Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 779–791 | Cite as

Particle Processing by Olympia Oysters Ostrea lurida and Pacific Oysters Crassostrea gigas

  • Matthew W. GrayEmail author
  • Chris Langdon
Article

Abstract

The native Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) has been the subject of few detailed feeding studies compared with many other species of bivalve mollusk. More information on this species’ feeding activity and behavior are needed to better understand its historical ecological role in Pacific Northwest (PNW) estuaries, compared with that of the widely farmed, well-studied, non-native Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas). In this study, the feeding physiology and particle processing behaviors of O. lurida and C. gigas were examined in both controlled laboratory experiments and in situ trials that spanned the wet and dry seasons of the PNW. It was hypothesized that O. lurida would have lower filtration and particle processing rates than those of C. gigas. Results supported this hypothesis in that filtration and absorption rates of the Pacific oyster were significantly greater than those of O. lurida under laboratory conditions. In the field, C. gigas was also found to filter, absorb, and deposit organic material at significantly greater rates than O. lurida. These observations explain the previously reported greater growth rates of C. gigas relative to those of O. lurida. Furthermore, after applying data collected here to recent modeling efforts, it estimated that C. gigas could potentially remove between 1.2 and 3.6-fold and deposit between 1.6- and 4.6-fold more organic suspended material than comparable, historic populations of O. lurida in the PNW.

Keywords

Feeding Physiology Ostrea lurida Crassostrea gigas Particle processing 

Notes

Funding information

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System fellowship awarded to MWG (Award No. NA10NOS4200025) supported the experiments and the Molluscan Broodstock Program staff provided valuable resources during the studies. Additional support to MWG was provided by the Oregon Society of Conchologists, the Mamie Markham Research Award, and Anja Robinson Fellowship from the Hatfield Marine Science Center, OSU, and by the USDA-ARS Shellfish program at HMSC (CRIS project 5358-6300-00200D).

