Hydrodynamic stress and habitat partitioning between indigenous (Perna perna) and invasive (Mytilus galloprovincialis) mussels: constraints of an evolutionary strategy
- 341 Downloads
The ability of a mussel to withstand wave-generated hydrodynamic stress depends mainly on its byssal attachment strength. This study investigated causes and consequences of different attachment strengths of the two dominant mussels species on the South African south coast, the invasive Mytilus galloprovincialis and the indigenous Perna perna, which dominate the upper and the lower areas of the lower balanoid zone, respectively and co-exist in the middle area. Attachment strength of P. perna was significantly higher than that of M. galloprovincialis. Likewise solitary mussels were more strongly attached than mussels living within mussel beds (bed mussels), and in both cases this can be explained by more and thicker byssal threads. Having a wider shell, M. galloprovincialis is also subjected to higher hydrodynamic loads than P. perna. Attachment strength of both species increased from higher to lower shore, in response to a gradient of stronger wave action. The morphological features of the invasive species and its higher mortality rates during winter storms help to explain the exclusion of M. galloprovincialis from the low shore. The results are discussed in the context of the evolutionary strategy of the alien mussel, which directs most of its energy to fast growth and high reproductive output, apparently at the cost of reduced attachment strength. This raises the prediction that its invasive impact will be more pronounced at sites subject to strong but not extreme wave action.
KeywordsShell Length Hydrodynamic Force Perna Mussel Species Byssal Thread
This research was funded by Rhodes University and the National Research Foundation of South Africa.
- Brown CH (1952) Some structural proteins of Mytilus edulis L. Q J Microsc Sci 93:487–502Google Scholar
- Brundrit GB, Shannon LV (1989) Cape storms and the Agulhas current: a glimpse of the future? S Afr J Mar Sci 85:619–620Google Scholar
- Denny MW (1988) Biology and mechanism of the wave swept environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
- De Moor IJ, Bruton MN (1988) Atlas of alien and translocated indigenous aquatic animals in southern Africa. South African National Scientific Programmes Report, vol 144. Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
- Erlandsson J, Pal P, McQuaid CD (2006) Re-colonization rate differs between co-existing indigenous and invasive intertidal mussels following major disturbance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser (in press)Google Scholar
- Harger JRE (1970) The effect of wave impact on some aspects of the biology of sea mussels. Veliger 12:401–414Google Scholar
- Lee SY, Morton BS (1985) The introduction of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis into Hong Kong. Malacol Rev 18:107–109Google Scholar
- Rius M, McQuaid CD (2006) Wave action and competitive interaction between the invasive mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis and the indigenous Perna perna in South Africa. Mar Biol (in press)Google Scholar
- Seed R, Suchanek TH (1992) Population and community ecology of Mytilus. In: Gosling EG (ed) The mussel Mytilus: ecology, physiology, genetics and culture. Elsevier, New York, pp 87–169Google Scholar
- Van Erkom Schurink C, Griffiths CL (1993) Factors affecting relative rates of growth in four South African mussel species. Aquaculture 109:253–273Google Scholar
- Waite JH (1992) The formation of mussel byssus: anatomy of a natural manufacturing process. In: Case ST (ed) Results and problems in cell differentiation, vol 19. Biopolymers, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 27–54Google Scholar