Marine Biology

, Volume 148, Issue 6, pp 1213–1220 | Cite as

Positive effects of the introduced green alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, on recruitment and survival of mussels

Research Article

Abstract

The green macroalga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, is an important component of sheltered low-shore assemblages on breakwaters along sandy shores in the northern Adriatic Sea. Macroscopic thalli of C. fragile are not perennial, but develop from propagules and/or undifferentiated forms in early spring, when the dominant native space-occupier, the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis, recruits. By mid-summer, rapid growth of C. fragile leads to the formation of a dense canopy. We investigated the effects of juvenile and adult thalli of C. fragile on recruitment, survival and growth of mussels. Two experiments tested the hypotheses: (1) that recruitment of mussels is greater within patches of juvenile thalli (primordia) of C. fragile than on adjacent bare surfaces; (2) that the presence of a canopy of C. fragile affects the survival and growth of mussel recruits. The number of recruits of mussels was significantly larger within clumps of primordia of C. fragile than on bare surfaces. The removal of the canopy of C. fragile affected negatively the density of mussels after 2 months from the start of the experiment, but there were no effects on the mean size of individuals, nor on the size–frequency distribution. The same trend persisted after 4 months from the start of the experiment. These results show that re-colonisation of space by mussels is enhanced by C. fragile. Given that mussels, in turn, have the potential to reduce recruitment rates of C. fragile, quick recovery of mussel beds after disturbances could be crucial for controlling the abundance of this alga on breakwaters. Results also suggest that the effects of introduced species on native assemblages can be explained only through studies encompassing different life-stages of interacting organisms.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by funds from the EU through projects DELOS (EVK3-CT-2000-00041) and COFIN (ex 40%). We thank F. Bacchiocchi, M.G. Matias and J. Silva for assistance with fieldwork, F. Rindi and three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Abelson AD, Weihs D, Loya Y (1994) Hydrodynamic impediments to settlement of marine propagules and adhesive-filaments solutions. Limnol Oceaonogr 39:164–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Airoldi L (2003) The effects of sedimentation on rocky coast assemblages. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 41: 161–236Google Scholar
  3. Airoldi L, Bacchiocchi F, Cagliola C, Bulleri F, Abbiati M (2005) Impact of recreational harvesting on assemblages in artificial rocky habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 299:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Airoldi L, Abbiati M, Beck MW, Hawkins SJ, Jonsson PR, Martin D, Moschella PS, Sundelöf A, Thompson RC, Åberg P (2005) An ecological perspective on the deployment and design of low- crested and other hard coastal defence structures. Coast Eng (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Andrew NL, Viejo RM (1998) Ecological limits to the invasion of Sargassum muticum in northern Spain. Aquat Bot 60:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bacchiocchi F, Airoldi L (2003) Distribution and dynamics of epibiota on hard structures for coastal protection. Est Coast Shelf Sci 56:1157–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benedetti-Cecchi L, Cinelli F (1992) Canopy removal experiments in Cystoseira dominated rockpools from the Western coast of the Mediterranean (Ligurian Sea). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 155:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bégin C, Scheibling RE (2003) Growth and survival of the invasive green alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides in tide pools on a rocky shore in Nova Scotia. Bot Mar 46: 404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bégin C, Johnson LE, Himmelman JH (2004) Macroalgal canopies: distribution and diversity of associated invertebrates and effects on the recruitment and growth of mussels. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 271:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bertness MD, Leonard GH, Levine JM, Schmidt PR, Ingraham AO (1999) Testing the relative contribution of positive and negative interactions in rocky intertidal communities. Ecology 80:2711–2726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boudouresque CF (1994) Les espéces introduites dans les eaux côtiéres d’Europe et de Méditerranée: etat de la question et conséquences. In: Boudouresque CF et al (eds) Introduced species in European coastal waters. European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 8–27Google Scholar
  12. Britton-Simmons KH (2004) Direct and indirect effects of the introduced alga Sargassum muticum on benthic, subtidal communities of Washington State, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 277:61–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bulleri F, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Acunto S, Cinelli F, Hawkins SJ (2002) The influence of canopy algae on vertical patterns of distribution of low-shore assemblages on rocky coasts in the northwest Mediterranean. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 267:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bulleri F (2005) The introduction of artificial structures on marine soft- and hard-bottoms: ecological implications of epibiota. Env Cons 32:101–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bulleri F, Airoldi L (2005) Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, in the north Adriatic Sea. J Appl Ecol doi:10.111/j1365-2664.2005.01096.xGoogle Scholar
  16. Bulleri F, Abbiati M, Airoldi L (2005) The colonisation of artificial human-made structures by the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides in the north Adriatic Sea (NE Mediterranean). HydrobiologiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Casas G, Scrosati R, Piriz ML (2004) The invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida (Phaeophyceae, Laminariales) reduces native seaweed diversity in Nuevo Gulf (Patagonia, Argentina). Biol Invasions 6:411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castilla JC, Lagos NA, Cerda M (2004) Marine ecosystem engineering by the alien ascidian Pyura preaputialis on a mid-intertidal rocky shore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ceccherelli VU, Rossi R (1984) Settlement, growth and production of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 16:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cencini C (1998) Physical processes and human activities in the evolution of the Po delta, Italy. J Coast Res 14:774–793Google Scholar
  21. Chapman AS, Scheibling RE, Chapman ARO (2002) Species introductions and changes in the marine vegetation of Atlantic Canada. In: Claudi R, Nantel P, Muckle-Jeffs E (eds) Alien Invaders in Canada’s Waters, Wetlands and Forests. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service Science Branch, Ottawa, pp 133–148Google Scholar
  22. Connell SD (2003) Negative effects overpower the positive of kelp to exclude invertebrates from the understorey community. Oecologia 137:97–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Crooks JA (2002) Characterising ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dayton PK (1975) Experimental evaluation of ecological dominance in a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecol Monogr 45:137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dayton PK, Tegner MJ (1984) The importance of scale in community ecology: a kelp forest example with terrestrial analogs. In: Price PW, Slobodchikoff CN, Gand WS (eds) A new ecology: novel approaches to interactive systems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Eckman JE, Duggins DO, Sewell AT (1989) Ecology of understory kelp environments. I. Effects of kelps on flow and particle transport near the bottom. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 129:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eckman JE, Duggins DO (1991) Life and death beneath macrophyte canopies: effects of understory kelps on growth rates and survival of marine, benthic suspension feeders. Oecologia 87:473–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fletcher RL, Blunden G, Smith BE, Rogers DJ, Fish BC (1989) Occurrence of a fouling, juvenile, stage of Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides (Goor) Silva (Chlorophyceae, Codiales). J Appl Phycol 1:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gray JS (1997) Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodivers Conserv 6:153–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grosholz E (2002) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of coastal invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 171:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawkins SJ (1983). Interactions of Patella and macroalgae with settling Balanus balanoides (L.). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 71:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hrs-Brenko M (1973) The study of mussel larvae and their settlement in Vela Draga Bay (Pula, the northern Adriatic Sea). Aquaculture 2:173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunt HL, Scheibling RE (1996) Physical and biological factors influencing mussel (Mytilus trossulus, M. edulis) settlement on a wave-exposed rocky shore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 142:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leonard GH (1999) Positive and negative effects on intertidal algal canopies on recruitment and survival of barnacles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 178:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCook LJ, Chapman ARO (1991) Community succession following massive ice-scour on an exposed rocky shore: effects of Fucus canopy algae and mussels during late succession. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 154:137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCoy ED, Bell SS (1991) Habitat structure: the evolution and diversification of a complex topic. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (eds) Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  39. Menge BA (1978) Predation intensity in a rocky intertidal community: effect of an algal canopy, wave action and desiccation on predator feeding rates. Oecologia 34:17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Monteiro SM, Chapman MG, Underwood AJ (2002) Patches of the ascidian Pyura stolonifera (Heller, 1878): structure of habitat and associated intertidal assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 275:83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Occhipinti-Ambrogi A (2001) Transfer of marine organisms: a challenge to the conservation of coastal biocenoses. Aquat Conserv 11:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson CH (1982) Clam predation by whelks (Busycon spp.): experimental tests of the importance of prey size, prey density, and seagrass cover. Mar Biol 66:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reed DC, Foster MS (1984) The effects of canopy shading on algal recruitment and growth in a giant kelp forest. Ecology 65:937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Savini D, Harding JM, Mann R. (2002) Rapa whelk Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846) predation rates on hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria (Linnaeus, 1758). J Shellfish Res 21:777–779Google Scholar
  46. Savini D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A (2004) Reproductive potential and predatory pressure of the gastropod Rapana venosa in a locality of the northern Adriatic Sea. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on aquatic invasive species, p 123Google Scholar
  47. Seed R (1976) Ecology. In: Bayne BL (eds) Marine mussels: their ecology and physiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–65Google Scholar
  48. Seed R, Suchanek TH (1992) Population and community ecology of Mytilus. In: Gosling E (eds) The mussel Mytilus: ecology physiology, genetics, and culture. Elsevier, New York, pp 87–169Google Scholar
  49. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of non-indigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thornber C, Kinlan BP, Graham MH, Stachowicz JJ (2004) Population ecology of the invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida in California: environmental and biological controls on demography. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trowbridge CD (1998) Ecology of the green macroalga Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot 1989: invasive and non-invasive subspecies. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 36:1–64Google Scholar
  52. Trowbridge CD, Farnham WF, White LF (2004) Thriving populations of the native macroalga Codium tomentosum on Guernsey rocky shores. J Mar Biol Ass UK 84:873–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Valentine JP, Johnson CR (2003) Establishment of the introduced kelp Undaria pinnatifida in Tasmania depends on disturbance to native algal assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 295:63–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williamson MH (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM (1991) Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Wonham MJ, O’Connor M, Harley CDG (2005) Positive effects of a dominant invader on introduced and native mudflat species. Mar Ecol prog Ser 289:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Bulleri
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • L. Airoldi
    • 1
    • 2
  • G.M. Branca
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Abbiati
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca per le Scienze Ambientali in RavennaUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Biologia Evoluzionistica SperimentaleUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Uomo e dell’AmbienteUniversità di PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations