Marine Biology

, Volume 143, Issue 4, pp 703–711 | Cite as

Behavior of oyster (Crassostrea virginica) larvae in flume boundary layer flows

Article

Abstract

Larval behaviors are increasingly recognized as determining factors in the water column distribution and subsequent settlement patterns of marine invertebrates. In particular, larvae within one or two body lengths of the seafloor (= interaction zone) may be better able to control their settlement location or respond to settlement cues. Here we examine temporal changes the behavior of larval oysters (Crassostrea virginica) swimming in the bottom 1 cm of a flume boundary layer. In addition, we present a novel behavior, called "dive-bombing", that consists of an abrupt downward acceleration and subsequent contact with the bottom. Larvae were divided into two arbitrarily chosen size classes (those retained on a 153 μm screen and those retained on a 202 μm screen) to separate those that developed eyespots from those that did not develop eyespots. Behavior in a flume boundary layer was monitored from day 15 to day 21 post-fertilization. In the larger size class, the percentage of oyster larvae within close proximity (1 to 2 body lengths) of the flume bed steadily increased from 6% to 28% with larval age. In contrast, if larvae were restricted from reaching larger sizes through sieving this proportion remained constant at 12%. Dive-bombing was exhibited by a constant 4% of the larval population regardless of age or size. Kinematic analysis of swimming paths shows dive-bombing to be distinct from other swimming behaviors and from the passive sinking of dead larvae. For example, vertical acceleration at the initiation of dive-bombing is some 30–400 times that measured for other live or dead larvae. Our results indicate that larvae are capable of rapid acceleration and that they may be able to control their approach to the bottom under a much wider range of conditions than had previously been suspected.

