, Volume 104, Issue 1, pp 122–132 | Cite as

Phenotypic plasticity and priority rules for energy allocation in a freshwater clam: a field experiment

  • J. Jokela
  • P. Mutikainen
Original Paper


We studied resource allocation among maintenance, reproduction and growth in the freshwater clam Anodonta piscinalis. Recent theoretical and empirical studies imply that organisms with indeterminate growth may have priority rules for energy allocation. That being so, the traits involved should potentially be capable of considerable phenotypic modulation, as a mechanism to adjust allocation. We tested this hypothesis using a 1-year reciprocal transplant experiment at six sites. Experimental clams were caged at higher than natural densities in order to detect any phenotypic modulation of the traits and discover the putative priority rules in energy allocation. We recorded the survival and shell growth of clams during the experiment, and the reproductive output, somatic mass and fat content of clams at the end of the experiment. Shell growth, somatic mass, and the reproductive output of females varied more among transplant sites than among the populations of origin, suggesting a high capacity for phenotypic modulation. However, the reproductive investment, somatic mass and shell growth were also affected by origin; clams from productive habitats invested more in reproduction and were heavier. In comparison to undisturbed clams, the reproductive output of the experimental clams was similar and their fat content was higher, whereas their shell growth was considerably slower and their somatic mass lower. These results suggests that when resources are limiting (due to high density) reproductive allocation overrides allocation to somatic growth. The highest mortality during the experiment coincided with the period of reproductive stress in the spring. Additionally, the proportion of reproducing females was lower in those transplant groups where the survival rate was lowest, suggesting that maintenance allocation overrides allocation to reproduction when available resources are scarce. The results of this field experiment support theoretical predictions and results of previous laboratory experiments that suggest that there are priority rules for energy allocation in organisms with indeterminate growth.

