Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 125, Issue 1, pp 129–139 | Cite as

Genotype-specific growth of hard clams (genus Mercenaria) in a hybrid zone: variation among habitats

  • W. S. Arnold
  • T. M. Bert
  • D. C. Marelli
  • H. Cruz-Lopez
  • P. A. Gill
Article

Abstract

Shell growth rate is an important component of fitness in bivalve molluscs. Using the ω parameter computed from the von Bertalanffy growth equation, we quantitatively compared rates of annual shell grwoth among the hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria, M. campechiensis, and their hybrids sampled from a variety of habitats in the Indian River lagoon, Florida, USA, a zone of species overlap and natural hybridization. Our results indicate that the classical paradigm describing hard clam growth, in which growth rate is fastest in M. campechiensis, intermediate in hybrids, and slowest in M. mercenaria is not supported in the Indian River lagoon. Instead, M. campechiensis has a growth advantage in deep-water habitats in the northern section of our study area. In the central and southern sections of our study area, hybrids have a growth advantage over M. mercenaria in shallow-water habitats, but M. mercenaria has a growth advantage over hybrids in deep-water habitats. In all other sampled habitats, either growth rate among genotype classes is equal, or M. mercenaria has a growth advantage. This complex relationship between genotype and habitat-specific growth provides a mechanism for selection to act on hard clams in the Indian River.

Keywords

Bivalve Hybrid Zone Bivalve Mollusc Growth Advantage Northern Section 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott RT (1974) American seashells. 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold WS (1984) The effects of prey size, predator size, and sediment composition on the rate of predation of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, on the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria (Linné). J exp mar Biol Ecol 80:207–219Google Scholar
  3. Arnold WS, Marelli DC, Bert TM, Jones DS, Quitmyer IR (1991a) Habitat-specific growth of hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria (L.) from the Indian River, Florida. J exp mar Biol Ecol 147: 245–265Google Scholar
  4. Arnold WS, Marelli DC, Lund C (1991b) Suitability of the southern Indian River lagoon for hard clam (Mercenaria spp.) culture. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Aquaculture Market Development Aid Program 1989–1990. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FlaGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker RM (1964) Microtextural variation in pelecypod shells. Malacologia 2:69–86Google Scholar
  6. Bert TM, Arnold WS (1995) An empirical test of predictions of two competing models for the maintenance and fate of hybrid zones: both models are supported in a hard clam hybrid zone. Evolution 49:276–289Google Scholar
  7. Bert TM, Hesselman DM, Arnold WS, Moore WS, Cruz-Lopez H, Marelli DC (1993) High frequency of gonadal neoplasia in a hard clam (Mercenaria spp.) hybrid zone. Mar Biol 117:97–104Google Scholar
  8. Bertalanffy L von (1938) A quantitative theory of organic growth. Hum Biol 10:181–213Google Scholar
  9. Blundon JA, Kennedy VS (1982) Mechanical and behavioral aspects of blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun), predation on Chesapeake Bay bivalves. J exp mar Biol Ecol 65:47–65Google Scholar
  10. Bricelj VM, Malouf RE (1980) Aspects of reproduction of hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) in Great South Bay, New York. Proc natn Shellfish Ass 70:216–229Google Scholar
  11. Bricelj VM, Malouf RE (1984) Influence of algal and suspended sediment concentrations on the feeding physiology of the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria. Mar Biol 84:155–165Google Scholar
  12. Bricelj VM, Malouf RE, de Quillfeldt C (1984) Growth of juvenile Mercenaria mercenaria and the effect of resuspended bottom sediments. Mar Biol 84:167–173Google Scholar
  13. Chestnut AF, Fahy WE, Porter HJ (1956) Growth of young Venus mercenaria, Venus campechiensis, and their hybrids. Proc natn Shellfish Ass 47:50–56Google Scholar
  14. Costa SL (1986) Salinity. In: Barile DD, Rathjen W (eds) Report on rainfall events of September and October 1985 and the impact of storm discharge on salinity and the clam population (Mercenaria mercenaria) of the Indian River lagoon. Marine Resources Council, Melbourne, Florida, pp 47–123Google Scholar
  15. Dillon RT Jr, Manzi JJ (1989) Genetics and shell morphology in a hybrid zone between the hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria and M. campechiensis. Mar Biol 100:217–222Google Scholar
  16. Folk RL (1974) Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallucci VF, Quinn TJ II (1979) Reparameterizing, fitting, and testing a simple growth model. Trans Am Fish Soc 108: 14–25Google Scholar
  18. Games PA, Howell JF (1976) Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal N's and/or variances: a Monte Carlo study. J educ Statist 1:113–125Google Scholar
  19. Haven D, Andrews JD (1956) Survival and growth of Venus mercenaria, Venus campechiensis, and their hybrids in suspended trays and on natural bottoms. Proc natn Shellfish Ass 47:43–49Google Scholar
  20. Haven DS, Loesch JG (1973) An investigation into commercial aspects of the hard clam fishery and development of commercial gear for the harvest of molluscs. Annual Contract Report, Contract No. 3-124 R, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Irlandi EA, Peterson CH (1991) Modification of animal habitat by large plants: mechanisms by which seagrasses influence clam growth. Oecologia 87:307–318Google Scholar
  22. James FC, McCulloch CE (1990) Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or Pandora's box? A Rev Ecol Syst 30: 291–308Google Scholar
  23. Jones DS, Quitmyer IR, Arnold WS, Marelli DC (1990) Annual shell banding, age, and growth rate of hard clams (Mercenaria spp.) from Florida. J Shellfish Res 9:215–225Google Scholar
  24. Juanes F (1992) Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 87:239–249Google Scholar
  25. Levinton JS (1982) Marine ecology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. McCall D, Cook JG, Lasater JA, Nevin TA (1970) A survey of salinity levels in the Indian River-Banana River complex. Bull envir Contam Toxic 5:414–421Google Scholar
  27. Menzel RW (1961) Seasonal growth of the northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, and the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, in Alligator Harbor, Florida. Proc natn Shellfish Ass 52:37–46Google Scholar
  28. Menzel RW (1962) Seasonal growth of northern and southern and southern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria and M. campechiensis, and their hybrids in Florida. Proc natn Shellfish A55 53:111–119Google Scholar
  29. Menzel RW (1989) The biology, fishery and culture of quahog clams, Mercenaria. In: Manzi JJ, Castagna M (eds) Clam mariculture in North America. Developments in Aquacluture and Fisheries Science. Vol 19. Elsevier Science Publishing Company Inc, New York, pp 201–242Google Scholar
  30. Neff NA, Smith GR (1978) Multivariate analysis of hybrid fishes. Syst Zool 28:176–196Google Scholar
  31. Peterson CH (1983) A concept of quantitative reproductive senility: application to the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria (L.)? Oecologia 58:164–168Google Scholar
  32. Peterson CH, Summerson HC, Duncan PB (1984) The influence of seagrass cover on population structure and individual growth rate of a suspension-feeding bivalve, Mercenaria mercenaria. J mar Res 42:123–138Google Scholar
  33. Rawson PD, Hilbish TJ (1991) Genotype-environment interaction for juvenile growth in the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria (L.). Evolution 45:1924–1935Google Scholar
  34. Rice JD, Trocine RP, Wells GN (1983) Factors influencing seagrass ecology in the Indian River lagoon. Fla Scient 46:276–286Google Scholar
  35. SAS Institute (1985) SAS user's guide: statistics. Version 5 edn. SAS Institute, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith NP (1987) An introduction to the tides of Florida's Indian River lagoon. I. Water levels. Fla Scient 50:49–61Google Scholar
  37. Smith NP (1993) Tidal and wind-driven transport between Indian River and Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Fla Scient 56: 235–246Google Scholar
  38. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 2nd edn. W.H. Freeman & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Sunderlin JB, Breuner M, Castagna M, Hirota J, Menzel RW, Roels OA (1975) Comparative growth of hard shell clams (Mercenaria mercenaria Linné and Mercenaria campechiensis Gmelin) and their F1 cross in temperate, subtropical and tropical natural waters and in a tropical artificial upwelling mariculture system. Proc Wld Maricult Soc 6:171–183Google Scholar
  40. Vaughan DE (1988) Clam culture: state of the art in Florida, USA. J Shellfish Res 7:546Google Scholar
  41. Whetstone JM, Eversole AG (1981) Effects of size and temperature on mud crab, Panopeus herbstii, predation on hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria. Estuaries 4:153–156Google Scholar
  42. White C (1986) Biological and environmental factors affecting the clamming industry. In: Busby D (ed). An overview of the Indian River clamming industry and the Indian River Lagoon. University of Florida, Gainesville, pp 9–13 (Florida Sea Grant Extension Program, Tech Pap No 44)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. S. Arnold
    • 1
  • T. M. Bert
    • 1
  • D. C. Marelli
    • 1
  • H. Cruz-Lopez
    • 1
  • P. A. Gill
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida Marine Research InstituteSt. PetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations