Effect of Algal Epiphytes on the Mussel Mytilus Californianus

Dittman, Dawn E.; Robles, Carlos

doi:10.2307/1938922

Cited by 58 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(106 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We hypothesize that mussel habitats might increase food abundance (1) by providing abundant substrate for sessile algal and invertebrate attachment which in turn provides increased food for herbivores and predators (Witman 1987, Young 1989, Dittman & Robles 1991, (2) by producing feces and pseudofeces which could be an attractive food source for many macroinvertebrates (Frankenberg & Smith 1967, Stuart et al 1982, similar to that demonstrated for intertidal mussels (Bayne et al 1976, Kautsky & Evans 1987, (3) by altering water flow which could allow the passive settlement of suspended particulate matter (Eckman 1983) such as detritus and planktonic larvae, and/or (4) by serving as food themselves for molluscivores, particularly crabs and gastropods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mussels attached to rocks, both intertidal and subtidal, also support a diverse and abundant fauna by providing refuge from predation for small individuals (Suchanek 1978, Sebens 1985, Witman 1985, food for molluscivores (Paine 1966, Menge 1976, Lubchenco & Menge 1978, Briscoe & Sebens 1988, Robles et al 1990, protection from wave induced physical forces (Suchanek 1978, Tsuchiya & Nishihira 1986, and substrate for sessile invertebrate and algal attachment (Witman 1987, Young 1989, Dittman & Robles 1991.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Musseis in seagrass meadows: their influence on macroinvertebrate abundance and secondary production in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Valentine¹,

Heck²

1993

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. From 1989 to 1990, we studied a previously undescribed mussel Modiolus americanus (Leach) habitat (with densities as high as 2000 ind. m-2) within the seagrass meadows of St. Joseph Bay, Florida, USA. Using suction sampling, we compared macroinvertebrate abundance, biomass, and annual production estimates in mussel habitat with 3 other habitats: monotypic stands of Thalassia testudinum (Banks ex Konig), Halodule wrightii Aschers and unvegetated sand flats. Previous studies have positively correlated macrofaunal densities and species number with measures of vegetation abundance or architecture. This relationship was not found to be strong in our study. Macroinvertebrate abundance, biomass, and annual production were usually equivalent or higher in mussel than in the other 3 habitats despite aboveground seagrass biomass usually being intermediate between pure stands of T testudinum and H. wrightii, and leaf surface area lowest. Of particular interest was annual macroinvertebrate production whlch ranged from 228.77 to 428.59 g ash-free dry mass (AFDW) m-2 in mussel habitat, followed in descending order by pure stands of T. testudinum (144.90 to 245.44 g AFDW m-'), H. wrightii (83.98 to 180.44 g AFDW m-2), and sand flats (19.83 to 42.47 g AFDW m-').These production estimates illustrate the positive effect that mussels can have in elevating already high levels of macroinvertebrate production in seagrass meadows.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musseis in seagrass meadows: their influence on macroinvertebrate abundance and secondary production in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Valentine¹,

Heck²

1993

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The larger size of C. fornicata stacks in relation to its host might be responsible for a stronger effect compared to barnacles. In addition to survival and growth, epigrowth might also negatively affect reproduction, as reported for other epifauna-basibiont associations (Dittmann & Robles 1991, Buschbaum & Reise 1999. For the C. fornicata-mussel association this remains to be investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Impact of an invader: epizootic American slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata reduces survival and growth in European mussels

Thieltges

2005

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide introductions of species have raised concern about ecological and economic impacts. However, research on actual impacts of introduced species on native biota is rare. The American slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata (L.) was unintentionally introduced to Europe in the 1870s with oysters imported for farming purposes. Since C. fornicata is a filter-feeder, trophic competition and associated negative effects when epizootic on bivalves have been assumed. This study is the first to experimentally test in the field effects of the epizootic C. fornicata on survival and growth of its major basibiont in northern Europe, the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. In 2 field experiments of 12 wk each, epigrowth by C. fornicata resulted in a 4-to 8-fold reduction in survival of mussels, equivalent to a mortality of 28 and 30%, respectively. Shell growth in surviving mussels with attached C. fornicata was 3 to 5 times lower compared to unfouled mussels, but similar to that with artificial limpets. As a causative agent, interference competition in the form of changes in small-scale hydrodynamics due to C. fornicata stacks is suggested. This may result in a high energy expenditure for byssus production of mussels. Trophic exploitation competition does not seem to be relevant. In general, interference and not exploitation competition is suggested to be the major impact of epizootic C. fornicata on its basibionts in Europe. However, the generality of this assumption has to be verified by investigating different C. fornicata -basibiont associations. This stresses the need for a species-by-species approach under diverse environmental settings in assessing impacts of introduced species. In the case of M. edulis, this study shows that C. fornicata has the potential to act as an important mortality factor.

show abstract

“…In both cases, fouling community increased the time for farmed mussel to reach the commercial size. Enright et al (1983), Dittiman & Robles (1991), Enright et al (1993), Flimlin Jr. & Mathis Jr. (1993, Claereboudt et al (1994), Lodeiros & Himmelman (1996), Taylor et al (1997), Cigarría et al (1998) also observed that fouling had reduced the weight and/or size of cultivated bivalves. However, Monteiro & Silva (1995) and Metri et al (2002), using different treatments for elimination of the fouling, did not observe significant variations in the length of the mussels with or without fouling; Freitas (1997) observed a small decrease in the size and weight of the mussels without fouling (compared to those with them), probably due to the treatment to eliminate fouling (aerial exposure).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Fouling organisms on Perna perna mussels: is it worth removing them?

Sá

Nalesso

Paresque³

2007

Braz. j. oceanogr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TPerna perna mussel spat were suspended from ropes on a long-line cultivation, at Coqueiro´s Beach, Anchieta, South-eastern Brazil, in order to quantify the fouling community structure and its effects on growth and biomass of mussels. Half of the ropes had the fouling removed monthly, half had the fouling left until the end of the experiment. Monthly samples of thirty mussels from each group were measured and their biomass determined. The fouling organisms were identified, quantified and their biomass evaluated on a monthly basis. After ten months, mussels on the cleaned treatment were significantly larger and heavier (ANOVA; P < 0.05; Bonferroni: unfouled > fouled), showing that fouling reduced mussel development. The most abundant epibiont organisms in terms of biomass were the algae Polysiphonia subtilissima (29%) and Ulva rigida (10.3%), followed by the bryozoans Bugula neritina (13.6%) and Perna perna spat (10.6%). Over 97 taxa and 42,646 individuals were identified, crustaceans being the most abundant group, predominantly one amphipod Cheiriphotis megacheles (12,980 ind.). Species abundance was positively correlated with algal biomass, revealing the influence of algae on vagile fauna, which provide both food and shelter. The benefits of fouling removal are discussed because the majority of species are important feeding items to fishes and yet, the costs of its fouling control added to the associated mussel spat loss make this fouling removal of questionable value. R E S U M OSementes de Perna perna foram colocadas em cordas suspensas em long-line na Praia do Coqueiro, Anchieta, ES, objetivando-se determinar a estrutura da comunidade de incrustantes e seu efeito sobre o desenvolvimento dos mexilhões. Metade das cordas teve os incrustantes removidos mensalmente, na outra metade eles foram deixados até o final do experimento. Mensalmente, 30 mexilhões de cada grupo foram retirados e medidos e a biomassa aferida. Os incrustantes foram identificados, quantificados e a biomassa de cada taxon determinada. Após 10 meses de cultivo, os mexilhões sem incrustantes eram significativamente maiores e mais pesados (ANOVA; P < 0,05; Bonferroni: sem incrustantes > com incrustantes), demonstrando que os incrustantes interferiram negativamente no desenvolvimento dos mexilhões. Os incrustantes mais abundantes em termos de biomassa foram as algas Polysiphonia subtilissima (29%) e Ulva rigida (10,3%), seguidas pelos briozoários Bugula neritina (13,6%) e sementes de Perna perna (10,6%). Foram registrados 97 taxa e 42.646 indivíduos, sendo Crustacea o grupo mais abundante, principalmente o anfípodo Cheiriphotis megacheles (12.980 ind.). A abundância de indivíduos foi positivamente correlacionada com a biomassa de algas, revelando a influência das algas na fauna vágil, provendo abrigo e alimentação. Os benefícios da remoção dos incrustantes são discutidos, uma vez que a maioria dos incrustantes são importantes como itens alimentares para os peixes; além disso, os custos desta remoção somados à perda de sementes de me...

show abstract

Effect of Algal Epiphytes on the Mussel Mytilus Californianus

Cited by 58 publications

References 46 publications

Musseis in seagrass meadows: their influence on macroinvertebrate abundance and secondary production in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Musseis in seagrass meadows: their influence on macroinvertebrate abundance and secondary production in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Impact of an invader: epizootic American slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata reduces survival and growth in European mussels

Fouling organisms on Perna perna mussels: is it worth removing them?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About