References

  1. Butman CA (1986) Larval settlement of soft-sediment invertebrates: some predictions based on an analysis of near-bottom velocity profiles. In: Nihoul JCJ (ed) Marine interfaces ecohydrodynamics. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Butman CA (1987) Larval settlement of soft-sediment invertebrates: the spatial scales of pattern explained by active habitat selection and the emerging role of hydrodynamic processes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 25:113–165Google Scholar
  3. Chia F, Buckland-Nicks J, Young CM (1984) Locomotion of marine invertebrate larvae: a review. Can J Zool 62:1205–1222Google Scholar
  4. Connolly SR, Roughgarden J (1999) Theory of marine communities: competition, predation, and recruitment-dependent interaction strength. Ecol Monogr 69:277–296Google Scholar
  5. Coon SL, Fitt WK, Bonar DB (1990) Competence and delay of metamorphosis in the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. Mar Biol 106:379–387Google Scholar
  6. Crisp DJ, Meadows PS (1962) The chemical basis of gregariousness in cirripedes. Proc R Soc Lond B 156:500–520Google Scholar
  7. Denny MW (1993) Air and water: the biology and physics of life's media. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckman JE (1990) A model of passive settlement by planktonic larvae onto bottoms of differing roughness. Limnol Oceanogr 35:887–901Google Scholar
  9. Eckman JE, Werner FE, Gross TF (1994) Modeling some effects of behavior on larval settlement in a turbulent boundary layer. Deep Sea Res II 41:185–208Google Scholar
  10. Gaines SD, Roughgarden J (1985) Larval settlement rate: a leading determinant of structure in an ecological community of the marine intertidal zone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82:3707–3711Google Scholar
  11. Galtsoff PS (1964) The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica, Gmelin. Fish Bull 64:1–480Google Scholar
  12. Grosberg RK (1982) Intertidal zonation of barnacles: the influence of planktonic zonation of larvae on vertical distribution of adults. Ecology 63:894–899Google Scholar
  13. Gross TF, Werner FE, Eckman JE (1992) Numerical modeling of larval settlement in turbulent bottom boundary layers. J Mar Res 50:611–642Google Scholar
  14. Hadfield MG, Koehl MAR (2002) Dissolved cues to invertebrate larval settlement: do they work in moving water? 2002 Meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparitive Biology, Anaheim, Calif.Google Scholar
  15. Hidu H, Haskin HH (1978) Swimming speeds of oyster larvae Crassostrea virginica in different salinities and temperatures. Estuaries 1:252–254Google Scholar
  16. Jonsson PR, Andre C, Lindegarth M (1991) Swimming behaviour of marine bivalve larvae in a flume boundary-layer flow: evidence for near-bottom confinement. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 79:67–76Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy VS (1996) The biology of larvae and spat. In: Kennedy VS, Newell RIE, Eble AF(eds) The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, Md., pp 371–422Google Scholar
  18. McNair JN (2000) Turbulent transport of suspended particles and dispersing benthic organisms: the hitting-time distribution for the local exchange model. J Theor Biol 202:231–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McNair JN, Newbold JD, Hart DD (1997) Turbulent transport of suspended particles and dispersing benthic organisms: how long to hit bottom? J Theor Biol 188:29–52Google Scholar
  20. Menzel RW (1955) Some phases of the biology of Ostrea equestris Say and a comparison with Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). Inst Mar Sci Univ Texas 4:70–143Google Scholar
  21. Pawlik JR (1992) Chemical ecology of the settlement of benthic marine invertebrates. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 30:273–335Google Scholar
  22. Pawlik JR, Butman CA (1993) Settlement of a marine tube worm as a function of current velocity: interacting effects of hydrodynamics and behavior. Limnol Oceanogr 38:1730–1740Google Scholar
  23. Riisgard HU, Larsen PS (2001) Minireview: ciliary filter feeding and bio-fluid mechanics—present understanding and unsolved problems. Limnol Oceanogr 46:882–891Google Scholar
  24. Shumway SE (1996) Natural environmental factors. In: Kennedy VS, Newell RIE, Eble AF (eds) The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, Md., pp 467–514Google Scholar
  25. Strathman RR, Leise E (1979) On feeding mechanisms and clearance rates of molluscan veligers. Biol Bull 157:524–535Google Scholar
  26. Tamburri MN, Zimmer-Faust RK, Tamplin ML (1992) Natural sources and properties of chemical inducers mediating settlement of oyster larvae: a re-examination. Biol Bull 183:327–338Google Scholar
  27. Tamburri MN, Finelli CM, Wethey DS, Zimmer-Faust RK (1996) Chemical induction of larval settlement behavior in flow. Biol Bull 191:367–373Google Scholar
  28. Thompson RJ, Newell RIE, Kennedy VS, Mann R (1996) Reproductive processes and early development. In: Kennedy VS, Newell RIE, Eble AF (eds) The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, Md., pp 335–370Google Scholar
  29. Turner EJ, Zimmer-Faust RK, Palmer MA, Luckenbach M, Pentcheff ND (1994) Settlement of oyster (Crassostrea virginica) larvae: effects of water flow and a water-soluble chemical cue. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1579–1593Google Scholar
  30. Vogel S (1994) Life in moving fluids, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Wood L, Hargis WJ (1971) Transport of bivalve larvae in a tidal estuary. In: Crisp DJ (ed) Fourth European Marine Biology Symposium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–44Google Scholar
  32. Woodin SA (1991) Recruitment of infauna: positive or negative cues? Am Zool 31:797–807Google Scholar
  33. Woodin SA, Lindsay SM, Wethey DS (1995) Process-specific cues in marine sedimentary systems. Biol Bull 189:49–58Google Scholar
  34. Woodward FI, Sheehy JE (1983) Principles and measurements in environmental biology. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Zimmer-Faust RK, Tamburri MN (1994) The chemical identity and ecological implications of a waterbourne larval settlement cue. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1075–1087Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marine Science Program, Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal ResearchUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological Sciences, Marine Science Program, Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal ResearchUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Louisiana Universities Marine ConsortiumChauvinUSA

Personalised recommendations