Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 147, Issue 4, pp 943–953 | Cite as

Burrow morphology, biometry, age and growth of piddocks (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pholadidae) on the south coast of England

  • Eunice H. Pinn
  • C. A. Richardson
  • R. C. Thompson
  • S. J. Hawkins
Research Article

Abstract

Biometry and growth of three piddock species Pholas dactylus, Barnea candida and B. parva, from chalk and clay substrata were investigated between 1999 and 2000 at five low shore locations along the south coast of England. Piddock burrow shape was significantly different (P<0.01) amongst the locations. Burrows at Lyme Regis showed the largest (height/maximum diameter) ratio (4.86±2.00) whilst those at Compton the lowest (3.73±1.62). Using the method of Bhattacharya, the population structure of P. dactylus, B. candida and B. parva was separated into eight, three and five modal size classes, respectively. Age and shell growth were determined from the number and spacing, respectively, of annual growth lines present in acetate peel replicas of shell sections. The von Bertalanffy growth (VBG) equation fitted the size at age data obtained for P. dactylus and B. candida (L and K were 79.3±13.8 mm and 0.0011±0.22 and 29.6±1.5 mm and 1.17±0.47, respectively) whilst the size at age data for B. parva were linearly related and did not fit the assumptions of the VBG equation. Male and female gonads were mature and piddocks competent to spawn between June and September 1999, with settlement of juveniles observed between November 1999 and February 2000. A significant relationship between burrow aperture diameter and age of the occupant piddock was established for the three species. Burrow morphology and spatial distribution of burrows were influenced by substratum hardness and population density. Based on estimates at Lyme Regis, piddocks are capable of removing up to 41% of the shore substratum to a depth of 85 mm over their lifespan (12 years), significantly compromising the structural stability of the soft rock shores they inhabit and contributing to bioerosion.

Keywords

Candida Growth Line Aperture Diameter Shell Width Length Frequency Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Gareth Davies and Ian Walton for assistance with fieldwork. This research was funded through a Centenary Research Grant from the Malacological Society and a Mercia Seabroke Conservation Award to E.H.P., an NERC small grant (GR9/03849) to R.C.T. and S.J.H. and an MBA fellowship to S.J.H.

References

  1. Anwar NA, Richardson CA, Seed R (1990) Age determination, growth rate and population structure of the horse mussel Modiolus modiolus. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 70:441–457Google Scholar
  2. Bombace G, Fabi G, Fiorentini L (1995) Artificial reefs in the Adriatic Sea. In: Jensen AC, Collins KJ, Lockwood APM (eds) Artificial reefs in European Sea. Kluwer, London, pp 31–63Google Scholar
  3. Bouchard-Chantereaux P (1879) Observations sur divers Mollusques marins du Boulonnais. J Conchyliol 27:122–125Google Scholar
  4. Brookes LA, Stevens RK (1985) Radiocarbon age of rock-boring Hiatella arctica (Linné) and postglacial sea level change at Cow Head, Newfoundland. Can J Earth Sci 22:136–140Google Scholar
  5. Chicharo L, Chicharo MA (2001) Effects of environmental conditions on planktonic abundances, benthic recruitment and growth rates of the bivalve mollusc Ruditapes decussatus in a Portuguese coastal lagoon. Fish Res 53:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duval DM (1962) Observations on the annual cycle of Barnea candida (class Lamellibranchiata, Family Pholadidae). Proc Malacol Soc (Lond) 35:101–102Google Scholar
  7. El-Maghraby A (1955) The inshore plankton of the Thames Estuary. PhD thesis University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans JW (1968a) The role of Penitella penita (Conrad 1837) (Family Pholadidae) as eroders along the Pacific coast of North America. Ecology 49:156–159Google Scholar
  9. Evans JW (1968b) The effect of rock hardness and other factors on the shape of the burrow of the rock boring clam Penitella penita. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclim Palaeoecol 4:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans JW (1968c) Growth rate of the rock-boring clam Penitella penita (Conrad 1837) in relation to hardness of rock and other factors. Ecology 49:619–628Google Scholar
  11. Evans JW (1968d) Factors modifying the morphology of the rock-boring clam, Penitella penita (Conrad, 1837). Proc Malacol Soc (Lond) 38:111–119Google Scholar
  12. Evans JW, LeMessurier MH (1972) Functional micromorphology and circadian growth of the rock-boring clam Penitella penita. Can J Zool 50:1251–1258Google Scholar
  13. George JD, Fincham AA (1989) Macro-invertebrate communities of chalk shores in southeastern England. Sci Mar 53:373–385Google Scholar
  14. Gray AP, Seed R, Richardson CA (1997) Reproduction and growth of Mytilus edulis chilensis from the Falkland Islands. Sci Mar 61 [Suppl] 2: 39–48Google Scholar
  15. Haas F (1929–1940) Bivalvia. Bronns Klassem und Ordnungen des Tierreichs 1 & 2. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey R, Knight, SJT, Powell HT, Baartrop J (1980) Survey of the littoral zone of the coast of Great Britain. Final Report part 2. The rocky shores. JNCC report CST 326Google Scholar
  17. Henderson SM, Richardson CA (1994) A comparison of the age, growth rate and burrowing behaviour of the razor clams Ensis siliqua and E.ensis. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 74:939–954Google Scholar
  18. Jefferies JG (1865) An account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the British Isles and the surrounding seas. Volume 3. Marine shells, comprising the remaining Conchifera, the Solenoconcia and Gasteropoda as far as Littorina. Br Conchol 3:93–122Google Scholar
  19. Knight JH (1984) Studies on the biology and biochemistry of Pholas dactylus L. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Marasigan ET, Laureta LV (2001) Broodstock maintenance and early gonadal maturation of Pholas orientalis (Bivalvia: Pholadidae). J Shellfish Res 20:1095–1099Google Scholar
  21. Michelson AM (1978) Purification and properties of Pholas dactylus luciferin and Luciferase. Methods Enzymol 57:385–406Google Scholar
  22. Pelseneer P (1924) La proportion relative des sexes chez les animaux et particulierment chez les mollusques. Acad R Belg Cl Sci Mem Deuxieme Ser 8:1–258Google Scholar
  23. Pliny (=Gaius Plinium Secundus=Pliny the Elder) (completed A.D. 77) Naturalis Historia, Book IX. Chapter LXXXVIIGoogle Scholar
  24. Purchon RD (1955) The structure and function of the British Pholadidae (Rock-boring Lamellibranchia). Proc Zool Soc (Lond) 124:859–911Google Scholar
  25. Ramon M, Richardson CA (1992) Age determination and shell growth of Chamelea gallina (Bivalvia: Veneridae) in the western Mediterranean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 89:15–23Google Scholar
  26. Richardson CA (1989) An analysis of the mircogrowth bands in the shell of the common mussel Mytilus edulis. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 69:477–491Google Scholar
  27. Richardson CA (2001) Molluscs as archives of environmental change. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 39:103–164Google Scholar
  28. Richardson CA, Crisp DJ, Runham NW (1979) Tidally deposited growth bands in the shell of the common cockle Cerastoderma edule (L.). Malacologia 18:277–290Google Scholar
  29. Thouzeau G (1991) Experimental collection of postlarvae of Pecten maximus (L.) and other benthic macrofaunal species in the Bay of Saint Brieuc, France. 2. Reproduction patterns and postlarval growth of 5 mollusc species. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 148:181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tittley I, Priece JH, Fincham AA, George JD (1986) The macrobenthos of chalk and greensand shores in southeastern England. JNCC report. CSD 677Google Scholar
  31. Trudgill ST (1983) Weatherig and erosion. Butterworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Trudgill ST (1985) Limestone geomorphology. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Trudgill ST, Crabtree RW (1987) Bioerosion of intertidal limestone, Co. Clare, Eire – 2: Hiatella arctica. Mar Geol 72:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner RD (1954) The family Pholadidae in the western Atlantic and the eastern pacific. Part 1 – Pholadinae. Johnsonia 3:1–64Google Scholar
  35. Wood C (1992) Sublittoral chalk habitats in southern England. Report for the Marine Conservation Society, South East Group Chalk Cliffs Project 1985–1991. pp 64Google Scholar
  36. Wood E, Wood C (1986) Channel Tunnel sublittoral survey. Nature Conservation Council Report CSD 674. Marine Conservation Society, Ross on WyeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eunice H. Pinn
    • 1
    • 5
  • C. A. Richardson
    • 2
  • R. C. Thompson
    • 3
  • S. J. Hawkins
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.School of Ocean SciencesUniversity of Wales BangorMenai BridgeUK
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  4. 4.The LaboratoryMarine Biological AssociationPlymouthUK
  5. 5.Joint Nature Conservation CommitteeAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations