Echinoderms in Aquaria…

Suitability for Aquaria?

Despite their success in nature, which is fostered in no small part by their odd organ systems and
strange body structures, relatively few echinoderms are appropriate for aquaria. This lack of suitability
is due, in part, to their strange internal morphology, which makes them particularly sensitive to
changes in salinity. Echinoderms, in general, are animals requiring full strength seawater and they are
intolerant of changes in salinity. Although many aquarists maintain their aquaria properly, often at
least some tanks along the distribution and dealer network contain water that is hyposaline or have
otherwise inappropriate conditions. Rapid, unnecessary and inappropriate changes in salinity during
transit may result in the animals being injured and dying a slow and lingering death, often in the tank
of some hobbyist who really is not to blame.

Most echinoderms are not suitable for reef tanks for an entirely different reason. With only a few
exceptions, they are just too large to be kept successfully in the average aquarium. No echinoderm
reaches a huge size, although the largest are sea stars may reach a diameter of about 10 feet. At the
other extreme, except during their larval stages, there are no really tiny ones, either. Most of them are
moderately-sized animals, with a body mass that averages about the size of a clenched fist. This tends
to make them a bit too big for most reef aquaria. While many of them would do well in a tank that was
1000 gallons or larger, there are relatively few of them that are small enough to exist within the
confines of a typical reef tank without acting as a significant force in tank remodeling or as a
significant predator upon a tank's inhabitants.

One other aspect limits the acceptability of many tropical echinoderms as aquarium inhabitants. Their
natural history is largely unknown. Temperate echinoderms have been well-studied for several
centuries, and are really best known from the echinoderm-rich fauna of the Oregonian biome of the
Northeastern Pacific (see, for example, D'Yakonov 1950, 1954; Paine 1966, 1974; MacGinitie and
MacGinitie 1968; Mauzey et al. 1968; Birkeland 1974; Engstrom 1974; Van Veldhuizen and Phillips
1978; Austin and Hadfield 1980; Highsmith 1982; Lambert 1981; Kozloff 1983; Mladenov and Chia
1983; Cameron 1985; McEuen 1986; Anderson and Shimek 1993). A tremendous foundation of
echinoderm biological acumen has been developed largely from the study of this particular fauna.
Unfortunately, studies of the tropical echinoderms have been comparatively sparse; few of their
tropical cousins have been studied in any great detail. While we can guess the physical conditions
under which they may be kept, in most cases we know next to nothing about their natural history. In
the most pragmatic sense for aquarists, this means in most cases that we don't, for example, have the
slightest idea what they eat. Since obtaining nutrition is the first order of business for animals, if we
are to be able to keep the animals alive, we need to know what to feed them.
The Problem of Food

Finding the appropriate foods for animals takes a great deal of study. While it might seem that all
that is necessary is to go out to the real world and see what the animal is eating, this may be very
difficult for any number of reasons. And even if the animal is observed feeding, each feeding event is
only one datum; a lot of separate data may needed before its diet can be ascertained. Each individual
observation provides only a small part of the answer. Additionally, most animals are adventitious
feeders, at least to some extent, so what they eat may not be what they need or prefer, but simply what
is available. Most animals also need to have some variety within their diets. In most cases, this dietary
variability will not be too extreme. The true feeding generalist or omnivore, an animal that feeds like
humans, is very rare in nature. Unfortunately, people let their own dietary experiences influence their
judgment in what they offer or feed to the animals in their care. The philosophy, if such an outlook can
be dignified with that term, seems to be: "If I can eat a jalapeño pepper, popcorn and anchovy pizza, it
stands to reason that the animals in my aquarium should be able to feed on just about anything." This
is hogwash, of course, but the fact that it is utterly foolish doesn't prevent aquarists from trying it. In
fact, the fact that it is utterly foolish probably means most of them will try it.

During an animal's evolutionary history, one of the major driving forces of natural selection may be
the avoidance of competition, and this may result in specialization upon a particular food source. If
animals from two species that potentially are able to utilize a variety of foods can avoid competition for
food by being able to switch to alternative foods, these potential competitors may get enough
additional food to produce more offspring than if they had actively competed for a limited food
resource. In an evolutionary sense, this means both species win. If they can't use some alternative
food, however, they may both get insufficient food to survive or reproduce. As a result, in many
situations it appears that if two species with similar dietary requirements exist in the same geographic
area, the only way they may coexist is by eating different things. For organisms such as songbirds, this
may mean something as simple as feeding on different sized seeds. It may mean that animals such as
nudibranchs or sea stars, for example, become specialized on different types of sponge prey.

Once the specialization of a predator upon a given food resource starts to occur, a positive feedback
loop may get established. For example, if a given sea star acquires, through some mutation, the ability
to feed upon a type of sponge which a potential competitor can't eat, then anything that facilitates the
ability of that first species to obtain increased nutrition from feeding on that prey enhances its ability
to produce offspring. Such adaptations might include such physiological attributes as the development
of specific enzymes allowing the detoxification of noxious chemicals produced by the prey, or the
development of specific behavioral attributes that facilitate location of the prey. In a sense, once
specialization on a class of dietary items occurs, the animal is generally locked onto a path of becoming
more specialized. Any changes in its genes allowing the development of new enzymes or feeding
structures are favored. However, given that all resources are finite, when something is gained,
something else must be lost. Predators that have truly specialized upon given food sources are
generally unable to eat other foods. They may lack enzymes that digest specific prey chemicals. In the
case of a sea star that has acquired the ability to eat a specific variety of sponges, it may acquire the
ability to detoxify some of the toxic chemicals in its new prey, but this may come at the cost of being
unable to detoxify the toxic chemicals in other potential prey. Soon, its sensory systems may adjust so
much to its new prey that it will not even be able to identify other potential, and possibly edible, food
items. Such undetected items will not be eaten even though they are potentially highly nutritious.

The specialization upon specific foods has another potential drawback with regard to the husbandry of
these animals. The special, "necessary" food may provide some sort of essential nutrient lacking in
other foods, even if those other foods are acceptable and even if the animal is capable of living for
extended periods eating them. This situation would be analogous to what is seen in humans who go for
long periods eating foods that contain insufficient amounts of vitamin C in the development of the
fatal condition called scurvy. The same types of nutritional problems may be occurring in some of the
animals kept by aquarists. Unfortunately, in most cases we just don't have enough data about their
natural diets to assess the relative sufficiency of their available diets in aquaria.

Worldwide, the number of different echinoderms is relatively small; only about 6,000 species, more-
or-less, have been described. Most of these are not found on coral reefs, perhaps because the actual
amount of oceanic habitat occupied by coral reefs is pretty small. Even though coral reefs are
renowned for their diversity, the diversity of echinoderms found there is not truly exceptional.
Echinoderms do not harbor zooxanthellae, thus they don't garner any specific benefit from the
shallow, highly illuminated waters of the reef. Instead, coral reefs serve different "functions" for the
different echinoderm groups. For the crinoids, they provide some additional habitat space. The other
groups primarily forage in and on the reefs for foods, and are generally as abundant as might be
expected of secondary and tertiary consumers in rich habitats. In some temperate areas, particularly
in the aforementioned shallow water Northeastern Pacific, echinoderms may be significantly more
diverse and abundant than they are, on average, in coral reef areas.

The Criteria for Success

Echinoderms are often brightly colored and aesthetically attractive animals, and this is certainly true
of reef echinoderms as well as their temperate cousins. This means they are collected for the reef
hobby. Some small fraction of these collected animals, and unfortunately for some species it may be a
very small fraction indeed, survive to spend the remainder of their days in a coral reef aquarium. As
with all animals, echinoderms have a finite lifespan. Unlike most animals, however, echinoderms do
not have a finite life expectancy and have no old age or senescence. If provided with a good
environment and plenty of food, they may live a very long time, indeed. It is difficult to get age
estimates from soft-bodied animals such as sea cucumbers, but with diligence and long-term research
projects, some reliable estimates of the life spans of temperate sea urchins and sea stars are beginning
to be made. Age estimates of some red sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) from the Pacific
Coast of North America, based on marking and determination of actual growth over time, indicate the
average animal may expect to live more than 100 years, and life spans in excess of 200 years are a
distinct possibility (Ebert and Southon 2003). Long life spans are also known or hypothesized for
many sea stars (Carlson and Pfister 1999). There is no reason at all to suggest that these age
estimates are in any way unusual for echinoderms, in general. This means that tropical animals likely
live as long as these temperate animals. If reefs continue to persist and if the appropriate research is
carried out, we might expect to see similar data from coral reef areas in a few decades. As far as
aquarium husbandry is concerned, I consider successful husbandry to mean persistence of the animal
in the system for extended periods (several years or more). And to date, the techniques available in the
hobby have failed utterly and miserably to promote long lives for many of these animals. Specimens of
only a few species of echinoderms typically live longer than a year in reef aquaria, and only a few of
these have a track record that indicates they are likely to live to anything approaching a normal
potential. Lest the reader think that I am painting with too broad a brush here, I think it useful to
examine the various types of echinoderms for patterns, of both success and failure.

Crinoids

In a group comprised of many beautiful animals, the crinoids, or feather stars and sea lilies, are
among the most beautiful. They are also among the most difficult to keep alive in captivity for
anything over a few weeks. Unlike some echinoderms, crinoids appear to be relatively hardy with
regard to water conditions. This is likely a result of their reduced body cavity sizes compared to all
other echinoderms, so the potential for damages due to changes in salinity is minimized.
Unfortunately, this relative hardiness does nothing to confer a survival advantage in aquaria.
 Figure 1. Crinoids are effectively impossible to keep in aquaria. They should not be
either imported or purchased.

There are about 600 living species of crinoids, and they are a moderately successful group. The sea
lilies, or stalked crinoids, are often very abundant at depths exceeding about 300m (1000 ft). Free-
living crinoids are very abundant on Indo-Pacific reefs, and are present but less obvious on Caribbean
ones (Fell 1966; Messing 1997). They are all "passive" suspension-feeding animals, which means
they don't generate the water currents that bring food to them (Leonard 1989). This means that not
only is the type of food important in their husbandry, but also that they likely need water flow that has
specific characteristics. They are not animals that are normally found in regions of turbulent flow or
surge, and it is unlikely that they could ever persist in a reef aquarium whose current flow was
turbulent and generated by point source generators such as power heads. Although it has not been
investigated, they probably need laminar flow to be able to feed.

Crinoids are anything but passive, however, in their selection of foods, and may make active choices as
to the type and sizes of foods that they eat. Additionally, their diets are unusual in that they often
appear to contain large amounts of the reproductive materials of other invertebrates (Rutman and
Fishelson 1969; West 1978; Meyer 1979, 1982a, 1982b; La Touche and West 1980; Smith et al. 1981;
Holland et al. 1991). It appears that many crinoids may engage in what is termed glutinous feeding,
essentially "pigging out" during mass reproductive events such as the synchronous spawning of reef
corals. Presumably, they get the majority of their food energy during such times, but they may still
need to regularly feed on other plankton. Other than the reproductive products of other invertebrates,
they appear to eat ciliated protozoans, and small crustacean zooplankton.

Figure 2. Many crinoids appear to feed upon larvae and eggs

of other invertebrates.

Although there are a few scattered reports of one or two individuals persisting in aquaria, in most
cases the crinoids imported for the reef hobby die within a short period. They typically die by slowly
sloughing off the distal ends of their arms until all that is left is the body, which then dies. This pattern
is consistent with what happens to other echinoderms during starvation, and it is likely that effectively
all of the crinoids imported for the aquarium hobby die of starvation within a few weeks of being
placed in a reef tank. Until such time as aquarists have access to a constant supply of eggs, embryos, or
invertebrate larvae of several types, the husbandry of crinoids should not be attempted.

Asteroids

It has been said that the true icon of the reef aquarium hobby is the image of a pair of clownfish
nestled in their host anemone. However, I think the animal most likely associated with the marine
environment by most folks is a starfish. Probably for this reason, many reef aquarists wish to keep a
sea star. Until they have a sea star in their tanks, these people may subconsciously feel they don't have
a successful aquarium. Unfortunately, most tropical sea stars are as hard to keep as the crinoids. In
most cases, the only difference is that once acclimated to reef aquaria their larger mass and energy
reserves allow them to persist longer before they starve to death.

Sea stars have a rather peculiar gut and its structure contributes to the problems that aquarists
encounter in keeping these animals alive and healthy. The mouth is located in the middle of the
animal's bottom surface. The gut runs vertically, culminating in an anus located roughly in the middle
of the upper surface. This digestive system is divided into several regions. Just inside the mouth is
found a section of the gut, referred to as "the cardiac stomach," which does most of the digestion. The
upper end of the cardiac stomach connects to "the pyloric stomach," a baglike region which extends
out into each arm as a series of pouches called "pyloric caeca." Digested food byproducts, fats and
sugars, are stored in the walls of these pouches. In most species, the upper part of the pyloric stomach
continues upward as a thin-walled intestine connecting to the rectum under the anus on its upper
surface. In a few species, the gut is blind-ending at the level of the pyloric stomach and lacks an
intestine or anus.

Most people think that starfish feed by extending their stomach outside of the body into some prey
item, such as a clam, and digesting it. This type of feeding, referred to as "cardiac stomach extension,"
is found in some of the most familiar sea stars such as the common intertidal bivalve-eating species
Pisaster ochraceus of the North Pacific and Asterias forbesi of the North Atlantic. A different form of
cardiac stomach extension occurs in such species as Pteraster tesselatus, which eats sponges and
Hippasteria spinosa, which eats sea pens, or Acanthaster planci, the infamous coral-eating sea star.
Here the cardiac stomach may be extruded over sessile prey or even over the substrate. Digestion
occurs between the stomach's surface and the substrate, and food is absorbed into stomach tissues.

Figure 3. An example of cardiac stomach extension. Here an Asterina miniata in an aquarium is

eating a small sea cucumber. The cardiac stomach is visible enfolding the cuke.

Not all sea stars extend their stomachs out of the mouth, however; many sea stars ingest their prey and
digest it internally. The first type of these "prey eaters" are the sand stars, generally species of either
Luidia or Astropecten, which feed on small bivalves, sea cucumbers or worms. These animals lack an
intestine or anus; upon completion of feeding, indigestible food remains are regurgitated out onto the
sediment surface. The second type of prey eaters is typified by the multi-rayed sun stars, such as
Solaster and Pycnopodia. These animals typically eat larger epibenthic and mobile prey. Finally, there
are the sea stars such as the semi-rigid Henricia species, some of which can feed by extending mucous
strands to catch prey (Mauzey et al 1967; Carlson and Pfister 1999). The astute reader will have
noticed that, except for the sand sifting stars, all of the species listed above are temperate animals; this
reflects the preponderance of information about the temperate species relative to the tropical ones.

Figure 4. Ingestion of prey. The

Solaster dawsoni (top=eater) is
ingesting its prey, Solaster
stimpsoni (bottom=eatee). This
process in these particular stars
takes about four days. The
predator was about 30 cm in
diameter and was smaller than the
star it ate.

Tropical Sea Stars of Interest:

Of course, for most coral reef aquarists, any information about temperate animals is only of
peripheral interest, if that much. So, what do we know about tropical echinoderms and their dietary
needs? For some few species, we know quite a lot. For most, however, the resource base could be best
described as "slim." Actually, considering the likely ecological importance of these animals, the lack of
data about them should be described as "abysmal."

Coral Eaters:

A great deal of dietary information does exist about a few species of tropical sea stars; these are the
animals that derive all or some of their nutrition from eating corals. Some of these "bad boys" do get
imported for the aquarium hobby. The most common of these asteroids are Acanthaster planci, the
infamous "Crown of Thorns;" Choriaster granulatus, called the "Kenya Star" or "Dough-boy Star;"
and Culcita novaeguineae. This last species, known as the "Cushion Star" or "Biscuit Star," hardly
looks like a star when fully grown, appearing rather spherical. Every now and then, you have to
wonder about either aquarists or importers or both in the "naming" of these animals. In nature
individuals of these species either primarily eat corals or only eat corals (Guille and Ribes 1981;
Endean 1982; Glynn and Krupp 1986; Sano et al. 1987; Faure 1989; Walbran et al. 1989; Cameron et
al. 1991a,b; Musso 1993; Chess et al. 1997). Nonetheless, they are still imported, put up for sale and, I
suppose, purchased... In the vernacular of the day, DUH!!!

Figure 5. Coral eating sea stars, Left: Acanthaster planci, Middle: Choriaster granulatus, Right: Culcita novaeguinae.
These species will probably do well in a reef aquarium if they are provided with sufficient food.

Adult individuals of these species are also quite large, in excess of a foot in diameter. Interestingly,
these species will likely do pretty well in aquaria. Unlike most other tropical stars, their diet is known,
and can be purchased. (!) Provided their aquaria are large enough, stocked with enough of the
appropriate corals for them to feed upon and as long as the salinity is kept to that of full strength sea
water, they will likely be quite hardy. With only a couple of exceptions, virtually all other sea stars have
a short life span in captivity.

Non-Corallivores:

None of the remaining asteroids listed are known to primarily eat corals. That's the good news. The
bad news is that in most cases, probably because they don't eat corals, they have been largely ignored,
even by echinodermatologists. The very few data about what they do eat are sparse, often relating to
only one of several species in a genus, for example. The bottom line is that there is no sure or
reasonable guide about what to feed them that might provide their appropriate nutrition.

Marble Stars:

Fromia species,
Fromia milleporella (2),
Fromia monilis,
Fromia nodosa.

Marble stars, so-called because of the marbled pattern seen on their upper surface, are commonly
found in the aquarium trade. They are relatively small five-armed stars, typically reddish or orange
with contrasting, often lighter, rounded tuberculate plates on their arms. The central disk is small and
is often distinctly colored. The edges of the rays often have a row of prominently rounded or bumpy
plates. Numerous species are found in the Indo-Pacific, and most of them, at one time or another,
probably make it into the aquarium trade. Their small size recommends them to hobbyists, and if their
diets were known, they would likely be good aquarium animals. Individuals of Fromia species are
found on both reef rubble and reefs. Some Fromia are considered to be sponge and tunicate
predators, but the diets of most are not known. Fromia species appear to do well for awhile in
established aquaria, presumably as there may be a source of sponges and small sessile animals for
them to eat. They seldom persist much more than a year or so, before they "run out of gas and sputter
to a stop."

Linckia Stars:

Linckia laevigata - Blue Linckia,

Linckia multifora - Multicolored Linckia,
Leiaster speciosus - the "so-called" Red "Linckia."

Most species names in this complex should be taken with a grain of salt, probably a grain about a
meter on a side. A great deal of evidence suggests that sea stars with the external morphology that
hobbyists call "Linckia laevigata," may actually encompass several species. These species, however,
appear to be ecologically similar and it is unlikely such differences that exist are important as far as the
average hobbyist is concerned (Williams 1999). Linckia sea stars are characterized by a small, or
almost absent central disk, and rays that are cylindrical and of a more-or-less uniform diameter. They
look rather like five pencil or cigar-shaped legs joined together at one end. Individuals of the larger
Linckia species may exceed 40 cm in diameter. At such sizes they are not suitable for most aquaria.
The smaller, multicolored, Linckia multifora, is much smaller, seldom exceeding 10 cm across.

These sea stars are taxonomically grouped in the Family Goniasteridae which is characterized by
animals that cannot extrude much of their stomachs. All of them are probably predatory on small
sessile animals, such as sponges or soft corals growing on the substrate surfaces; however, this dietary
characterization remains simple supposition. In the hobbyist "literature," they are commonly reported
to eat algae and bacterial films. I was unable to confirm this in my literature review for this article. The
aquarium sources that cite these as foods all seem to be quoting one another as the definitive reference
and, unfortunately, none of them cites any scientific source for its supposition about diets.
Nonetheless, these stars appear to be harmless to many of the animals that are kept in reef aquaria.

Individuals of Linckia species, particularly Linckia laevigata, are profoundly and seriously harmed by
rapid changes in salinity; additionally, they appear to suffer "shipping" stress. As a result these
animals need to be treated VERY carefully during acclimation to the home aquarium. This acclimation
should be done slowly, and; acclimations of more than six to eight hours are often required. Once
established in aquaria, Linckia generally appear to do well and may persist for a year or more.
However, they often seem to slowly die, probably due to a lack of some specific dietary item. For large
animals, they are surprisingly benign. They seldom knock over rockwork, and do not harm most other
animals while they are dying.

Sand-Sifting Stars:

Astropecten species, (2, 3),

Luidia species

Species from these two genera are similar in shape and are typically dull in color: brown, grey, off-
white or black. Along the edges of each ray are large shield-like plates; the plates and their spines are
typically much larger in Astropecten species than in Luidia species, resulting in an "armored"
appearance to the sides of the arms. Spines on these plates tend to give the sides of the arms a "spiny"
appearance. The spinal length, however, may vary significantly from species to species, and in a few
species they are only a few millimeters long. Individuals of Luidia species often have limper, more
flexible, arms than do Astropecten individuals. Although most of these stars have five rays, Luidia
species may have more. They vary a lot in size; Luidia superba, reaching diameters of 1.1 m, is one
of the largest sea stars, but most species in this group are smaller, reaching maximum sizes of less
than 30 cm. All of these stars tend to exhibit similar behavior. They move across the surface of
sediments until they find an area that seems promising, after which they burrow down into the
sediment, often rather deeply. While burrowing, any potential food items, and that may be effectively
ALL animals, that they can catch are transported to the mouth, ingested and digested. When they are
through cleaning the specific area of food, the stars surface to move to a new spot. They will generally
not scavenge excess food remaining on the surface, needing instead to collect from below the
sediment's surface. These stars need a significant variety of food for good health, and require a lot of
food. The amount of animals in a rich sand fauna of a few square meters will support a 10 cm diameter
star for no more than few months. Putting one of these animals into a tank with less than several
square meters of sediment surface is condemning it to a slow death by starvation.

Caribbean Cushion Star

Oreaster reticulatus

Found in shallow sandy or sea grass areas, individuals of this species are sometimes offered for sale
in the reef hobby. They have five short, indistinct arms which merge into a large central disk. Covered
with short blunt spines arranged in a reticulated or net-like pattern, this species is typically orange,
tan, or brown, with the spines being darker. Adults are relatively large and impressive animals
reaching up to about 30 cm across, and weighing at least a kilogram. In nature, Oreaster reticulatus
individuals eat sponges found living on the sand or on sea grass (Wulff 1995). The stars live on sand,
and as such are really not suitable for marine reef tanks dominated by rockwork. They lack the
flexibility needed to crawl on rockwork, and in hobbyists' systems there are few sand-dwelling or sea
grass-dwelling sponges. Consequently, these stars will not do well in hobbyists' tanks. Nonetheless, if
they are given a supply of an acceptable sponge, they may last for a few months before they succumb.
 Figure 6. Oreaster reticulatus. In nature this species is found on sand
substrata and eats sponges.

Spike Stars

Protoreaster nodosus - Chocolate Chip Star,

Protoreaster lincki - Red Spined Star

Found throughout the Indo-Pacific, these species have five relatively stiff rays. They have a smooth,
almost featureless epidermis from which rises a series of large, visible spines. Protoreaster nodosus
grows to about 12 cm across, while Protoreaster lincki may be larger, up to 30 cm or so. These species
are sand- or seagrass-bed dwellers, and as such are not really adapted for a reef tank. In nature both
appear to be obligate sponge predators, although they will eat some other items, such as sea anemones
or soft corals, in reef tanks. Nevertheless, most of them kept in reef tanks appear to eventually die of
malnutrition. They may be able to survive for a while in a tank with a lot of sponges, provided they can
get to the food. Their stiff, spinous bodies tend to prevent them from getting into rockwork.

Asterinid Stars

One, or perhaps more, species of small sea stars in the family Asterinidae is the only sea star that can
be said to thrive in some reef aquaria at the present time. The species is indeterminate; its
geographical origin is uncertain, and there are numerous similar described species. These are small
brown, tan or grey animals, generally not more than about half an inch (13 mm) in diameter. Flattened
from top to bottom, their three to seven rays and central disk merge into one another. They reproduce
asexually by fission and if there is sufficient food almost all the stars in a population will be
regenerating rays or other body parts. They are substrate feeders and move around with their
stomachs extruded over the substrate digesting who knows what. It is a pity that these animals are so
drab. In some systems, they are quite prolific and even if they don't thrive, they appear to be able to
survive in most others.

Figure 7. Asteriniid stars common in aquaria. Left: Oral View. Right: Aboral View. The taxonomic
identity of these stars remains uncertain.

Occasionally, some populations of these asterinids have been reported by aquarists to eat either soft
corals or stony corals. These coral-eating forms, perhaps different species, seem to be quite
uncommon, constituting less than five percent of the various populations.

Ophiuroids

The Ophiruoidea, the brittle or serpent stars, as a group contains some of the better aquarium success
stories among the echinoderms. This is probably due to the fact that, as a group, they appear to be
dietary generalists on various types of food, mostly of animal origin. Most of them appear to be able to
feed in several different ways. Some of the varied ways of getting food that have been described
include using their tube feet to capture food, looping their arms around larger food items which are
then "rolled" up to the mouth, several different kinds of suspension feeding including feeding by
electrostatic means (LaBarbera 1977). Finally, many of them are fully predatory and will ingest slow
moving or sessile prey simply by moving over it and shoving it into their mouths. Ophiuroids lack a
complete gut. Most of the volume of the central disk is taken up by the large and capacious stomach.
At the end of a feeding cycle, indigestible remains are burped out and the animal goes in search of
more food.

Many species of larger ophiuroids are sold to hobbyists, generally, and mistakenly, described as being
"scavengers." In nature, these animals are almost always predatory, and while some of them adapt to
the feeding regimens of a reef aquarium and become scavengers, others may not. The lack of
adaptation may be manifested in one of two ways: either they starve to death or they remain
predatory. This latter manifestation can have some interesting consequences. Probably the most
potentially destructive animals that may be introduced into aquaria are not the mantis shrimps of
novice hobbyist nightmares, but the large green brittle stars of the species Ophiarachna
incrassata.

This species of brittle star is, without a doubt, one of the most voracious predators that may be put
into a reef tank. Ophiarachna incrassata have been documented to eat several species of
aquarium fish, including firefish, various and sundry damsel fishes, mandarin fish, blennies, small
gobies, and cleaner wrasses. Additionally, they have been observed tearing other brittle stars apart to
eat their gut's contents, and they may have the same habit with sea anemones and corals. And, if that
weren't enough, they have also been observed to eat cleaner shrimp and other crustaceans.

They are beautiful animals; their base color is light green to olive, and they have a fine patterning of
light, white or yellow spots and dark, black or dark green bands on the surface. The disk may be large,
up to five cm across in a large animal, and relatively thick. When ingesting a large meal, the disk may
assume the proportions of a large marble or golf ball. These are large brittle stars, potentially
measuring up to about 50 cm across the arms. Animals about half this size are often seen for sale. The
arms are relatively stout and highly muscular, for a brittle star, and there are rows of evident spines
running down the length of each arm. The good news is that they are harmless to aquarists. The bad
news is that they appear able and willing to eat just about anything else in their tanks. Finally, a true
echinoderm success story for aquarists!

Actually, the true echinoderm aquarium success story concerns the small (about one cm in diameter)
brittle stars that seem to populate almost all reef tanks. These are specimens that have been identified
as Amphipholis squamata. This is a "species" of small brittle star that has a morphology consistent
with the original description of Amphipholis squamata and is quite literally found from the Arctic
to the Antarctic, and in many shallow water rocky environments in between. This probably is a group
of very similar species with a successful and consistent morphology. It is inconceivable that a single
species would be so plastic as to be able to occupy all of the different habitats from which this one
species is reported. Similar species "swarms" have been found in other groups of marine animals and
it is likely that a reasonable and thorough investigation will show that this is a similar situation. The
taxonomy doesn't matter, of course. What matters is that these small brittle stars are some of the most
successful at occupying marine aquaria.

Echinoids

Sea urchins or echinoids are another group with which aquarists have mixed success. Some of them
are quite beneficial and desirable in aquaria, while others range from being impossible to keep to
downright deadly. I dealt with them in some detail in a column about a year ago, and refer the reader
there for more specific information.

Holothuroids

The final group of echinoderms to be discussed is the sea cucumbers, or holothuroids, affectionately
known as "cukes." This is another group with which aquarists have been largely unsuccessful at long-
term maintenance. The types of cukes available to aquarists include a rather diverse taxonomic array;
their husbandry, however, is rather straightforward. In general, regardless of their taxonomy, are
two functional types of sea cucumbers are found in hobbyists' tanks. These are the filter-feeding types,
such as the infamous sea apples, but also including a number of others, and the bottom moppers, such
as the tiger tail cukes and several other species. There appears to be no real insurmountable problem
with maintaining these animals other than giving them sufficient amounts of food.
Suspension-feeding sea cucumbers, or those with highly branched feeding tentacles at their oral end,
require a lot of plankton per unit of body mass. Put another way, they need a lot of food. Small ones
such as the brilliant yellow Colochirus robustus often appear to do reasonably well in tanks where
sufficient phytoplankton is regularly added to the tank. The larger ones generally seem to persist for
a while, and then die. Often they just seem to "fade away," which is a classic sign of malnutrition. In
some cases, this can result in disastrous consequences as many holothuroids contain toxic chemicals
in their body's walls, which are liberated during their death throes and subsequent decomposition.
Given enough planktonic particulate material, however, they do seem to survive indefinitely. That
particulate material should include at least several types of phytoplankton, and perhaps small
zooplankton as well.

Bottom mopping sea cucumbers, such as the various species of Holothuria or Stichopus often kept in
tanks, are harder to keep alive over the long term. These animals use short feeding tentacles to sweep
or mop the substrate to collect various types of detritus. True detritus is defined as being of algal and
plant origin and these animals often seem to be specialized feeders on such material. Animal-based
foods, and occasionally small animals, will often pass through their guts undigested. The problem with
detritus as a food is that it is of very low nutritional quality, both in nature and in aquaria.
Consequently, these animals tend to need several square feet of substrate to forage over to get their
daily square meals, and the bigger the cuke, the more square footage it needs. Large ones need a lot of
sandy substrate! Generally, when added to reef tanks, these animals often slowly, but surely fade away.
Given enough food, however, they may grow, and some of them may reproduce by fission.

Figure 8. Holothuria edulis, a bottom-mopping sea cucumber found in the Indo-Pacific. It lives on
or around corals. These cukes eat sediment or detritus from the sediment by mopping it up with
short-branched tentacles that surround the mouth.

Conclusion

With care and foresight, some echinoderms may be successfully kept in aquaria. Unfortunately, with
few exceptions, the animals with the best track records of survival in reef aquaria tend to be those that
are not terribly attractive. A few species of small cucumbers, a number of brittle star species, a few
small sea urchins and one or two sea star species seem to run the gamut of echinoderms that are being
maintained successfully. Successful husbandry of echinoderms depends upon maintaining the proper
physical factors, primarily salinity but, probably more than that, it depends upon offering them the
appropriate foods. This is particularly a problem with the sea stars. Aquarists tend to treat all animals
as if they were generalized feeders and, here, as with the species in most large animal groups, that is
not the case. Until more research into the diets of these beautiful and wonderful animals is done,
aquarists will not know what to feed them or even if they can successfully feed them. Unfortunately,
however, they will still be imported and purchased. Many echinoderms are ecologically very
important, and alterations of their populations often has unforeseen and devastating effects on the
communities in which they are found. The removal of large numbers of sea stars and sea urchins for
the aquarium hobby is likely to be having significant effects on the reefs from which they are taken.
If you have any questions about this article, please visit my author forum on Reef Central.

References Cited:

Anderson, R. A., and R. L. Shimek. 1993. A note on the feeding habits of some uncommon sea stars.
Zoo Biology. 12:499-503.

Austin, W. C. and M. G. Hadfield 1980. Ophiuroidea: the brittle stars. In Morris, R. H. D. P. Abbott,
and E. C. Haderlie. 1980. Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press. Stanford.
Ca. pp. 146-159.

Birkeland, C. 1974. Interactions between a sea pen and seven of its predators. Ecological Monographs.
44:211-232.

Cameron, A. M., R. Endean and L. M. DeVantier. 1991a. Predation on massive corals: are devastating
population outbreaks of Acanthaster planci novel events? Marine Ecology Progress Series. 75:251-
258.

Cameron, A. M., R. Endean and L. M. DeVantier. 1991b. The effects of Acanthaster planci predation
on populations of two species of massive coral. Hydrobiologia. 216-217:257-262.

Cameron, L. 1985. Reproduction, development, processes of feeding and notes on the early life history
of the sea cucumber Parastichopus californicus (Stimpson). Ph.D. Dissertation. Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, British Columbia. 143pp.

Carlson H. R. and C. A. Pfister. 1999. A seventeen-year study of the rose star Crossaster
papposus population in a coastal bay in southeast Alaska. Marine Biology (1999) 133: 223-
230

Chess, J. R., E. S. Hobson and D. F. Howard. 1997. Interactions between Acanthaster planci
(Echinodermata, Asteroidea) and Scleractinian Corals at Kona, Hawai'i. Pacific Science. 51:121-133.

D'Yakonov, A. M. 1950. Sea Stars (Asteroids) of the USSR Seas. Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Moskva-Leningrad. 183pp.

D'Yakonov, A. M. 1954. Ophiuroids of the USSR Seas. Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Moskva-
Leningrad. 123pp.

Ebert, T. A. and J. A. Southon. 2003. Red sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) can
live over 100 years: confirmation with A-bomb 14carbon. Fishery Bulletin. 101:915-922.

Endean, R. 1982. Crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef. Endeavour. 6:10-14.

Engstrom, N.A. 1974. Population dynamics and prey-predation relations of a dendrochirote

holothurian, Cucumaria lubrica, and sea stars in the genus Solaster. Ph. D. Dissertation. The
University of Washington. Seattle. 144 pp.

Faure, G. 1989. Degradation of coral reefs at Moorea Island (French Polynesia) Acanthaster planci.
Journal of Coastal Research. 5:295-305.

Fell, H. B. 1966. Ecology of crinoids. Pp. 49-62. In: Boolootian, R. A. (ed.) Physiology of
Echinodermata. Wiley-Interscience, NY.

Glynn, P. W. and D. A. Krupp. 1986. Feeding biology of a Hawaiian sea star corallivore, Culcita
novaeguineae. Muller & Troschel. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 96:75-96.

Guille, A. and S. Ribes. 1981. Echinodermes associes aux scleractiniaires d'un recif frangeant de l'ile de
La Reunion (ocean Indien). Bulletin Du Museum National D'Histoire Naturelle Section a Zoologie
Biologie Et Ecologie Animales. 3:73-92.

Highsmith, R. C. 1982. Induced settlement and metamorphosis of sand dollar (Dendraster

excentricus) larvae in predator-free sites: adult sand dollar beds. Ecology. 63:329-367.
Holland, N. D., Leonard, A. B. and D. L. Meyer. 1991. Digestive mechanics and gluttonous feeding in
the feather star Oligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Marine Biology 111:113-119.

Kozloff, E. N. 1983. Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific Coast. An illustrated guide to Northern
California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. University of Washington Press. Seattle. 370
pp.

Lambert, P. 1981. The sea stars of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Handbook
no. 39. Victoria, B.C. 153 pp.

LaBarbera, M. 1978. Particle capture by a Pacific Brittle Star: Experimental Test of the Aerosol
Suspension Feeding Method. Science. 201:1147-1149.

La Touche, R. W. and A. B. West, 1980. Observations on the food of Antedon bifida (Echinodermata:
Crinoidea). Marine Biology 60:39-46.

Leonard, A. B. 1989. Functional response in Antedon mediterranea (Lamarck) (Echinodermata:

Crinoidea): the interaction of prey concentration and current velocity on a passive suspension-feeder.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 127:81-103.

MacGinitie, G. E. and N. MacGinitie. 1968. Natural history of marine animals. McGraw-Hill Book Co.
New York. 523 pp.

Mauzey, K. P., C. Birkeland, and P. K. Dayton. 1968. Feeding behavior of asteroids and escape
responses of their prey in the Puget Sound region. Ecology. 49:603-619.

McEuen, F. S. 1986. The reproductive biology and development of twelve species of holothuroids from
the San Juan Islands, Washington. Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of Alberta. 286 pp.

Messing, C. G. 1997. Living Comatulids. Pp. 3-30 In: Waters, J.A. & Maples, C.G. (eds.) Geobiology of
Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers 3.

Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in
suspension-feeding. Marine Biology 51:361-369.

Meyer, D. L. 1982a. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa. Pp. 25-42. In: Jangoux, M. and J. M.
Lawrence. (eds.) Echinoderm Nutrition. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Meyer, D. L. 1982b. Food composition and feeding behavior of sympatric species of comatulid crinoids
from the Palau Islands (Western Pacific). Pp. 43-49. In: Lawrence, J. M. (ed.) Echinoderms:
Proceedings of the International Conference, Tampa Bay. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Mladenov, P. V. and F. S. Chia. 1983. Development, settling behaviour, metamorphosis and

pentacrinoidal feeding and growth of the feather star, Florometra serratissima. Marine Biology.
73:309-323.

Musso, B. M. 1993. Effects of Acanthaster predation on bioerosion: design and preliminary results.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Workshop Series. 18:133-144,illustr.

Paine, R. T. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist. 100:65-75.

Paine, R. T. 1974. Intertidal community structure. Experimental studies on the relationship between a
dominant competitor and its principal predator. Oecologia 15:93-120.

Rutman, J. and L. Fishelson. 1969. Food composition and feeding behavior of shallow-water crinoids
at Eilat (Red Sea). Marine Biology 3:46-57.

Sano, M., M. Shimizu and Y. Nose. 1987. Long-term effects of destruction of hermatypic corals by
Acanthaster planci infestation on reef fish communities at Iriomote Island, Japan. Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 37:191-199,illustr.

Smith, D. F., Meyer, D. L. and S. M. J. Horner. 1981. Amino acid uptake by the comatulid crinoid
Cenometra bella (Echinodermata) following evisceration. Marine Biology 61:207-213.
Walbran, P. D., R. A. Henderson, A. J. T. Jull and M. J. Head. 1989. Evidence from sediments of long-
term Acanthaster planci predation on corals of the Great Barrier Reef. Science (Washington D C).
245:847-850,illustr.

West, B. 1978. Utilisation of dissolved glucose and amino acids by Leptometra phalangium (J. Müll.).
Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society (Series A) 6:77-85.

Williams, S. T. 1999. Species boundaries in the starfish genus Linckia. Marine Biology. 135:137-148.

Wulff, J. L. 1995. Sponge-feeding by the Caribbean starfish Oreaster reticulatus. Marine Biology
(Berlin). 123:313-325.

Van Veldhuizen, H. and D. W. Phillips. 1978. Prey capture by Pisaster brevispinus (Asteroidea:
Echinodermata) on a soft substrate. Marine Biology. 48: 89-97.

Young, C. M. and R. H. Emson. 1995. Rapid arm movements in stalked crinoids. Biological Bulletin
(Woods Hole). 188:89-97.

Reefkeeping Magazine™ Reef Central, LLC-Copyright © 2008