Feeding current characteristics of three morphologically different bivalve suspension feeders, Crassostrea gigas, Mytilus edulis and Cerastoderma edule, in relation to food competition
- 1.3k Downloads
Introduced Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) have shown rapid expansion in the Oosterschelde estuary, while stocks of native bivalves declined slightly or remained stable. This indicates that they might have an advantage over native bivalve filter feeders. Hence, at the scale of individual bivalves, we studied whether this advantage occurs in optimizing food intake over native bivalves. We investigated feeding current characteristics, in which potential differences may ultimately lead to a differential food intake. We compared feeding currents of the invasive epibenthic non-siphonate Pacific oyster to those of two native bivalve suspension feeders: the epibenthic siphonate blue mussel Mytilus edulis and the endobenthic siphonate common cockle Cerastoderma edule. Inhalant flow fields were studied empirically using digital particle image velocimetry and particle tracking velocimetry. Exhalant jet speeds were modelled for a range of exhalant-aperture cross-sectional areas as determined in the laboratory and a range of filtration rates derived from literature. Significant differences were found in inhalant and exhalant current velocities and properties of the inhalant flow field (acceleration and distance of influence). At comparable body weight, inhalant current velocities were lower in C. gigas than in the other species. Modelled exhalant jets were higher in C. gigas, but oriented horizontally instead of vertically as in the other species. Despite these significant differences and apparent morphological differences between the three species, absolute differences in feeding current characteristics were small and are not expected to lead to significant differences in feeding efficiency.
KeywordsBivalve Shell Length Pacific Oyster Particle Tracking Velocimetry Oyster Reef
We are grateful to D. B. Blok, E. Brummelhuis, A. van Gool, J. J. de Wiljes and the crews of MS ‘Valk’ and MS ‘Krukel’ for their practical assistance. We thank P. Kamermans and anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments on the manuscript. This project was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research—Earth and Life Sciences (NWO-ALW) (project number 812.03.003). The experiments comply with the current Dutch laws.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
- Bayne BL (1976) Marine mussels: their ecology and physiology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Dankers N, Meijboom A, de Jong M, Dijkman E, Cremer J, Fey F, Smaal A, Craeymeersch J, Brummelhuis E, Steenbergen J, Baars D (2006) De ontwikkeling van de Japanse Oester in Nederland. Wageningen IMARES, Report C040/06, YersekeGoogle Scholar
- Drinkwaard AC (1999a) History of cupped oyster in european coastal waters. Aquac Eur 15:7–14 +41Google Scholar
- Foster-Smith RL (1975) The effect of concentration of suspension on the filtration rates and pseudofaecal production for Mytilus edulis L., Cerastoderma edule (L.) and Venerupis pullastra (Montagu). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 17:1–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(75)90075-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geurts van Kessel AJM, Kater BJ, Prins TC (2003) Veranderende draagkracht van de Oosterschelde voor kokkels. National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (RIKZ) & Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research (RIVO), Report RIKZ/2003.043/RIVO C062/03, Middelburg, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Hawkins AJS, Fang JG, Pascoe PL, Zhang JH, Zhang XL, Zhu MY (2001) Modelling short-term responsive adjustments in particle clearance rate among bivalve suspension-feeders: separate unimodal effects of seston volume and composition in the scallop Chlamys farreri. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 262:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Helm MM, Bourne N, Lovatelli A (2004) Hatchery culture of bivalves—a practical manual. In: Lovatelli A (ed) FAO fisheries technical paper, Rome, p 177Google Scholar
- Hinsch KD (1993) Particle image velocimetry. In: Sirohi RS (ed) Speckle metrology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 235–324Google Scholar
- Norušis MJ (2008) SPSS 16.0 statistical procedures companion. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-606139-7Google Scholar
- Riisgård HU, Kittner C, Seerup DF (2003) Regulation of opening state and filtration rate in filter-feeding bivalves (Cardium edule, Mytilus edulis, Mya arenaria) in response to low algal concentrations. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 284:105–127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(02)00496-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tritton DJ (1988) Physical fluid dynamics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Troost K, Kamermans P, Smaal AC, Wolff WJ (submitted) The effect of bivalve filter feeders on bivalve larval abundance in the Oosterschelde estuary (SW Netherlands) at different spatial scales. Submitted for publication in the Journal of Sea ResearchGoogle Scholar
- Wolff WJ, Reise K (2002) Oyster imports as a vector for the introduction of alien species into northern and western European coastal waters. In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe. Distribution, impacts and management. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://doi.org/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.