References

  1. Askew, C.G. 1972. The growth of oysters Ostrea edulis and Crassostrea gigas in Emsworth Harbour. Aquaculture 1: 237–259.Google Scholar
  2. Asmus, R.M., and Harald Asmus. 1991. Mussel beds: limiting or promoting phytoplankton? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 148 (2): 215–232.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, P. 1995. Review of ecology and fishery of the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida with annotated bibliography. Journal of Shellfish Research 14: 501–518.Google Scholar
  4. Banas, N.S., B.M. Hickey, J.A. Newton, and J.L. Ruesink. 2007. Tidal exchange, bivalve grazing, and patterns of primary production in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 341: 123–139.Google Scholar
  5. Barillé, L., and J. Prou. 1993. Modeling Japanese oyster physiological processes under natural tidal variation in suspended particulate matter. In Counc. Meet. of the Int. Counc. for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  6. Barillé, L., J. Prou, M. Héral, and D. Razet. 1997. Effects of high natural seston concentrations on the feeding, selection, and absorption of the oyster Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 212 (2): 149–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(96)02756-6.Google Scholar
  7. Bayne, B.L. 2002. A physiological comparison between Pacific oysters Crassostrea gigas and Sydney Rock oysters Saccostrea glomerata: food, feeding and growth in a shared estuarine habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 232: 163–178.Google Scholar
  8. Bayne, B.L. 2017. Biology of Oysters. 1st ed. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bayne, B.L., A.J.S. Hawkins, E. Navarro, and I.P. Iglesias. 1989. Effects of seston concentration on feeding, digestion and growth in the mussel Mytilus edulis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 55: 47–54.Google Scholar
  10. Blake, B., and A. Bradbury. 2012. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife plan for rebuilding Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida) populations in Puget Sound with a historical and contemporary overview. Brinnon: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Google Scholar
  11. Bougrier, S., A.J.S. Hawkins, and M. Héral. 1997. Preingestive selection of different microalgal mixtures in Crassostrea gigas and Mytilus edulis analysed by flow cytometry. Aquaculture 150 (1-2): 123–134.Google Scholar
  12. Brown C.A., and R.J Ozretich. 2007. An approach to developing nutrient criteria for Pacific Northwest estuaries: a case study of Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Washington, DC: US EPA Office of Research and Development Laboratory, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, C.A., and R.J. Ozretich. 2009. Coupling between the coastal ocean and Yaquina Bay, Oregon: Importance of oceanic inputs relative to other nitrogen sources. Estuaries and Coasts 32 (2): 219–237.Google Scholar
  14. Comeau, L.A., A.L. Mallet, C.E. Carver, and T. Guyondet. 2014. Impact of high-density suspended oyster culture on benthic sediment characteristics. Aquacultural Engineering 58: 95–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2013.12.004.Google Scholar
  15. Cranford, P.J., and P.S. Hill. 1999. Seasonal variation in food utilization by the suspension-feeding bivalve molluscs Mytilus edulis and Placopecten magellanicus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 190: 223–239.Google Scholar
  16. Cranford, P. J., J. E. Ward, and S. E. Shumway. 2011. Bivalve Filter Feeding: Variability and Limits of the Aquaculture Biofilter. In Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment, ed. Sandra E. Shumway, 81–124. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Crooks, J.A. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97 (2): 153–166.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.970201.x.Google Scholar
  18. Dean, D. 1979. Introduced species and the Maine situation. In Exotic species in mariculture, ed. R. Mann, 149–164. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Enright, C.T., G.F. Newkirk, J.S. Craigie, and J.D. Castell. 1986. Evaluation of phytoplankton as diets for juvenile Ostrea edulis L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 96 (1): 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(86)90009-2. Google Scholar
  20. Gascon, C., T.M. Brooks, T. Contreras-MacBeath, N. Heard, W. Konstant, J. Lamoreux, F. Launay, M. Maunder, R.A. Mittermeier, S. Molur, R.K. al Mubarak, M.J. Parr, A.G.J. Rhodin, A.B. Rylands, P. Soorae, J.G. Sanderson, and J.C. Vié. 2015. The importance and benefits of species. Current Biology 25 (10): R431–R438.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.041.Google Scholar
  21. Gerdes, D. 1983. The Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas: Part I. Feeding behaviour of larvae and adults. Aquaculture 31 (2-4): 195–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(83)90313-7. Google Scholar
  22. Geurts van Kessel, A.J.M., B.J. Kater, and T.C. Prins. 2003. Veranderende draagkracht van de Oosterschelde voor kokkels. RIKZ: Rijkswaterstaat.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, M.W., and C.J. Langdon. 2018. Ecophysiology of the Olympia Oyster, Ostrea lurida, and Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea gigas. Estuaries and Coasts 41 (2): 521–535.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-017-0273-7.Google Scholar
  24. Gray MW, Zu Ermgassen PSE, Gair J, Langdon CJ, Lemagie EP, Lerczak JA. 2019. Spatially explicit estimates of in situ filtration by native oysters to augment ecosystem services during restoration. Estuaries and Coasts.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00515-3.
  25. Grizzle, R.E., J.K. Greene, and L.D. Coen. 2008. Seston removal by natural and constructed intertidal eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reefs: a comparison with previous laboratory studies, and the value of in situ methods. Estuaries and Coasts 31 (6): 1208–1220.Google Scholar
  26. Hawkins, A.J.S., R.F.M. Smith, B.L. Bayne, and M. Heral. 1996. Novel observations underlying the fast growth of suspension-feeding shellfish in turbid environments: Mytilus edulis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 131: 179–190.Google Scholar
  27. Hawkins, A.J.S., R.F.M. Smith, S. Bougrier, B.L. Bayne, and M. Héral. 1997. Manipulation of dietary conditions for maximal growth in mussels, Mytilus edulis, from the Marennes-Oléron Bay, France. Aquatic Living Resources 10 (1): 13–22.Google Scholar
  28. Hawkins, A.J.S., B.L. Bayne, S. Bougrier, M. Héral, J.I.P. Iglesias, E. Navarro, R.F.M. Smith, and M.B. Urrutia. 1998a. Some general relationships in comparing the feeding physiology of suspension-feeding bivalve molluscs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 219 (1-2): 87–103.Google Scholar
  29. Hawkins, A.J.S., R.F.M. Smith, S.H. Tan, and Z.B. Yasin. 1998b. Suspension-feeding behaviour in tropical bivalve molluscs: Perna viridis, Crassostrea belcheri, Crassostrea iradelei, Saccostrea cucculata and Pinctada margarifera. Marine Ecology Progress Series 166: 173–185.Google Scholar
  30. Hawkins, A.J.S., M.R. James, R.W. Hickman, S. Hatton, and M. Weatherhead. 1999. Modelling of suspension-feeding and growth in the green-lipped mussel Perna canaliculus exposed to natural and experimental variations of seston availability in Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. Journal of Marine Ecology Progress Series 191: 217–232.Google Scholar
  31. Huang, S.-C., D.A. Kreeger, and R.I.E. Newell. 2003. Tidal and seasonal variations in the quantity and composition of seston in a North American, mid-Atlantic saltmarsh. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 56 (3-4): 547–560.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7714(02)00205-6.Google Scholar
  32. Karentz, D., and C.D. McIntire. 1977. Distribution of diatoms in the plankton of Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Journal of Phycology 13 (4): 379–388.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.1977.00379.x. Google Scholar
  33. Kellogg, M.L., J.C. Cornwell, M.S. Owens, and K.T. Paynter. 2013. Denitrification and nutrient assimilation on a restored oyster reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 480: 1–19.Google Scholar
  34. Kincaid, T. 1968. The ecology of Willapa Bay, Washington, in relation to the oyster industry. Seattle: Self Published.Google Scholar
  35. Kiorboe, T., and F. Mohlenberg. 1981. Particle selection in suspension-feeding bivalves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 5: 291–296.Google Scholar
  36. Kreeger, D.A. 1993. Seasonal patterns in utilization of dietary protein by the mussel Mytilus trossulus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 95: 215–232.Google Scholar
  37. Kreeger, D.A., and R.I.E. Newell. 2001. Seasonal utilization of different seston carbon sources by the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa (Dillwyn) in a mid-Atlantic salt marsh. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 260 (1): 71–91.Google Scholar
  38. Langdon, C.J., and C.A. Siegfried. 1984. Progress in the development of artificial diets for bivalve filter feeders. Aquaculture 39 (1-4): 135–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(84)90262-X Recent Innovations in Cultivation of Pacific Molluscs.Google Scholar
  39. Loosanoff, V. L. 1962. Effects of turbidity on some larval and adult bivalves. In Proceeding of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 80–85. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries InstituteGoogle Scholar
  40. Loosanoff, V.L., and F.D. Tommers. 1948. Effect of suspended silt and other substances on rate of feeding of oysters. Science 107 (2768): 69–70.Google Scholar
  41. Lunstrum, A., K. McGlathery, and A. Smyth. 2018. Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Aquaculture shifts sediment nitrogen processes toward mineralization over denitrification. Estuaries and Coasts 41 (4): 1130–1146.Google Scholar
  42. Markert, A., A. Wehrmann, and I. Kröncke. 2010. Recently established Crassostrea-reefs versus native Mytilus-beds: differences in ecosystem engineering affects the macrofaunal communities (Wadden Sea of Lower Saxony, southern German Bight). Biological Invasions 12 (1): 15–32.Google Scholar
  43. Means, J.C., and R.D. Wijayaratne. 1984. Chemical characterization of estuarine colloidal organic matter: Implications for Adsorptive Processes. Bulletin of Marine Science 35: 449–461.Google Scholar
  44. Navarro, J.M., and J. Widdows. 1997. Feeding physiology of Cerastoderma edule in response to a wide range of seston concentrations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 152: 175–186.Google Scholar
  45. Newell, R.I.E., and S.J. Jordan. 1983. Preferential ingestion of organic material by the American oyster Crassostrea virginica. Marine Ecology Progress Series (Oldendorf) 13: 47–53.Google Scholar
  46. Newell, R.I.E., and E.W. Koch. 2004. Modeling seagrass density and distribution in response to changes in turbidity stemming from bivalve filtration and seagrass sediment stabilization. Estuaries and Coasts 27 (5): 793–806.Google Scholar
  47. Newell, R.I.E., J.C. Cornwell, and M.S. Owens. 2002. Influence of simulated bivalve biodeposition and microphytobenthos on sediment nitrogen dynamics: A laboratory study. Limnology and Oceanography 47 (5): 1367–1379.Google Scholar
  48. NOAA Restoration Center and PSRF. 2010. West Coast Native Oyster Restoration Workshop Proceedings. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA restoration center.Google Scholar
  49. Norkko, A., J.E. Hewitt, S.F. Thrush, and G.A. Funnell. 2001. Benthic-pelagic coupling and suspension-feeding bivalves: Linking site-specific sediment flux and biodeposition to benthic community structure. Limnology and Oceanography 46 (8): 2067–2072.Google Scholar
  50. Norling, P., and N. Kautsky. 2008. Patches of the mussel Mytilus sp. are islands of high biodiversity in subtidal sediment habitats in the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Biology 4 (1): 75–87.Google Scholar
  51. Padilla, Dianna K. 2010. Context-dependent impacts of a non-native ecosystem engineer, the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. Integrative and Comparative Biology 50 (2): 213–225.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icq080.Google Scholar
  52. Pauley G.B., B. Van Der Raay, and D. Troutt. 1988. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Northwest), Pacific Oyster. DTIC Document.Google Scholar
  53. Porter, E.T., J.C. Cornwell, and L.P. Sanford. 2004. Effect of oysters Crassostrea virginica and bottom shear velocity on benthic-pelagic coupling and estuarine water quality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 271: 61–75.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps271061.Google Scholar
  54. Prins, T.C., and A.C. Smaal. 1994. The role of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis in the cycling of nutrients in the Oosterschelde estuary (The Netherlands). Hydrobiologia 282: 413–429.Google Scholar
  55. Prins, T.C., A.C. Smaal, and R.F. Dame. 1997. A review of the feedbacks between bivalve grazing and ecosystem processes. Aquatic Ecology 31 (4): 349–359.Google Scholar
  56. Puget Sound Restoration Fund. 2018. Olympia Oyster Restoration. https://restorationfund.org/projects/olympiaoyster
  57. Reise, K., and J.E.E. Van Beusekom. 2008. Interactive effects of global and regional change on a coastal ecosystem. Helgoland Marine Research 62 (1): 85–91.Google Scholar
  58. Ren, J.S., A.H. Ross, and D.R. Schiel. 2000. Functional descriptions of feeding and energetics of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas in New Zealand. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208: 119–130.Google Scholar
  59. Richardson, C.A., R. Seed, E.M.H. Al-Roumaihi, and L. McDonald. 1993. Distribution, shell growth and predation of the New Zealand oyster, Tiostrea (= Ostrea) lutaria Hutton, in the Menai Strait, North Wales. Journal of Shellfish Research 12: 207–214.Google Scholar
  60. Richkus, W.A. 2013. Role of ecological risk assessment findings in agency decision-making regarding oyster restoration in Chesapeake Bay. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 19 (5): 1253–1263.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.767113.Google Scholar
  61. Rosa, M., J.E. Ward, S.E. Shumway, G.H. Wikfors, E. Pales-Espinosa, and B. Allam. 2013. Effects of particle surface properties on feeding selectivity in the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica and the blue mussel Mytilus edulis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 446: 320–327.Google Scholar
  62. Ruesink, J.L., H.S. Lenihan, A.C. Trimble, K.W. Heiman, F. Micheli, J.E. Byers, and M.C. Kay. 2005. Introduction of non-native oysters: ecosystem effects and restoration implications. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36 (1): 643–689.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102003.152638.Google Scholar
  63. Ruesink, J.L., B.E. Feist, C.J. Harvey, J.S. Hong, A.C. Trimble, and L.M. Wisehart. 2006. Changes in productivity associated with four introduced species: ecosystem transformation of a ‘pristine’ estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311: 203–215.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps311203.Google Scholar
  64. Steele, E.N. 1957. The rise and decline of the Olympia oyster. Elma: Olympia Oyster Growers Association.Google Scholar
  65. Testa, J.M., D.C. Brady, J.C. Cornwell, M.S. Owens, L.P. Sanford, C.R. Newell, S.E. Suttles, and R.I.E. Newell. 2015. Modeling the impact of floating oyster (Crassostrea virginica) aquaculture on sediment-water nutrient and oxygen fluxes. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 7 (3): 205–222.Google Scholar
  66. Trimble, A.C., J.L. Ruesink, and B.R. Dumbauld. 2009. Factors preventing the recovery of a historically overexploited shellfish species, Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864. Journal of Shellfish Research 28 (1): 97–106.Google Scholar
  67. Troost, K. 2010. Causes and effects of a highly successful marine invasion: case-study of the introduced Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas in continental NW European estuaries. Journal of Sea Research 64 (3): 145–165.Google Scholar
  68. Urban, E.R., and D.L. Kirchman. 1992. Effect of kaolinite clay on the feeding activity of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 160 (1): 47–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(92)90109-N.Google Scholar
  69. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oyster Restoration in Chesapeake Bay Including the Use of a Native and/or Nonnative Oyster. Norfolk: The Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  70. Velasco, L.A., and J.M. Navarro. 2005. Feeding physiology of two bivalves under laboratory and field conditions in response to variable food concentrations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 291: 115–124.Google Scholar
  71. Ward, J.E., and S.E. Shumway. 2004. Separating the grain from the chaff: particle selection in suspension- and deposit-feeding bivalves. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 300 (1-2): 83–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2004.03.002.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson-Ormond, E.A., E.N. Powell, and S.M. Ray. 1997. Short-term and small-scale variation in food availability to natural oyster populations: food, flow and flux. Marine Ecology 18 (1): 1–34.Google Scholar
  73. Zu Ermgassen, P., M.W. Gray, C.J. Langdon, M.D. Spalding, and R.D. Brumbaugh. 2013. Quantifying the historic contribution of Olympia oysters to filtration in Pacific Coast (USA) estuaries and the implications for restoration objectives. Aquatic Ecology 47 (2): 149–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-013-9431-6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Horn Point LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland College of Environmental SciencesCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Coastal Oregon Marine Experimental Station and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Hatfield Marine Science CenterOregon State UniversityNewportUSA

Personalised recommendations