly elevated). Figure S3. Metrics used to infer pixel intensity differences from photographs in the ImageJ software: (a) Cuttlefish transversal plane and (b) frontal plane used to measure pixel intensities; comparison of pixel integrated densities between (c) white substrate and cuttlefish light region and (d) black substrate and cuttlefish dark region. Figure S4. Effect of treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming) on cuttlefish: (a) Average acceleration; (b) Percentage of time spent immobile. Points represent predicted means, and bars represent confidence intervals from generalized linear models (Gaussian and Beta families, respectively). Figure S5: Effect of treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming) on the percentage of time cuttlefish spent in proximity of the novel object. Points represent predicted means, and bars represent confidence intervals from a generalized linear model (Beta family). Blue points represent observed individual data. Figure S6. Pixel values range (difference between the maximum and minimum pixel intensity; grayscale units) between: (a) Black gravel and the cuttlefish’s dark region; (b) White gravel and the cuttlefish’s light region (dorsal square) of cuttlefish, with relation to treatments, viz., control, acidification, warming and acidification and warming combined. Points represent predicted means, and bars represent confidence intervals from linear models. Blue points represent observed individual data. Figure S7: Influence of substrate (white and black gravel or sand) on the proportion of cuttlefish exhibiting delayed camouflage. Points represent predicted means, and whiskers represent confidence intervals from generalized linear models (Binomial and Poisson families, respectively). Table S1: Seawater parameter values measured daily in each tank during exposure to treatments, shown as mean ± standard deviation. TA—Total Alkalinity, TCO2—Total CO2, HCO3—Bicarbonate, ΩAr—Aragonite saturation state. Table S2: Results from post-hoc multiple comparisons, depicting the effect of the treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined) on the physiology, camouflage ability and locomotor parameters of Sepia officinalis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C. and V.M.L.; Data curation, M.C., J.R.P., M.M. and V.M.L.; Formal analysis, M.C. and J.R.P.; Funding acquisition, T.R. and R.R.; Investigation, M.C., J.R.P., M.M., E.O. and V.M.L.; Methodology, M.C., J.R.P., M.M. and V.M.L.; Resources, T.R.; Supervision, R.R. and V.M.L.; Validation, M.C., J.R.P. and V.M.L.; Visualization, M.C. and J.R.P.; Writing—original draft, M.C.; Writing—review and editing, J.R.P., M.M., E.O., T.R., R.R. and V.M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study had the support of Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) via UIDB/04292/2020, project LA/P/0069/2020 (granted to the Associate Laboratory ARNET) and project ASCEND (PTDC/BIA-BMA/28609/2017), co-funded by Programa Operacional Regional de Lisboa, Portugal 2020, the European Union within the project LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-028609 and the Mar2020 Program through the Project VALPRAD (contract 16-01-04-FMP-0007). TR was funded by FCT researcher contract ref. DL57/2016/CP1479/CT0023. JRP was funded by FCT Scientific Employment Stimulus program (2021.01030.CEECIND).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Orgão Responsável pelo Bem-Estar dos Animais da FCUL (2/2022, approved 8 August 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in FigShare at 10.6084/m9.figshare.19214337, accessed on 25 August 2022.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Duarte, C.M. Global change and the future ocean: A grand challenge for marine sciences. Front. Mar. Sci. 2014, 1, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Knoll, A.H.; Bambach, R.K.; Canfield, D.E.; Grotzinger, J.P. Comparative earth history and late Permian mass extinction. Science 1996, 273, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bijma, J.; Pörtner, H.O.; Yesson, C.; Rogers, A.D. Climate change and the oceans—What does the future hold? Mar. Poll. Bull. 2013, 74, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Caldeira, K.; Wickett, M.E. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 2003, 425, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Reid, P.C. Ocean warming: Setting the scene. In Explaining Ocean Warming: Causes, Scale, Effects and Consequences; Laffoley, D., Baxter, J.M., Eds.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 19–45. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fox-Kemper, B.; Hewitt, H.T.; Xiao, C.; Aðalgeirsdóttir, G.; Drijfhout, S.S.; Edwards, T.L.; Golledge, N.R.; Hemer, M.; Kopp, R.E.; Krinner, G.; et al. Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rhein, M.; Rintoul, S.R.; Aoki, S.; Campos, E.; Chambers, D.; Feely, R.A.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Wang, F. Observations: Ocean. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  8. Deutsch, C.; Penn, J.L.; Seibel, B. Metabolic trait diversity shapes marine biogeography. Nature 2020, 585, 557–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Clemente, S.; Lorenzo-Morales, J.; Mendoza, J.C.; López, C.; Sangil, C.; Alves, F.; Kaufman, M.; Hernández, J.C. Sea urchin Diadema africanum mass mortality in the subtropical eastern Atlantic: Role of waterborne bacteria in a warming ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2014, 506, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rivetti, I.; Fraschetti, S.; Lionello, P.; Zambianchi, E.; Boero, F. Global warming and mass mortalities of benthic invertebrates in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Genin, A.; Levy, L.; Sharon, G.; Raitsos, D.E.; Diamant, A. Rapid onsets of warming events trigger mass mortality of coral reef fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 25378–25385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bindoff, N.L.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Kairo, J.G.; Arístegui, J.; Guinder, V.A.; Hallberg, R.; Williamson, P. Changing Ocean, Marine Ecosystems, and Dependent Communities. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate; Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Weyer, N.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Southward, A.J.; Hawkins, S.J.; Burrows, M.T. Seventy years’ observations of changes in distribution and abundance of zooplankton and intertidal organisms in the western English Channel in relation to rising sea temperature. J. Therm. Biol. 1995, 20, 127–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, J.-Y.; Marotzke, J.; Bala, G.; Cao, L.; Corti, S.; Dunne, J.P.; Engelbrecht, F.; Fischer, E.; Fyfe, J.C.; Jones, C.; et al. Future Global Climate: Scenario-Based Projections and Near-Term Information Supplementary Material. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gaylord, B.; Kroeker, K.J.; Sunday, J.M.; Anderson, K.M.; Barry, J.P.; Brown, N.E.; Connell, S.D.; Dupont, S.; Fabricius, K.E.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; et al. Ocean acidification through the lens of ecological theory. Ecology 2015, 96, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Wootton, J.T.; Pfister, C.A.; Forester, J.D. Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 18848–18853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Diaz-Pulido, G.; Gouezo, M.; Tilbrook, B.; Dove, S.; Anthony, K.R. High CO2 enhances the competitive strength of seaweeds over corals. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 14, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hennige, S.; Roberts, J.M.; Williamson, P. An Updated Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Biodiversity; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Doubleday, Z.A.; Prowse, T.A.; Arkhipkin, A.; Pierce, G.J.; Semmens, J.; Steer, M.; Leporati, S.C.; Lourenço, S.; Quetglas, A.; Sauer, W.; et al. Global proliferation of cephalopods. Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, R406–R407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Guerra, A.; Castro, B.G. On the life cycle of Sepia officinalis (Cephalopoda, Sepioidea) in the Rio de Vigo (NW Spain). Cah. Biol. Mar. 1988, 29, 395–405. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bettencourt, V.; Guerra, A. Carbon- and oxygen-isotope composition of the cuttlebone of Sepia officinalis: A tool for predicting ecological information? Mar. Biol. 1999, 133, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guerra, A. Ecology of Sepia officinalis. Vie Milieu 2006, 56, 97–107. [Google Scholar]
  23. Boyle, P.R.; Boletzky, S. Cephalopod Populations: Definition and Dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1996, 351, 985–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pimentel, M.S.; Truebenbach, K.; Faleiro, F.; Boavida-Portugal, J.; Repolho, T.; Rosa, R. Impact of ocean warming on the early ontogeny of cephalopods: A metabolic approach. Mar. Biol. 2012, 159, 2051–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rosa, R.; Trubenbach, K.; Repolho, T.; Pimentel, M.; Faleiro, F.; Boavida-Portugal, J.; Baptista, M.; Lopes, V.M.; Dionísio, G.; Leal, M.C.; et al. Lower hypoxia thresholds of cuttlefish early life stages living in a warm acidified ocean. Proc. R. Soc. B 2013, 280, 1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moura, É.; Pimentel, M.; Santos, C.P.; Sampaio, E.; Pegado, M.R.; Lopes, V.M.; Rosa, R. Cuttlefish Early Development and Behavior Under Future High CO2 Conditions. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Otjacques, E.; Repolho, T.; Paula, J.R.; Simão, S.; Baptista, M.; Rosa, R. Cuttlefish Buoyancy in Response to Food Availability and Ocean Acidification. Biology 2020, 9, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dorey, N.; Melzner, F.; Martin, S.; Oberhänsli, F.; Teyssié, J.-L.; Bustamante, P.; Gattuso, J.-P.; Lacoue-Labarthe, T. Ocean acidification and temperature rise: Effects on calcification during early development of the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis. Mar. Biol. 2012, 160, 2007–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Gurarie, E.; Bracis, C.; Delgado, M.; Meckley, T.D.; Kojola, I.; Wagner, C.M. What is the animal doing? Tools for exploring behavioural structure in animal movements. J. Anim. Ecol. 2016, 85, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lamprea, M.R.; Cardenas, F.P.; Setem, J.; Morato, S. Thigmotactic responses in an open-field. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2018, 41, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kuba, M.J.; Byrne, R.A.; Meisel, D.V.; Mather, J.A. Exploration and Habituation in Intact Free Moving Octopus vulgaris. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2006, 19, 426–438. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hanlon, R.T.; Messenger, J.B. Adaptive coloration in young cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.): The morphology and development of body patterns and their relation to behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1988, 320, 1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hanlon, R.T.; Messenger, J.B. Body Patterning and Colour Change. In Cephalopod Behaviour, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 45–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marshall, N.J.; Messenger, J.B. Colour-blind camouflage. Nature 1996, 382, 408–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mäthger, L.M.; Chiao, C.-C.; Barbosa, A.; Hanlon, R.T. Color matching on natural substrates in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2008, 194, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kelman, E.J.; Baddeley, R.J.; Shohet, A.J.; Osorio, D. Perception of visual texture and the expression of disruptive camouflage by the cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Proc. R. Soc. B 2007, 274, 1369–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zylinski, S.; Osorio, D.; Shohet, A.J. Perception of edges and visual texture in the camouflage of the common cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Troscianko, J.; Skelhorn, J.; Stevens, M. Quantifying camouflage: How to predict detectability from appearance. BMC Evol. Biol. 2017, 17, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Stevens, M.; Merilaita, S. Defining disruptive coloration and distinguishing its functions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Fiorito, G.; Affuso, A.; Basil, J.; Cole, A.; De Girolamo, P.; D’Angelo, L.; Dickel, L.; Gestal, C.; Grasso, F.W.; Kuba, M.J.; et al. Guidelines for the Care and Welfare of Cephalopods in Research –A consensus based on an initiative by CephRes, FELASA and the Boyd Group. Lab. Anim. 2015, 49, 1–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lewis, E.; Wallace, D.; Allison, L.J. Program Developed for CO2 System Calculations; Brookhaven National Lab.: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [CrossRef]
  42. Cooke, G.; Anderson, D.; Bégout, M.L.; Dennison, N.; Osorio, D.; Tonkins, B.; Kristiansen, T.; Fiorito, G.; Galligioni, V.; Ponte, G.; et al. Prospective severity classification of scientific procedures in cephalopods: Report of a COST FA1301 Working Group survey. Lab. Anim. 2019, 53, 541–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hamilton, T.J.; Holcombe, A.; Tresguerres, M. CO2-induced ocean acidification increases anxiety in Rockfish via alteration of GABAA receptor functioning. Proc. R. Soc. B 2014, 281, 1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rodriguez, A.; Zhang, H.; Klaminder, J.; Brodin, T.; Andersson, P.; Andersson, M. ToxTrac: A fast and robust software for tracking organisms. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 460–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rodriguez, A.; Zhang, H.; Klaminder, J.; Brodin, T.; Andersson, M. ToxId: An algorithm to track the identity of multiple animals. Sci. Rep. 2018, 7, 14774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schober, P.; Vetter, T.R. Survival Analysis and Interpretation of Time-of-Event Data: The Tortoise and the Hare. Anesth Analg. 2018, 127, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gutowska, M.A.; Pörtner, H.O.; Melzner, F. Growth and calcification in the cephalopod Sepia officinalis under elevated seawater pCO2. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2008, 373, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rosa, R.; Trübenbach, K.; Pimentel, M.S.; Boavida-Portugal, J.; Faleiro, F.; Baptista, M.; Dionísio, G.; Calado, R.; Pörtner, H.O.; Repolho, T. Differential impacts of ocean acidification and warming on winter and summer progeny of a coastal squid (Loligo vulgaris). J. Exp. Biol. 2014, 217, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hu, M.Y.; Tseng, Y.-C.; Stumpp, M.; Gutowska, M.A.; Kiko, R.; Lucassen, M.; Melzner, F. Elevated seawater pCO2 differentially affects branchial acid-base transporters over the course of development in the cephalopod Sepia officinalis. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2011, 300, 1100–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Rosa, R.; Pimentel, M.S.; Boavida-Portugal, J.; Teixeira, T.; Trübenbach, K.; Diniz, M. Ocean warming enhances malformations, premature hatching, metabolic suppression and oxidative stress in the early life stages of a keystone squid. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Oellermann, M.; Pörtner, H.O.; Mark, F.C. Mitochondrial dynamics underlying thermal plasticity of cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) hearts. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 2992–3000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Maneja, R.; Piatkowski, U.; Melzner, F. Effects of ocean acidification on statolith calcification and prey capture in early life cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. J. Shellfish Res. 2011, 30, 1011. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lee, Y.C.; Darmaillacq, A.S.; Dickel, L.; Chiao, C.C. Effects of embryonic exposure to predators on the postnatal defensive behaviors of cuttlefish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2020, 524, 151288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. O’Brien, C.E.; Jozet-Alves, C.; Mezrai, N.; Bellanger, C.; Darmaillacq, A.-S.; Dickel, L. Maternal and Embryonic Stress Influence Offspring Behavior in the Cuttlefish Sepia officinalis. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Helfman, G.S. Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish-trumpetfish interactions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1989, 24, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Fu, C.; Wang, B.; Li, J.; Ren, Y.; Wan, R. Variability of coastal cephalopods in overexploited China Seas under climate change with implications on fisheries management. Fish. Res. 2018, 208, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Allen, J.J.; Mäthger, L.M.; Barbosa, A.; Buresch, K.C.; Sogin, E.; Schwartz, J.; Chubb, C.; Hanlon, R.T. Cuttlefish dynamic camouflage: Responses to substrate choice and integration of multiple visual cues. Proc. R. Soc. B 2010, 277, 1031–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, Y.-C.; Liu, T.-H.; Su, C.-H.; Chiao, C.-C. Neural Organization of the Optic Lobe Changes Steadily from Late Embryonic Stage to Adulthood in Cuttlefish Sepia pharaonis. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Stuart-Fox, D.; Moussalli, A. Camouflage, communication and thermoregulation: Lessons from colour changing organisms. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009, 364, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Rodgers, G.M.; Gladman, N.W.; Corless, H.F.; Morrell, L.J. Costs of colour change in fish: Food intake and behavioural decisions. J. Exp. Biol. 2013, 216, 2760–2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Langridge, K.V.; Broom, M.; Osorio, D. Selective signalling by cuttlefish to predators. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17, R1044–R1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Langridge, K.V. Cuttlefish use startle displays, but not against large predators. Anim. Behav. 2009, 77, 847–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Merilaita, S.; Scott-Samuel, N.E.; Cuthill, I.C. How camouflage works. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372, 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chiao, C.-C.; Wickiser, J.K.; Allen, J.J.; Genter, B.; Hanlon, R.T. Hyperspectral imaging of cuttlefish camouflage indicates good color match in the eyes of fish predators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 9148–9153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Buresch, K.C.; Ulmer, K.M.; Akkaynak, D.; Allen, J.J.; Mäthger, L.M.; Nakamura, M.; Hanlon, R.T. Cuttlefish adjust body pattern intensity with respect to substrate intensity to aid camouflage, but do not camouflage in extremely low light. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2015, 462, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Barbosa, A.; Mäthger, L.M.; Chubb, C.; Florio, C.; Chiao, C.C.; Hanlon, R.T. Disruptive coloration in cuttlefish: A visual perception mechanism that regulates ontogenetic adjustment of skin patterning. J. Exp. Biol. 2007, 210, 1139–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Melzner, F.; Gutowska, M.A.; Langenbuch, M.; Dupont, S.; Lucassen, M.; Thorndyke, M.C.; Bleich, M.; Pörtner, H.O. Physiological basis for high CO2 tolerance in marine ectothermic animals: Pre-adaptation through lifestyle and ontogeny? Biogeosciences 2009, 6, 2313–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Biology 11 01394 g001 550
Figure 1. Proportion of cuttlefish that hatched over time (from the start of acclimation, integrating development time and hatching success), related to different treatments: control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming. The dotted lines indicate the day at which 50% of cuttlefish were born in each treatment.
Figure 1. Proportion of cuttlefish that hatched over time (from the start of acclimation, integrating development time and hatching success), related to different treatments: control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming. The dotted lines indicate the day at which 50% of cuttlefish were born in each treatment.
Biology 11 01394 g001
Biology 11 01394 g002 550
Figure 2. Proportion of cuttlefish exhibiting delayed camouflage in (a) sand; (b) gravel substrates, with relation to different treatments: control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming. Points represent predicted means, and bars represent confidence intervals from generalized linear models (Binomial family). *: p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Proportion of cuttlefish exhibiting delayed camouflage in (a) sand; (b) gravel substrates, with relation to different treatments: control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming. Points represent predicted means, and bars represent confidence intervals from generalized linear models (Binomial family). *: p < 0.05).
Biology 11 01394 g002
Biology 11 01394 g003 550
Figure 3. Pixel values range (difference between the maximum and minimum pixel intensity; grayscale units) along the frontal and transversal body planes of cuttlefish exposed to treatments: control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined. Points represent predicted means, and bars represent confidence intervals from a linear model. Blue points represent observed individual data.
Figure 3. Pixel values range (difference between the maximum and minimum pixel intensity; grayscale units) along the frontal and transversal body planes of cuttlefish exposed to treatments: control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined. Points represent predicted means, and bars represent confidence intervals from a linear model. Blue points represent observed individual data.
Biology 11 01394 g003
Table
Table 1. Results from statistical analyses, depicting the effect of the treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined) on the physiology of Sepia officinalis.
Table 1. Results from statistical analyses, depicting the effect of the treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined) on the physiology of Sepia officinalis.
ModelResponsePredictorχ2d.f.p-Value
LM, identity linkMantle lengthTreatment12.0830.0071
Cox modelHatching over timeTreatment1043<2 × 10−16
p-values in bold are inferior to 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Results from statistical analyses, depicting the effect of the treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined) on locomotory and exploratory behaviors of Sepia officinalis.
Table 2. Results from statistical analyses, depicting the effect of the treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined) on locomotory and exploratory behaviors of Sepia officinalis.
ModelResponsenPredictorχ2d.f.p-Value
GLM, beta, log linkProximity to the object140Treatment3.1830.3649
LM, identity linkAverage acceleration142Treatment1.3530.7162
Visibility rate24.1618.8 × 10−7
Visibility rate: Treatment7.8930.0484
GLM, binomial, logit linkInk ejection158Visibility rate0.3182810.5726
Treatment0.8061530.8480
Visibility rate: Treatment0.1774130.9812
p-values in bold are inferior to 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Results from statistical analyses, depicting the effect of the treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined) on the ability to camouflage of Sepia officinalis.
Table 3. Results from statistical analyses, depicting the effect of the treatments (control, acidification, warming, and acidification and warming combined) on the ability to camouflage of Sepia officinalis.
ModelResponsenPredictorχ2d.f.p-Value
GLM, binomial, logit linkLatency to camouflage (gravel)134First substrate4.2910.0383
Replicate2.4430.4867
Treatment10.3430.0159
First substrate:Treatment19.4630.0002
Replicate:Treatment17.4090.0428
GLM, binomial, logit linkLatency to camouflage (sand)134First substrate6.6910.0097
Treatment1.0130.7984
First substrate:Treatment1.2730.7352
LM, identity linkPixel value difference in body planes134First substrate8.7410.0032
Treatment17.7130.0005
First substrate:Treatment3.4730.3243
LM, identity linkPixel integrated density light region-white gravel134Treatment2.1330.5453
LM, identity link
GLM, binomial, logit link		Pixel integrated density dark region-black gravel134Treatment4.9230.1776
Replicate7.9630.0476
Treatment2.3630.5018
GLM, binomial, logit linkAcclimation (sand)126Treatment2.5930.4587
GLM, binomial, logit linkAcclimation (gravel)126First substrate12.2610.0004
GLM, binomial, logit linkBurial in sand134Treatment1.0330.7948
First substrate:Treatment5.8130.1215
GLM, binomial, logit linkAcclimation252Substrate0.4610.4998
GLM, binomial, logit linkLatency to camouflage268Substrate3.9510.0469
p-values in bold are inferior to 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Court, M.; Paula, J.R.; Macau, M.; Otjacques, E.; Repolho, T.; Rosa, R.; Lopes, V.M. Camouflage and Exploratory Avoidance of Newborn Cuttlefish under Warming and Acidification. Biology 2022, 11, 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101394

AMA Style

Court M, Paula JR, Macau M, Otjacques E, Repolho T, Rosa R, Lopes VM. Camouflage and Exploratory Avoidance of Newborn Cuttlefish under Warming and Acidification. Biology. 2022; 11(10):1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101394

Chicago/Turabian Style

Court, Mélanie, José Ricardo Paula, Marta Macau, Eve Otjacques, Tiago Repolho, Rui Rosa, and Vanessa Madeira Lopes. 2022. "Camouflage and Exploratory Avoidance of Newborn Cuttlefish under Warming and Acidification" Biology 11, no. 10: 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101394

APA Style

Court, M., Paula, J. R., Macau, M., Otjacques, E., Repolho, T., Rosa, R., & Lopes, V. M. (2022). Camouflage and Exploratory Avoidance of Newborn Cuttlefish under Warming and Acidification. Biology, 11(10), 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101394

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop