Marine Biology

, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 89–100 | Cite as

Shell structure and behaviour related to cementation in oysters

  • K. Yamaguchi
Article

Abstract

Shell microstructure and mantle behaviour relating to shell cementation was studied on adult oysters,Crassostrea gigas, Saccostrea mordax, andS. kegaki (collected from Shirahama, Wakayama Prefecture, Japan, in 1989 and 1990). At the place of cementation, the prismatic structure of the outermost shell layer is modified to a significant structure. This structure, named the ‘ridge-and-furrow structure’, consists of calcified ridges a few microns wide separated by furrows, both arranged parallel to the shell growth direction. The furrows are ultimately filled by shell material. The prismatic and ridge-and-furrow structures gradually merge in a transitional area where an intermediate type of the two structures occurs. The small size of the crystal units of the ridges and furrows is due to the close distribution of crystal seeds, especially close to pre-existing ridges. This is the basis of the difference between the ridge-and-furrow and the prismatic structures and also makes the former structure functional for cementation, in contrast to the latter. At the site of ongoing shell cementation, the mantle margin adpresses the shell margin onto the substrate. Experiments show that this pressing action is essential for cementation and probably also for the formation of the ridge-and-furrow structure. Even the right valve, which oysters nerve use to cement in natural conditions, forms the ridge-and-furrow structure and cements to the substrate if the pressing action of its mantle margin is induced under artificial conditions. Behavioural changes probably led oysters to switch from byssal attachment to cementation within a short time span when they acquired their cementing habit.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beedham, G. E. (1958a). Observation on the mantle of the Lamellibranchia. Q. J. microsc. Sci. 99: 181–197Google Scholar
  2. Beedham, G. E. (1958b). Observations on the non-calcreous component of the shell of the Lamellibranchia. Q. J. microsc. Sci. 99: 341–357Google Scholar
  3. Carriker, M. R., Palmer, E. P., Prezant, R. S. (1980). Functional ultramorphology of the dissoconch valve of the oysterCrassostrea virginica. Proc. natn. Shellfish. Ass. 70: 139–183Google Scholar
  4. Carter, J. G. (1990). Skeletal biomineralization: patterns, processes and evolutionary trends. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, J. G., Clark, G. R. II (1985). Classification and phylogenetic significance of molluscan shell microstructure. In: Bottjer, D. J., Hickmann, C. S., Ward, P. D. (eds.) Mollusks, notes for a short course, 13. University of Tennessee, Department of Geological Science, Orlando, Florida, USA, p. 50–71Google Scholar
  6. Cranfield, H. J. (1973a). A study of the morphology, ultrastructure, and histochemistry of the foot of the pediveliger ofOstrea edulis. Mar. Biol. 22: 187–202Google Scholar
  7. Cranfield, H. J. (1973b). Observations on the behavior of the pediveliger ofOstrea edulis during attachment and cementing. Mar. Biol. 22: 203–209Google Scholar
  8. Cranfield, H. J. (1973c). Observations on the function of the glands of the foot of the pediveliger ofOstrea edulis during settlement. Mar. Biol. 22: 210–223Google Scholar
  9. Cranfield, H. J. (1974). Observations on the morphology of the mantle folds of the pediveliger ofOstrea edulis L. and their function during settlement. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 54: 1–12Google Scholar
  10. Cranfield, H. J. (1975). The ultrastructure and histochemistry of the larval cement ofOstrea edulis L. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 55: 497–503Google Scholar
  11. Grégoire, C. (1972) Structure of the molluscan shell. In: Florkin, M., Scheer, A. T. (eds.) Chemical zoology, Vol 7. Mollusca. Academic Press, New York, p. 45–102Google Scholar
  12. Gruffydd, L. D., Lane, D. J. W., Beaumont, A. R. (1975). The glands of the larval foot inPecten maximus L. and possible homologues in other bivalves. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 55: 463–476Google Scholar
  13. Harper, E. M. (1992). Post-larval cementation in the Ostreidae and its implication for other cementing bivalvia. J. mollusc. Stud. 58: 37–47Google Scholar
  14. Korringa, P. (1951). On the nature and function of “Chalky” deposits in the shell ofOstrea edulis. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (Ser. 4) 27 (5): 133–158Google Scholar
  15. Newell, N. D. (1960). The origin of the oysters. Proceedings of the International Paleontological Union, Part XXII, Report of 21th Session of International Geological Congress, Copenhagen, p. 81–86Google Scholar
  16. Orton, J. H., Amirthalingam, C. (1927). Notes on shell-depositions in oysters. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 14: 935–953Google Scholar
  17. Petit, H., Davis, W., Jones, R. (1978). Morphological studies on the mantle of the fresh-water musselAmblema (Unionidae): scanning electron microscopy. Tissue Cell 104: 619–627Google Scholar
  18. Purchon, R. D. (1968). The biology of the Mollusca. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Saleuddin, A. S. M., Petit, H. P. (1983). The mode of formation and the structure of periostracum. In: Saleuddin, A. S. M., Wilbur, K. M. (eds.) The Mollusca, Vol. 4. Physiology, Part 1. Academic Press, New York, p. 199–234Google Scholar
  20. Stenzel, H. B. (1971). Oysters. In: R. C. Moore (ed.) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Part N. Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, Vol. 3. Geological Society of American Inc., Boulder, Colorado, p. 953–1224Google Scholar
  21. Suzuki, S., Togo, Y., Hikida, Y. (1993). Using Meigen's staining for aragonite-calcite identification in fossil molluscan shells under the scanning electron microscope. J. geol. Soc. Japan 99: 1–7Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, J. D., Kennedy, J. M., Hall, A. (1969). The shell structure and mineralogy of the Bivalvia-Introduction, Nucleacea-Trigonacea. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (D. Zool.) 3: 1–125Google Scholar
  23. Taylor, J. D., Kennedy, W. J. (1969). The influence of the periostracum on the shell structure of bivalve molluscs. Calcif. Tissue Res. 3: 274–283Google Scholar
  24. Wilbur, K. M., Saleuddin, A. S. M. (1983). Shell formation. In: Wilbur, K. M. (ed.). The Mollusca, Vol. 4 Physiology, Part 1. Academic Press, New York, p. 235–287Google Scholar
  25. Yonge, C. M. (1979). Cementation in bivalves. In: Van De Spoel, S., Van Bruggen, A. C., Lever, J. (eds.) Pathways in malacology. Bohn, Scheltema, Holkema, and Junk, Utrecht, p. 83–106Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Yamaguchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Faculty of ScienceKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations