Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Rock-bor­ing urchins are dis­trib­uted through­out the Caribbean and coastal South At­lantic sub­trop­i­cal re­gion, from Bermuda through south­ern Florida and the is­lands of the Caribbean (par­tic­u­larly Bar­ba­dos) to Desterra, Brazil. (Lewis and Storey, 1984; McPher­son, 1969)

• Biogeographic Regions
• nearctic
  • native
• neotropical
  • native
• atlantic ocean
  • native

Habi­tat

This urchin is typ­i­cally found in shal­low wa­ters of 0-2 me­ters and has been re­ported at depths up to 45 me­ters. It is most abun­dant on tidal ter­races and rocky shores in areas of high en­ergy waves and on shal­low coral reefs within rock crevices, and may be pre­sent (though less com­monly found) on sandy bot­toms. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Wein­traub, 2012)

• Habitat Regions
• tropical
• saltwater or marine

• Aquatic Biomes
• benthic
• reef
• coastal

• Other Habitat Features
• intertidal or littoral

• Range depth

  0 to 45 m

  0.00 to 147.64 ft

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

This species has an el­lip­ti­cal shape with 100 to 150 col­ored spines on the arbo­ral sur­face. Size at ma­tu­rity is typ­i­cally 40 mm in di­am­e­ter or smaller, al­though some in­di­vid­u­als recorded larger than 150 mm have been recorded. Test color is vari­able be­tween in­di­vid­u­als, rang­ing be­tween a black, brown, green or dark blue color with lighter col­ors on the arbo­ral sur­face. In some cases the api­cal sys­tem of the test is bright red, with black spines. This species is dif­fer­en­ti­ated from other closely re­lated species by hav­ing fewer pore-pairs per arc, fewer am­bu­lacral and in­ter­am­bu­lacral plates, a dif­fer­ent api­cal sys­tem, and slen­der, tri­den­tate pedi­cel­lar­iae. Like all other echi­noids, it has 5 teeth lo­cated within a spe­cial­ized feed­ing ap­pa­ra­tus known as Aris­to­tle's lantern. As with many urchins, this species' spines are ven­omous. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Blevins and Johnsen, 2004; Jack­son, 1912; Lewis and Storey, 1984; McPher­son, 1969; Wein­traub, 2012)

• Other Physical Features
• ectothermic
• heterothermic
• radial symmetry
• venomous

• Sexual Dimorphism
• sexes alike

• Range length

  40 to 150 mm

  1.57 to 5.91 in

De­vel­op­ment

Post-fer­til­iza­tion, zy­gotes un­dergo first cleav­age after ap­prox­i­mately 90 min­utes. Plank­tonic lar­vae de­velop in sev­eral stages, in­clud­ing the blas­tula (reached at the 128 cell stage), gas­trula (1000 cell stage), and prism stages. The fol­low­ing stage, four-armed plu­teus, is reached after the sec­ond day of fer­til­iza­tion. Fol­low­ing the fourth day, pos­terodor­sal arms ap­pear and full meta­mor­pho­sis oc­curs ap­prox­i­mately 19 days after fer­til­iza­tion. This urchin is a slow-grow­ing and rel­a­tively long-lived echi­noid species with a life ex­pectancy over 10 years. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Bolton and Flo­rence I.M., 2002; Con­way, et al., 1984; Ebert, et al., 2008; Lewis and Storey, 1984; McPher­son, 1969)

• Development - Life Cycle
• metamorphosis

Re­pro­duc­tion

This species is usu­ally found in dense ag­gre­ga­tions. Spawn­ing oc­curs once or twice (de­pend­ing on in­di­vid­ual con­di­tions) in the sum­mer. In­di­vid­u­als re­lease their ga­metes into the water col­umn, with males usu­ally spawn­ing be­fore fe­males. This may act as a cue, stim­u­lat­ing fe­males to re­lease eggs. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Grünbaum, et al., 1978; Lewis and Storey, 1984)

• Mating System
• polygynandrous (promiscuous)

Sex­ual ma­tu­rity oc­curs when in­di­vid­u­als reach a test di­am­e­ter of at least 20 mm and when ripe sex cells are pre­sent in the go­nads. Gonad de­vel­op­ment oc­curs most often dur­ing spring, with spawn­ing oc­cur­ing in the sum­mer, usu­ally once but in some cases twice per year. The go­nadal index (num­ber of sex cells/unit of gonad tis­sue) is high­est dur­ing sum­mer. The ga­me­to­genic cycle com­prises 5 dif­fer­ent stages: pro­lif­er­a­tive, pre­ma­ture, ma­ture, de­pleted, and rest­ing. Re­lease of the male’s sper­ma­to­zoa elic­its re­lease of oocytes by fe­males. Spawn­ing may also occur dur­ing other times of the year out­side of sum­mer, de­pend­ing pri­mar­ily on hy­dro­dy­nam­ics and nu­tri­ent avail­abil­ity. There is cur­rently no pub­lished in­for­ma­tion not­ing the av­er­age num­ber of off­spring, ges­ta­tion pe­riod, and birth mass for this species. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Lima, et al., 2009; McPher­son, 1969)

• Key Reproductive Features
• iteroparous
• seasonal breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual
• fertilization
  • external
• broadcast (group) spawning

• Breeding interval

  Typically once per year; occasionally twice per year

• Breeding season

  Spring/summer

This species ex­hibits no parental in­vest­ment after ga­mete re­lease. Zy­gotes be­come plank­tonic lar­vae and drift un­at­tended until they de­velop into the ben­thic adult form. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Lewis and Storey, 1984; McPher­son, 1969)

• Parental Investment
• no parental involvement

Lifes­pan/Longevity

Rock-bor­ing urchins ex­hibit a slow growth rate. After com­plet­ing their first year of life, av­er­age life ex­pectancy is over 10 years. How­ever, there have been no de­tailed stud­ies doc­u­ment­ing the av­er­age lifes­pan in the wild, and es­ti­mated lifes­pans in cap­tive in­di­vid­u­als are un­known. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Ebert, et al., 2008)

• Average lifespan
  Status: wild

  10 years

Be­hav­ior

This species uses its tube feet to at­tach it­self to rocky sur­faces and it has the abil­ity to cre­ate its own bur­rows. Most move­ments occur dur­ing dark hours, when urchins move out of crevices and rock bur­rows to feed, pri­mar­ily on algae, and then re­turn to them for shel­ter. This species also ex­hibits ter­ri­to­r­ial and ag­o­nis­tic be­hav­iors to de­fend its shel­ter and ac­cess to food from con­specifics. How­ever, it can co­ex­ist with con­geners such as Echi­nome­tra viridis with­out com­pet­ing for food or re­sources. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Grünbaum, et al., 1978; Wein­traub, 2012)

• Key Behaviors
• nocturnal
• motile
• sedentary
• solitary
• territorial
• social

• Range territory size

  0 to 3 cm^2

Home Range

This species may occur in pop­u­la­tion den­si­ties of up to 240 in­di­vid­u­als per 2.6 km^2. In­di­vid­u­als have been doc­u­mented to travel be­tween 0 and 3 cm^2 over a pe­riod of four days. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Grünbaum, et al., 1978)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

These urchins com­mu­ni­cate with con­specifics through tac­tile means, using their tube feet and spines and, when spawn­ing, through chem­i­cal sig­nals. It is also able to de­tect shad­ows and chem­i­cals re­leased by its preda­tors. Al­though they have no dis­crete vi­sual or­gans, urchins have been found to ex­press vi­sion re­lated genes in their tube feet. It has also been found that their spines fil­ter light from wide an­gles, al­low­ing them to de­tect rel­a­tively fine vi­sual de­tail (species with densely packed spines have greater acu­ity than those with widely spaced spines). (Blevins and Johnsen, 2004; Mor­ishita and Bar­reto, 2011; Yer­ranilli and Johnsen, 2010)

• Communication Channels
• tactile
• chemical

• Other Communication Modes
• pheromones

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• chemical

Food Habits

This urchin is an om­niv­o­rous species, using its arbo­ral spines to trap food and carry it to the oral sur­face where it uses a spe­cial­ized feed­ing ap­pa­ra­tus (Aris­to­tle's lantern) to graze and con­sume its food. Ap­prox­i­mately 45% of the diet con­sists of algae at­tached to the urchin's bur­rows and the re­main­der is algal drift. Some of the macro­phytic algae known to be con­sumed by this species in­clude Dic­ty­ota sp., Chaeto­mor­pha sp., Sar­gas­sum sp. and Lau­ren­cia pa­pi­losa, and it is also known to con­sume sea­grasses in the gen­era Tha­las­sia and Sy­ringodium. Gut con­tents of some urchins have been ob­served to in­clude spines from other echi­noids (re­sult­ing from ter­ri­to­r­ial fights), and ses­sile in­ver­te­brates. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Calderon, et al., 2007; Ebert, et al., 2008; McPher­son, 1969)

• Primary Diet
• herbivore
  • algivore
• omnivore
• detritivore

• Animal Foods
• other marine invertebrates

• Plant Foods
• algae
• macroalgae

• Other Foods
• detritus

Pre­da­tion

Preda­tors in­clude fishes, birds, mol­luscs, and hu­mans. Trig­ger­fish are able to break urchin tests with their strong jaws and con­sume the vis­cera, while go­b­ies con­sume the urchin's tube feet and pedi­cel­larie. Shore­birds, such as ruddy turn­stones, flock over ex­posed reefs dur­ing low tide, peck­ing through urchin peri­s­tomes and eat­ing the vis­cera. Conch use their radu­lae to drill through the urchin tests. Hu­mans con­sume the go­nads of this urchin. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Blevins and Johnsen, 2004; Mor­ishita and Bar­reto, 2011)

This species is able to de­tect some in­ver­te­brate preda­tors' odors and chem­i­cal sig­nals, help­ing it to avoid pre­da­tion. When at­tacked, an urchin waves its spines and tube feet as a de­fense and es­cape mech­a­nism. (Mor­ishita and Bar­reto, 2011)

• Known Predators

  • Black margate Anisotremus surinamensis
  • Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella
  • Queen triggerfish Balistes vetula
  • King helmet conch Cassis tuberosa
  • Spot-fin porcupinefish Diodon hystrix
  • Nineline goby Ginsburgellus novemlineatus
  • Hairy blenny Labrisomus nuchipinnis
  • Human Homo sapiens

Ecosys­tem Roles

This species af­fects the de­vel­op­ment of coral reefs through shad­ing, phys­i­cal abra­sion, and in­ci­den­tal in­ges­tion of ses­sile epi­fauna, thus al­ter­ing the com­mu­nity's phys­i­cal and bi­o­log­i­cal struc­ture. Be­cause it is mainly her­biv­o­rous, it has a strong im­pact on algal bio­mass, af­fect­ing the bio­di­ver­sity and func­tion­al­ity of its ecosys­tem by in­creas­ing the ac­cess to sub­strate for the set­tle­ment, at­tach­ment and growth of other ben­thic or­gan­isms. In Brazil, re­duc­tion of algal cover helped re­cruit­ment of sponges (Dar­winela sp.). Most of this species' re­la­tion­ships are com­men­sal. Some goby and cling­fish species, as well as crus­taceans, re­side within its spines for pro­tec­tion. It is, how­ever, also host to at least two species of ec­topar­a­sitic cope­pods. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Almeida, et al., 2010; Fur­man and Heck, Jr., 2009; Kroh, 2012; Lima, et al., 2009; McPher­son, 1969; Schoppe, 1991)

• Ecosystem Impact
• creates habitat
• biodegradation
• keystone species

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Hu­mans con­sume the go­nads of this species. This urchin can also serve as an in­di­ca­tor of ma­rine pol­lu­tion by the mer­cury lev­els found in its go­nads. Hu­mans ben­e­fit from this species' role in re­duc­ing algal over­growth and in pro­vid­ing pro­tec­tion for small clean­ing fishes, which helps to main­tain the health of ed­i­ble reef fish. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974; Almeida, et al., 2010; Calderon, et al., 2007; Tor­res, et al., 1990; Wein­traub, 2012)

• Positive Impacts
• food
• research and education

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

This species is ven­omous, in­tro­duc­ing its toxin via its spines. In Brazil it is re­spon­si­ble for ap­prox­i­mately half of all ac­ci­dents caused by ma­rine an­i­mals. Ef­fects of the venom range from mild, tem­po­rary dis­com­fort to pain and sec­ondary in­fec­tions last­ing for weeks. (Sciana, et al., 2010)

• Negative Impacts
• injures humans
  • bites or stings
  • venomous

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

As of March 2012, there is no ac­tive con­ser­va­tion plan for this species. This species is not en­dan­gered. (IUCN, 2012)

• IUCN Red List

  Not Evaluated

• US Federal List

  No special status

• CITES

  No special status

• State of Michigan List

  No special status

Other Com­ments

This species is called by the com­mon names red rock urchin or rock-bor­ing urchin, but these names have also been ap­plied to species such as Echi­nome­tra math­aei and Echi­nome­tra ob­longa. (Charpin, 2012; "Ma­rine Life Pro­file: Rock-bor­ing sea urchins", 2009)

This species can sur­vive ex­po­sure to di­rect sun­light for up to three hours al­though water tem­per­a­tures of over 38°C are lethal. (Ab­bott, et al., 1974)

Con­trib­u­tors

Julio Plazas (au­thor), San Diego Mesa Col­lege, Paul De­twiler (ed­i­tor), San Diego Mesa Col­lege, Je­remy Wright (ed­i­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan-Ann Arbor.

Ref­er­ences

Waikiki Aquar­ium. 2009. "Ma­rine Life Pro­file: Rock-bor­ing sea urchins" (On-line). Ac­cessed Au­gust 18, 2012 at http://​www.​waquarium.​org/_​library/​images/​education/​marinelifeprofiles/​rock-boringurchin0909.​pdf.

Ab­bott, I., J. Ogden, D. Ab­bott. 1974. Stud­ies on the ac­tiv­ity pat­tern, be­hav­ior, and food of the echi­noid Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter (Lin­naeus). West In­dies Lab­o­ra­tory, Fair­leigh Dick­in­son Uni­ver­sity: Chris­tiansted, St. Croix.

Almeida, D., A. Sole-Cava, I. Calderon. 2010. The sea urchin Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter as a refuge for the bar­ber goby Ela­cat­i­nus fi­garo. Ar­quivos do Museu Na­cional, 68/1-2: 17-23.

Blevins, E., S. Johnsen. 2004. Spa­tial vi­sion in the echi­noid genus Echi­nome­tra. The Jour­nal of Ex­per­i­men­tal Bi­ol­ogy, 207: 4249-4253.

Bolton, T., T. Flo­rence I.M.. 2002. Phys­i­cal forces ex­pe­ri­enced by echi­noid eggs in the oviduct dur­ing spawn­ing: Com­par­i­son of the gem­i­nate pair Echi­nome­tra van­brunti and Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter. Jour­nal of Ex­per­i­men­tal Ma­rine Bi­ol­ogy and Ecol­ogy, Vol­ume 267, Issue 2: 123–137.

Calderon, E., C. Zil­ber­berg, P. De Paiva. 2007. Porifera Re­search: Bio­di­ver­sity, In­no­va­tion and Sus­tain­abil­ity. Rio de Janeiro: Série Livros 28, Museu Na­cional.

Charpin, F. 2012. "Flo­rent's Guide to the Trop­i­cal Reefs" (On-line). Ac­cessed Au­gust 18, 2012 at http://​reefguide.​org/​rockurchin.​html.

Collin, R., M. Diaz, J. Noren­burg, R. Rocha, J. Sanchez, A. Schulz, M. Schwartz, A. Valdes. 2005. Pho­to­graphic iden­ti­fi­ca­tion guide to some com­mon ma­rine in­ver­te­brates of Bocas Del Toro, Panama. Caribbean Jour­nal of Sci­ence, Vol­ume 41: 638-707.

Con­way, C., A. Con­way, D. Igel­srud. 1984. Sea Urchin De­vel­op­ment. Pp. 53-89 in C Har­ris, ed. Tested stud­ies for lab­o­ra­tory teach­ing. Pro­ceed­ings of the third work­shop/con­fer­ence of the As­so­ci­a­tion for Bi­ol­ogy Lab­o­ra­tory Ed­u­ca­tion (ABLE).. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. Ac­cessed May 25, 2012 at http://​www.​ableweb.​org/​volumes/​vol-3/​4-conway.​pdf.

Ebert, T., M. Rus­sell, G. Gamba, A. Bod­nar. 2008. Growth, sur­vival, and longevity es­ti­mates for the rock-bor­ing sea urchin Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter (Echin­o­der­mata, Echi­noidea) in Bermuda. Bul­letin of Ma­rine Sci­ence, Vol­ume 82, Num­ber 3: 381–403.

Fur­man, B., K. Heck, Jr.. 2009. Dif­fer­en­tial im­pacts of echi­noid graz­ers on coral re­cruit­ment. Bul­letin of Ma­rine Sci­ence, 121–132, 2009, 85/2: 121-132.

Grünbaum, H., J. Ogden, D. Ab­bott, G. Bergman. 1978. In­traspe­cific ag­o­nis­tic be­hav­ior in the rock-bor­ing sea urchin Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter (L.) (Echin­o­der­mata: Echi­noidea). Bul­letin of Ma­rine Sci­ence, 28/1: 181-188.

IUCN, 2012. "The IUCN Red List of Threat­ened Species. Ver­sion 2012.1" (On-line). Ac­cessed Au­gust 25, 2012 at http://​www.​iucnredlist.​org.

Jack­son, R. 1912. Phy­logeny of the Echini: with a re­vi­sion of Palaeo­zoic species, Vol­ume VII. Boston: The So­ci­ety.

Kroh, A. 2012. "

Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter (Lin­naeus, 1758)

Lawrence, J., J. Kafri. 1979. Num­bers, bio­mass, and caloric con­tent of the echin­o­derm fauna of the rocky shores of Bar­ba­dos. Ma­rine Bi­ol­ogy, Vol. 52 (1): 87-91.

Lewis, J., G. Storey. 1984. Mor­phol­ogy and life his­tory of Echi­nome­tra from dif­fer­ent habi­tats. Ma­rine Ecol­ogy Progress Se­ries, Vol. 15: 207-211.

Lima, E., P. Gomes, J. Sousa. 2009. Re­pro­duc­tive bi­ol­ogy of Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter (Echin­o­der­mata: Echi­noidea) in a north­east Brazil­ian sand­stone reef. Anais da Acad­e­mia Brasileira de Ciências, Vol­ume 81(1): 51-59.

McPher­son, B. 1969. Stud­ies on the bi­ol­ogy of the trop­i­cal sea urchins, Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter and Echi­nome­tra viridis. Bul­letin of Ma­rine Sci­ence, Vol­ume 19(1): 194-213.

Mor­ishita, V., R. Bar­reto. 2011. Black sea urchins eval­u­ate pre­da­tion risk using chem­i­cal sig­nals from a preda­tor and in­jured con- and het­erospe­cific prey. Ma­rine Ecol­ogy Progress Se­ries, 435: 173-181.

Schoppe, S. 1991. Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter (Lin­naeus) (Echi­noidea, Echi­nometri­dae) als Wirt einer kom­plexen Lebens­ge­mein­schaft im Karibis­chen Meer. Hel­goland Ma­rine Re­search, 45/3: 373-379.

Sciana, J., B. Zy­char, L. Gonçalves, T. Nogueira, R. Giorgi, D. Pi­menta. 2010. Pro-in­flam­ma­tory ef­fects of the aque­ous ex­tract of Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter sea urchin spines. Ex­per­i­men­tal Bi­ol­ogy and Med­i­cine, 236/3: 277-280. Ac­cessed Au­gust 18, 2012 at http://​ebm.​rsmjournals.​com/​search?​author1=Luis+Roberto+de+Camargo+Gonçalves&sort­spec=date&sub­mit=Sub­mit.

Tor­res, I., N. Ablanedo, H. Gon­za­lez, M. Ramirez. 1990. Eval­u­a­cion del erizo de mar Echi­nome­tra lu­cunter como in­di­cador de con­t­a­m­i­na­cion por met­ales pe­sa­dos, Cuba. Aquatic Liv­ing Re­sources, 3: 113-120.

Wein­traub, L. 2012. "Boca del Toro: Species Data­base" (On-line). Smith­son­ian Trop­i­cal Re­search In­sti­tute. Ac­cessed Au­gust 18, 2012 at http://​biogeodb.​stri.​si.​edu/​bocas_​database/​search/​species/​1131/​.

Yer­ranilli, D., S. Johnsen. 2010. Spa­cial vi­sion in the pur­ple sea urchin Strongy­lo­cen­tro­tus pur­pu­ra­tus (Echi­noidea). Jour­nal of Ex­per­i­men­tal Bi­ol­ogy, 213: 249-255.