Key words

Unionidae Growth Reproduction Survival Trade-off 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arey LB (1932) The nutrition of glochidia during metamorphosis. J Morphol 53:201–221Google Scholar
  2. Bayne BL, Salkeld PN, Worrall CM (1983) Reproductive effort and value in different populations of the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis L. Oecologia 59:18–26Google Scholar
  3. Bradley MC, Baird DJ, Calow P (1991a) Mechanisms of energy allocation to reproduction in the cladoceran Daphnia magna Straus. Biol J Linn Soc 44:325–333Google Scholar
  4. Bradley MC, Perrin N, Calow P (1991b) Energy allocation in the cladoceran Daphnia magna Straus, under starvation and refeeding. Oecologia 86:414–418Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. Adv Genetics 13:115–155Google Scholar
  6. Castilho F, Machado J, Reis ML, Sa C (1989) Ultrastructural study of the embryonic and larval shell of Anodonta cygnea. Can J Zool 67:1659–1664Google Scholar
  7. Cody ML (1966) A general theory of clutch size. Evolution 20:174–184Google Scholar
  8. Day RW, Quinn GP (1989) Comparisons of treatments after analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol Monogr 59:433–463Google Scholar
  9. Giesel JT (1976) Reproductive strategies as adaptations to life in heterogenous environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:57–79Google Scholar
  10. Glazier DS, Calow P (1992) Energy allocation rules in Daphnia magna-clonal and age differences in the effects of food limitation. Oecologia 90:540–549Google Scholar
  11. Gurney WSC, McCauley E, Nisbet RM, Murdoch WW (1990) The physiological ecology of Daphnia: a dynamic model of growth and reproduction. Ecology 71:716–732Google Scholar
  12. Harper JL, Ogden J (1970) The reproductive strategy of higher plants. 1. The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L. J Ecol 58:681–698Google Scholar
  13. Haukioja E, Hakala T (1978a) Life-history evolution in Anodonta piscinalis (Mollusca, Pelecypoda). Oecologia 35:253–266Google Scholar
  14. Haukioja E, Hakala T (1978b) Measuring growth from shell rings in populations of Anodonta piscinalis (Pelecypoda, Unionidae). Ann Zool Fenn 15:60–65Google Scholar
  15. Hinch SG, Bailey RC, Green RH (1985) Growth of Lampsilis radiata (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in sand and mud: a reciprocal transplant experiment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:548–552Google Scholar
  16. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Jokela J, Palokangas P (1993) Reproductive tactics in Anodonta clams: parental host recognition. Anim Behav 46:618–620Google Scholar
  18. Jokela J, Valtonen ET, Lappalainen M (1991) Development of glochidia of Anodonta piscinalis and their infection of fish in a small lake in northern Finland. Arch Hydrobiol 120:345–355Google Scholar
  19. Jokela J, Uotila L, Taskinen J (1993) Effect of castrating trematode parasite Rhipidocotyle fennica on energy allocation of freshwater clam Anodonta piscinalis. Funct Ecol 7:332–338Google Scholar
  20. Jong G de, Noordwijk AJ van (1992) Acquisition and allocation of resources — genetic (co)variances, selection, and life historiés. Am Nat 139:749–770Google Scholar
  21. Kozlowski J, Stearns SC (1989) Hypotheses for the production of excess zygotes: models of bet-hedging and selective abortion. Evolution 43:1369–1377Google Scholar
  22. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. MacDonald BA, Thompson RJ (1985) Influence of temperature and food availability on the ecological energetics of the giant scallop Plecopecten magellanicus. II. Reproductive output and total production. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 25:295–304Google Scholar
  24. McCauley E, Murdoch WW, Nisbet RM (1990a) Growth, reproduction, and mortality of Daphnia pulex Leydig: life at low food. Funct Ecol 4:505–514Google Scholar
  25. McCauley E, Murdoch WW, Nisbet RM, GurneyWSC (1990b) The physiological ecology of Daphnia: development of a model of growth and reproduction. Ecology 71:703–715Google Scholar
  26. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1983) Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Negus CL (1966) A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the river Thames at Reading. J Anim Ecol 35:513–532Google Scholar
  28. Noordwijk AJ van, Jong G de (1986) Aquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life-history tactics. Am Nat 128:137–142Google Scholar
  29. Norusis MJ (1990) SPSS advanced statistics user's guide. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Ökland J (1963) Notes on population density, age distribution, growth, and habitat of Anodonta piscinalis Nilss. (Moll., Lamellibr.) in a eutrophic Norwegian lake. Nytt Mak Zool 11:19–43Google Scholar
  31. Pekkarinen M (1991) Annual ring formation in some unionacean shells in the River Vantaanjoki (southern Finland). Bivalve Stud Finland 1:10–19Google Scholar
  32. Perrin N (1992) Optimal resource allocation and the marginal value of organs. Am Nat 139:1344–1369Google Scholar
  33. Perrin N, Sibly RM (1993) Dynamic models of energy allocation and investment. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:379–410Google Scholar
  34. Peterson CH (1982) The importance of predation and intra- and interspecific competition in the population biology of two infaunal suspension-feeding bivalves, Protothaca staminea and Chione undatella. Ecol Monogr 52:437–475Google Scholar
  35. Peterson CH, Fegley SR (1986) Seasonal allocation of resources to growth of shell, soma, and gonads in Mercenaria mercenaria. Biol Bull 171:597–610Google Scholar
  36. Reznick D (1983) The structure of guppy life histories: the trade-off between growth and reproduction. Ecology 64:862–873Google Scholar
  37. Stearns SC (1976) Life-history tactics: a review of the ideas. Q Rev Biol 51:3–47Google Scholar
  38. Stearns SC (1989a) The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. BioScience 37:436–445Google Scholar
  39. Stearns SC (1989b) Trade-offs in life-history evolution. Funct Ecol 3:259–268Google Scholar
  40. Taskinen J (1992) On the ecology of two Rhipidocotyle species (Digenea: Bucephalidae) from two Finnish lakes (PhD. dissertation). Biol Res Rep Univ Jyväskylä 27Google Scholar
  41. Taskinen J, Valtonen ET, Gibson DI (1991) Studies on bucephalid digeneans parasitising molluscs and fishes in Finland. I. Ecological data and experimental studies. Syst Parasitol 19:81–94Google Scholar
  42. Trexler JC, Travis J (1993) Nontraditional regression analyses. Ecology 74:1629–1637Google Scholar
  43. Tuomi J, Hakala T, Haukioja E (1983) Alternative concepts of reproductive effort, cost of reproduction, and selection in life-history evolution. Am Zool 23:25–34Google Scholar
  44. Vahl O (1978) Seasonal changes in oxygen consumption of the Iceland scallop Chlamys islandica (O. F. Müller) from 70°N. Ophelia 17:143–154Google Scholar
  45. Vahl O (1981a) Age-specific residual reproductive value and reproductive effort in the iceland scallop, Chlamys islandica (O. F. Müller). Oecologia 51:53–56Google Scholar
  46. Vahl O (1981b) Energy transformations by the Iceland scallop Chlamys islandica (O. F. Müller) from 70°N. I. The age-specific energy budget and net growth efficiency. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 53:281–296Google Scholar
  47. Vahl O (1981c) Energy transformations by the Iceland scallop Chlamys islandica (O. F. Müller) from 70°N. II. The population energy budget. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 53:297–303Google Scholar
  48. Wilkinson L (1990) SYSTAT: the system for statistics. SYSTAT, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams GC (1966) Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack's principle. Am Nat 100:687–690Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Jokela
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Mutikainen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Ecological Zoology, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Konnevesi Research StationKonnevesiFinland

Personalised recommendations