September, 1999 
SCAMIT Newsletter 
Vol. 18, No.5 
seaweeds, one with similar and the other with 
dissimilar morphologies. The local associated 
microfauna proved well able to colonize and 
use the invading alga, and in areas where 
macroalgae had been in low abundance, the 
Sargassum provided additional habitat. As 
Sargassum also competes with native algae for 
space and light, this is not an unmixed 
blessing. In the Spanish case the associates of 
the native algae proved fickle, switching to the 
invader without compunction. Anecdotal 
observations suggest that the local situation is 
similar, with indigenous grazers readily 
switching to the introduced alga. 
Invasions do not always end so happily for the 
ecosystem involved. Ruiz et al. (1999) examine 
the more stressful interactions between the 
invader and the invaded. Using the invaders of 
Chesapeake Bay as a database, they found that 
1 in 5 invading species had apparently had a 
significant impact on the Bay ecosystem, or 
one or more of it’s components. They also 
doubt that the behavior of an invader in the 
Bay can be used to predict it’s effect elsewhere. 
The potential differences in community 
composition and function are too great between 
locations to allow easy application of 
experience in one area to another. They also 
clearly perceived non-indigenous species as 
additional stressors to already 
anthropogenically stressed near-shore 
communities. As such their impacts, if 
negative, could be magnified by preexisting 
stress on the community from these other 
sources. 
Whether or not a species uses larval forms for 
dispersal is a part of the “life-history strategy” 
of that species; what it does to insure its 
persistence and spread. This is not always a 
single path which a species follows, as our 
recently mentioned examples of poecilogony 
have demonstrated. The consequences, both 
positive and negative, of producing larvae have 
not often been examined from a practical point 
of view; in essence a cost/benefit analysis of 
the larval method. Pechenik (1999) reviews the 
question and provides a nice summation of the 
costs and benefits of larval production. This 
greatly simplifies the decisions you out there 
need to make in your search for alternative 
modes of reproduction. 
30 AUGUST MEETING 
President Ron Velarde (CSDMWWD) opened 
the business meeting promptly at 9:30a.m. at 
the San Diego Marine Biology Lab. The first 
order of business was scheduling meetings for 
the next two months. We will be continuing 
along the same theme with problematic 
specimens from the Bight’98 project. 
Meetings for non-polychaete topics will be 
held in San Diego on September 13 and 
October 18. Meetings for polychaete topics 
will be held at the Worm Lab at the Los 
Angeles County Museum of Natural History on 
September 27 and October 25. 
Sonya Foree from the City and County of San 
Francisco joined us for the day. During the 
afternoon session, Arleen Navarret (CCSF) and 
Victoria Diaz and Maricarmen Necoechea, 
(both from CICESE, Ensenada, Baja 
California) were also in attendance. 
Larry Lovell reported that the Aphrodita 
project is a “go”, and he is putting out a request 
for specimens. Larry, in conjunction with 
Cheryl Brantley and Ron Velarde, will be 
investigating and clarifying the taxonomy of 
Aphrodita. He would like to get as much 
material as possible. It would be especially 
useful to include wide size ranges. If you can 
supply specimens of Aphrodita to Larry, please 
either ship them to him at Scripps or give him a 
call (858) 822-2818 to arrange transportation. 
Larry also gave an update on the status of his 
work on the marine invertebrate collection at 
Scripps. There is a lot of re-organization and 
cleaning up that is going on and still much to 
be done. If anyone is interested in seeing the 
3 
