Oecologia

, Volume 3, Issue 3–4, pp 317–350

The ecology of Mytilus edulis L. (Lamellibranchiata) on exposed rocky shores

II. Growth and mortality
Article

Summary

Growth studies in M. edulis L. have shown that rates vary considerably according to age, size and environmental conditions. This may in part be attributed to its sessile habit, being unable to move away from the variable external conditions.

The use of modal length frequency distributions is somewhat limited, since with three or more year groups represented, the growth of the majority of the population is so slow that individual year classes lose their identity. Growth boxes, containing marked animals of different ages, and set out in a variety of habitats gave information regarding local and seasonal growth rates. Disturbance rings were shown to be annual, and from them growth curves have been constructed.

Growth is particularly seasonal, little or none occurring during the winter. Growth rates varied considerably with a variety of environmental factors (both biotic and physical) and some of these are discussed. Variable individual growth rates, together with slow growth of the majority of animals in mixed populations, are perhaps the major factors in producing population structures typical of this species on open shores.

Survivorship curves for mussels in a variety of habitats have been constructed by following the survival of groups of marked animals. Whilst high mortalities occurred in the mid and low shore, survival in the upper shore in the absence of major predators, was greatly enhanced, resulting in established populations of considerable age. Periods of maximum mortality during spring and summer could be correlated with the abundance of major predators.

The almost cosmopolitan distribution of M. edulis in the N. hemisphere has been made possible by virtue of its high reproductive capacity, successful larval dispersion and wide tolerance of environmental conditions, Its patchy and apparently erratic distribution both from one shore to annother and even on the same shore, is greatly influenced by the local and seasonal abundance of major predators. Whilst the upward extension of mussels is prevented, ultimately, by physical factors (e.g. temperature, dessication), its lower limits (and absence from the shallow sub littoral on many shores) are governed essentially by predators. The upward extension of many predators such as crabs or starfish, resulting in locally intense predation, may in turn be partly influenced by the actual topography of the shore itself.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abeloos, M.: Recherches expérimentales sur la croissance. La croissance des Mollusques arionidés, Bull. biol. France et Belg. 78, 215–256 (1944).Google Scholar
  2. Bayne, B. L.: Growth and delay of metamorphosis of the larvae of Mytilus edulis. Ophelia 2 (1), 1–47, (1965).Google Scholar
  3. Böetius, I.: Temperature and growth of Mytilus edulis (L.) from the N. Harbour of Copenhagen (The Sound). Meddr. Danm. Fisk.-og Havunders, N.S. 3 (II), 339–346 (1962).Google Scholar
  4. Chanley, P. E.: Possible causes of growth variations in clam larvae. Proc. nat. Shellfish. Ass. 45, 84–94 (1955).Google Scholar
  5. Coe, W. R.: Nutrition and growth of the Californian bay mussel Mytilus edulis diegensis. J. exp. Zool. 99, 1–14 (1945).Google Scholar
  6. —, and D. L. Fox: Biology of the Californian Sea mussel (Mytilus californianus). I Influence of temperature, food supply, sex and age on the rate of growth. J. exp. Zool. 90, 1–30 (1942).Google Scholar
  7. Cole, H. A.: On some larval Trematode parasites of the mussel (Mytilus edulis) and the cockle (Cardium edule). Parasitology 27, 276–285 (1935).Google Scholar
  8. Connell, J. H.: Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors, on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecol. Monogr. 31, 61–104 (1961).Google Scholar
  9. Coulthard, H.S.: Growth of the sea mussel. Contr. Can. Biol. Fish., N.S. 4, 121–136 (1929).Google Scholar
  10. Deevey, E. S.: Life tables for natural populations of animals. Quart. Rev. Biol. 22, 282–314 (1947).Google Scholar
  11. Drinnan, R. E.: The winter feeding of the oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) on the edible mussel (Mytilus edulis) in the Conway Estuary, N. Wales. Fishery Invest. (Lond.), Ser. II 22 (4), 1–15 (1957)Google Scholar
  12. Ebling, F. J., J. A. Kitching, L. Muntz, and C. M. Taylor: The ecology of L. Ine 13 Experimental observations of the destruction of M. edulis and Nucella lapillus by crabs. J. Anim. Ecol. 33, 73–82 (1964).Google Scholar
  13. Feare, C. J.: Winter feeding of the Purple Sandpiper. Br. Birds 59, 165–179 (1966).Google Scholar
  14. Fischer-Piette, E.: Histoire d'une Moulière. Bull. biol. France et Belg. 69 (2), 153–177 (1935).Google Scholar
  15. Ford, E.: On the growth of some lamellibranchs in relation to food supply of fishes. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 13, 531 (1925)Google Scholar
  16. Fox, D. L., and W. R. Coe: Biology of the Californian sea mussel (Mytilus californianus) II Nutrition, metabolism, growth and calcium deposition. J. exp. Zool. 93 (2), 205–249 (1943).Google Scholar
  17. —, H. O. Sverdrup, and J.P. Cunningham: The rate of water propulsion by the Californian sea mussel. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Wood's Hole, 72, 417–439 (1937).Google Scholar
  18. Green, J.: The growth of Scrobicularia plana (da Costa) in the Gwendraeth estuary. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 36, 41–47 (1957).Google Scholar
  19. Hancock, D.A., and A. E. Urquhart: The determination of natural mortality and its causes in an exploited population of cockles (Cardium edule L.). Fishery Invest. (Lond.), Ser. II, 24 (2) (1965).Google Scholar
  20. Hatton, H.: Essais de bionomie explicative sur quelques espèces intercotidales d'algues et d'animaux. Ann. Inst. océanogr. (Monaco) 17, 241–348 (1938).Google Scholar
  21. Jørgensen, C. B.: The rate of feeding by Mytilus in different kinds of suspension. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 28, 333–344 (1949)Google Scholar
  22. Kitching, J. A., J. F. Sloane, and F.J. Ebling: The Ecology of L.Ine 8 Mussels and their predators. J. Anim. Ecol. 28, 331–341 (1959).Google Scholar
  23. Mason, J.: The age and growth of the scallop (Pecten maximus L.) in Manx waters. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 36, 473–492 (1957).Google Scholar
  24. Mateeva, T. A.: The biology of Mytilus edulis in E. Murman. Trudy murmansk biol. Inst. 1, 215–241 (1948).Google Scholar
  25. Moore, H. B.: The biology of Purpura lapillus. Pt. II. Growth J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 23 57–66 (1938).Google Scholar
  26. Mossop, B. K. E.: The rate of growth of the sea mussel (Mytilus edulis) at St. Andrews New Brunswick, Digby Nova Scotia and in Hudson Bay. Trans. Can. Inst. 14, 3–22 (1922).Google Scholar
  27. Naylor, E.: Seasonal changes in the population of Carcinus maenas in the littoral zone. J. Anim. Ecol. 31, 601–609 (1962).Google Scholar
  28. Negus, C. L.: A Quantitative study of growth and production of Unionid mussels in the River Thames at Reading. J. Anim. Ecol. 35 (3), 513–533 (1966).Google Scholar
  29. Pearl, R., and J. R. Miner: Experimental studies on the duration of life. 14. The comparative mortality of lower organisms. Quart. Rev. Biol. 10, 60–79 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Posgay, J. A.: The Sea scallop fishery. 6th Report on Investigations of the Shell-fisheries of Massachusetts. Boston: Comm. Mass., Dept. nat. Resour. Div. mar. Fish. (1953).Google Scholar
  31. Richards, O.W.: The growth of the mussel, Mytilus edulis at Wood's Hole Mass. Natilus 41, 99–101 (1928).Google Scholar
  32. Rothschild, M.: Gigantism and variation in Peringia ulvae Pennant caused by larval Trematodes. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 20, 537–546 (1936).Google Scholar
  33. Savage, R. E.: The great spatfall of mussels in the River Conway Estuary in spring 1940. Fishery Invest. (Lond.), Ser. II 20 (7), 1–21 (1956).Google Scholar
  34. Seed, R.: The Ecology of Mytilus edulis L. (Lamellibranchiata) on exposed rocky shores. Part I: Breeding and settlement. Oecologia (Berl.) 3, 277–316 (1969).Google Scholar
  35. Segerstråle, S.G.: Investigations on Baltic populations of the bivalve Macoma baltica (L). Commentat. biol. 23 (2), 1–72 (1960).Google Scholar
  36. Tang, S. F.: The breeding of the escallop (Pecten maximus L.) with a note on the growth rate. Proc. Trans. Lpool biol. Soc. 54, 9–28 (1941).Google Scholar
  37. Theede, H.: Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Filtrationsleistung der Miesmuschel M. edulis (L). Kieler Meeresforsch. 19 (1), 20–41 (1963).Google Scholar
  38. Tinbergen, N., and M. Norton Griffiths: Oystercatchers and mussels. Br. Birds 57 (2), 64–70 (1964).Google Scholar
  39. Walne, P. R.: Growth of oysters (Ostrea edulis L.). J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 37, 591–602 (1958).Google Scholar
  40. — Observations on the mortality of Ostrea edulis L. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 41, 113–122 (1961).Google Scholar
  41. Weymouth, F. W.: The life history and growth of the Pismo clam Tivela stultorum (Mawe). Bull. Dep. Fish Game St. Calif., No 7 (1923).Google Scholar
  42. Wiborg, K. F.: Undersøkelser overoskjellet (Modiola modiolus L.) Rep. Norw. Fishery mar. Invest. 8 (5), 1–85 (1946).Google Scholar
  43. Wilbur, K. M., and G. Owen: Growth. In: Physiology of Mollusca, vol. I, p. 211–242 (ed. K. M. Wilbur and C. M. Yonge). New York: Acad. Press (1964).Google Scholar
  44. Winckworth, R.: On the growth of Paphia undulata. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 19, 171–174 (1931).Google Scholar
  45. Zeuthen, E.: Body size and metabolic rate in the animal kingdom with special regard to the marine microfauna. C. R. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg, Sér. Chim. 26, 17–161 (1947).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Seed
    • 1
  1. 1.Wellcome Marine Laboratory(University of Leeds)UK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyThe Queens' UniversityBelfastN. Ireland

Personalised recommendations