Experimental Feeding of Oysters

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology.Three theories have been advanced as to the nature of the fundamental food of oysters and other bottom-feeding invertebrates. The oldest view is that the plankton organisms constitute the principal source of nourishment of these animals and that food derived from other sources is relatively unimportant. This is the view avowedly or tacitly held by practically all of the earlier students of the subject, and, although it has been attacked in recent years, it has found support from Nelson ('23, '25b), Hunt ('25) and myself (Martin '23) among others, and especially from Yonge ('26). The attacks have been mainly from the supporters of an opposing theory who maintain that the fundamental food of these animals is the dust-fine detritus derived from the comminution of the larger plants, particularly Zostera, and that the plankton organisms play a subordinate role, mainly through the addition of their dead bodies to the mass of detritus. This view, first suggested by Petersen, and Petersen and Jensen and greatly elaborated by Blegvad, has been vigorously supported in recent years by Spdrck ('25) although in his later papers ('27a, '27b) Spirck withdraws very materially from the extreme views expressed in his earlier publication.A third theory has been advanced, namely, that many marine animals, including vertebrates as well as invertebrates, may utilize dissolved organic materials directly. As originally proposed in extreme form by Putter ('09) it has been shown to be untenable. Churchill ('i6) showed experimentally that fresh water mussels may utilize organic substances in this way, although as Yonge points out, it may have been indirectly. Churchill and Lewi ('24) admit that they probably do not form a very important item in the dietary of lamellibranchs under natural conditions. The other evidence which has been advanced as favoring this hypothesis can better be explained by the plankton theory.The earlier literature has been summarized in a number of recent papers (Martin, '23, Churchill and Lewis, '24, Savage, '25, Yonge, '26, Martin, '27a), and detailed mention need here be made of a few recent studies only.Spirck, in his I925 paper, regards it as proved that detritus is always the main food of the European oyster, although he cites one instance, which he regards as exceptional, in which Prorocentrum micans seemed to be the main source of food. He adds, as has been noted by other workers, that this orThis content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat,