Advertisement

Field Mark-Recapture of Calcein-Stained Larval Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) in a Freshwater-Dominated Estuary

  • Haley N. GancelEmail author
  • Ruth H. Carmichael
  • Kyeong Park
  • Jeffrey W. Krause
  • Scott Rikard
Article

Abstract

Knowledge of larval transport is important for restoration and management efforts; yet, there are no established methods to determine larval transport in situ. Calcein staining of oyster larvae may help fill this void, and a two-part study was conducted to determine its effectiveness at tracking larval oyster transport in the field. First, it was tested whether oysters could be successfully stained, survive, and grow at estuarine salinities (15, 20, 26), and at sufficiently large numbers (millions of oysters) to support field mark-recapture studies. Second, the field-based application was tested by releasing 22 million stained larvae twice (high and low salinity) into a major estuary, and two methods (fluorescent microscopy and FlowCam) were used to detect recaptured larvae. Results were compared with expected larval movement patterns simulated by an existing larval transport model. Calcein concentrations (100 mg L−1) did not affect larval growth or survival, but handling conditions (water salinity manipulations and tank size) did affect growth and survival during the post-staining period. Microscopy had double the detection capacity, but FlowCam was more practical and time efficient for the large-volume, high particulate load field samples. Larvae (n = 2) were recaptured during the second, higher salinity release, and model comparison showed a 1–2-day time-lag between field recapture and model predictions, suggesting need for model refinement. Calcein has potential to be a useful marker to track larval movement at large scales needed for field-based studies, providing critical information to aid in selection of restoration sites and management of commercially important shellfish species.

Keywords

Larval transport model FlowCam Salinity Growth Survival 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Dauphin Island Sea Lab-Food and Drug Administration Fellowship for refitting our FlowCam with laser capabilities. We thank the Auburn University Shellfish Laboratory for letting us use their hatchery facilities and Elizabeth Hieb, Casey Fulford, Audrey Palombo, Neil Berglund, Heather Patterson, Chris Williams, and Max Han for laboratory and field help. A special thanks to Sydney Acton for FlowCam logistics help and advice. We also thank two anonymous reviewers who greatly improved this manuscript.

Funding Information

This work was funded by the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium (project number #R/SFA-03).

Supplementary material

12237_2019_582_Fig5_ESM.png (354 kb)
Fig. S1

FlowCam images of stained oysters recaptured following the second release (July 28, 2014) at site 4 on day 2 (190 μm, anterior to posterior orientation; left panel) and day 5 (220 μm, posterior orientation; right panel) (PNG 353 kb)

12237_2019_582_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (818 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 817 kb)
12237_2019_582_Fig6_ESM.png (1.2 mb)
Fig. S2

The forcing conditions for freshwater discharge and wind used for the model simulations for the first (May 19, 2014) and the second (July 28, 2014) releases (PNG 1235 kb)

12237_2019_582_MOESM2_ESM.tif (14.9 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 15294 kb)
12237_2019_582_MOESM3_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. Álvarez, E., Á. López-Urrutia, E. Nogueira, and S. Fraga. 2011. How to effectively sample the plankton size spectrum? A case study using FlowCAM. Journal of Plankton Research 33 (7): 1119–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbr012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez, E., M. Moyano, Á. López-Urrutia, E. Nogueira, and R. Scharek. 2014. Routine determination of plankton community composition and size structure: A comparison between FlowCAM and light microscopy. Journal of Plankton Research 36 (1): 170–184.  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbt069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen, H., I. Dorresteijn, and J. van der Meer. 2013. Growth and size-dependent loss of newly settled bivalves in two distant regions of the Wadden Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 472: 141–154.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, B.J., L.A. Levin, F.J. Fodrie, and P.A. McMillan. 2007. Complex larval connectivity patterns among marine invertebrate populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (9): 3267–3272.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611651104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhard, J.M., J.K. Blanks, C.J. Hintz, and G.T. Chandler. 2004. Use of the fluorescent calcite marker calcein to label foraminiferal tests. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 34 (2): 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buskey, E.J., and C.J. Hyatt. 2006. Use of the FlowCAM for semi-automated recognition and enumeration of red tide cells (Karenia brevis) in natural plankton samples. Harmful Algae 5 (6): 685–692.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2006.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalupnicki, M.A., G.E. Mackey, K. Nash, R. Chiavelli, J.H. Johnson, T. Kehler, and N. Ringler. 2016. Mark retention of calcein in Cisco and Bloater. North American Journal of Aquaculture 78 (2): 148–153.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2016.1143419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chick, R.C. 2010. Batch-tagging Blacklip abalone (Haliotis rubra) for identification of hatchery-reared individuals on natural coastal reefs in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Shellfish Research 29 (1): 209–215.  https://doi.org/10.2983/035.029.0117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, A., E. Prothero-Thomas, J.C. Beaumont, A.L. Chapman, and T. Brey. 2004. Growth in the limpet Nacella concinna from contrasting sites in Antarctica. Polar Biology 28: 62–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-004-0647-8.Google Scholar
  10. Crocker, E. G. 1998. Tracking and growth of larvae of the Giant Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin, 1791) on a scallop farm in Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland. Memorial University of Newfoundland, MS thesis.Google Scholar
  11. DiBacco, C., and L.A. Levin. 2000. Development and application of elemental fingerprinting to track the dispersal of marine invertebrate larvae. Limnology and Oceanography 45 (4): 871–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. First, M.R., and L.A. Drake. 2012. Performance of the human “counting machine”: Evaluation of manual microscopy for enumerating plankton. Journal of Plankton Research 34 (12): 1028–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbs068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzpatrick, M.P., A.G. Jeffs, and B.J. Dunphy. 2013. Efficacy of calcein as a chemical marker of green-lipped mussel (Perna canaliculus) larvae and its potential use for tracking larval dispersal. Aquaculture Research 44 (3): 345–353.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.03034.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fogarty, M.J., and L.W. Botsford. 2007. Population connectivity and spatial management of marine fisheries. Oceanography 20 (3): 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galindo, H.M., A.S. Pfeiffer-Herbert, M.A. McManus, Y. Chao, F. Chai, and S.R. Palumbi. 2010. Seascape genetics along a steep cline: Using genetic patterns to test predictions of marine larval dispersal. Molecular Ecology 19 (17): 3692–3707.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04694.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilg, M.R., and T.J. Hilbish. 2003. The geography of marine larval dispersal: Coupling genetics with fine-scale physical oceanography. Ecology 84 (11): 2989–2998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ide, K., K. Takahashi, A. Kuwata, M. Nakamachi, and H. Saito. 2008. A rapid analysis of copepod feeding using FlowCAM. Journal of Plankton Research 30 (3): 275–281.  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbm108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jakobsen, H.H., and J. Carstensen. 2011. FlowCAM: Sizing cells and understanding the impact of size distributions on biovolume of planktonic community structure. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 65 (1): 75–87.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, K.B., and A.L. Shanks. 2003. Low rates of predation on planktonic marine invertebrate larvae. Marine Ecology Progress Series 248: 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaehler, S., and C.D. McQuaid. 1999. Use of the fluorochrome calcein as an in situ growth marker in the brown mussel Perna perna. Marine Biology 133 (3): 455–460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270050485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kennedy, V.S. 1996. Biology of larvae and spat. In The eastern oyster: Crassostrea virginica, ed. V.S. Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell, and A.F. Eble, 371–421. College Park: Maryland Sea Grant College.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, C.-K., and K. Park. 2012. A modeling study of water and salt exchange for a micro-tidal, stratified northern Gulf of Mexico estuary. Journal of Marine Systems 96-97: 103–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, C.-K., K. Park, S.P. Powers, W.M. Graham, and K.M. Bayha. 2010. Oyster larval transport in coastal Alabama: Dominance of physical transport over biological behavior in a shallow estuary. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: C10019.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kroll, I.R., A.K. Poray, B.J. Puckett, D.B. Eggleston, and F.J. Fodrie. 2016. Environmental effects on elemental signatures in eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica shells: Using geochemical tagging to assess population connectivity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 543: 173–186.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kydd, J., H. Rajakaruna, E. Briski, and S. Bailey. 2018. Examination of a high resolution laser optical plankton counter and FlowCAM for measuring plankton concentration and size. Journal of Sea Research 133: 2–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2017.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehtonen, H., K. Nyberg, P.J. Vuoronen, and A. Leskelä. 1992. Radioactive strontium (85Sr) in marking whitefish [Coregonus lavaretus (L.)] larvae and the dispersal of larvae from river to sea. Journal of Fish Biology 41 (3): 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levin, L.A. 1990. A review of methods for labeling and tracking marine invertebrate larvae. Ophelia 32 (1–2): 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin, L.A. 2006. Recent progress in understanding larval dispersal: New directions and digressions. Integrative and Comparative Biology 46 (3): 282–297.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icj024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Linard, C., Y. Gueguen, J. Moriceau, C. Soyez, B. Hui, A. Raoux, J.P. Cuif, J.-C. Cochard, M. Le Pennec, and G. Le Moullac. 2011. Calcein staining of calcified structures in pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera and the effect of food resource level on shell growth. Aquaculture 313 (1-4): 149–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarthy, M.J., D.B. Otis, P. Méndez-Lázaro, and F.E. Muller-Karger. 2018. Water quality drivers in 11 Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Remote Sensing 10 (255): 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020255.Google Scholar
  31. Millar, R.H. 1961. Scottish oyster investigations 1946-1958. Marine Research Scotland 3: 1–76.Google Scholar
  32. Moran, A.L. 2000. Calcein as a marker in experimental studies newly-hatched gastropods. Marine Biology 137 (5–6): 893–898.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270000390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moran, A.L., and P.B. Marko. 2005. A simple technique for physical marking of larvae of marine bivalves. Journal of Shellfish Research 24 (2): 567–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nagieć, M., P. Czerkies, K. Goryczko, A. Witkowski, and E. Murawska. 1995. Mass-marking of grayling, Thymallus thymallus (L.), larvae by fluorochrome tagging of otoliths. Fisheries Management and Ecology 2 (3): 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pineda, J., J.A. Hare, and S. Sponaugle. 2007. Larval transport and dispersal in the coastal ocean and consequences for population connectivity. Oceanography 20 (3): 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollack, J.B., H.-C. Kim, E.K. Morgan, and P.A. Montagna. 2011. Role of flood disturbance in natural oyster (Crassostrea virginica) population maintenance in an estuary in South Texas, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 34 (1): 187–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-010-9338-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiner, S. L. 2011. Evaluating the use of flow­through larval culture for the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. College of William and Mary, MS thesis.Google Scholar
  38. Reinert, T.R., M.C. Wallin, M.J. Conroy, and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1998. Long-term retention and detection of oxytetracycline marks applied to hatchery-reared larval striped bass, Morone saxatilis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55 (3): 539–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricker, W.E. 1956. Uses of marking animals in ecological studies: The marking of fish. Ecology 37 (4): 665–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rikard, F. S., and Walton, W. C. 2010. Use of microalgae concentrations for rearing oyster larvae, Crassostrea virginica. NOAA/MS-AL Sea Grant. MASGP-12-048.Google Scholar
  41. Rumrill, S.S. 1990. Natural mortality of marine invertebrate larvae. Ophelia 32 (1–2): 163–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Secor, D.H., E.D. Houde, and D.M. Monteleone. 1995. A mark-release experiment on larval striped bass Morone saxatilis in a Chesapeake Bay tributary. ICES Journal of Marine Science 52 (1): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Secor, D.H., E.D. Houde, and L.L. Kellogg. 2017. Estuarine retention and production of striped bass larvae: A mark-recapture experiment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74 (6): 1735–1748.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spires, J. 2015. The exchange of eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) larvae between subpopulations in the Choptank and Little Choptank Rivers: Model simulations, the influence of salinity, and implications for restoration. University of Maryland, College Park, MS thesis.  https://doi.org/10.13016/M2F949
  45. Stańczak, K., S. Krejszeff, M. Dębowska, K. Mierzejewska, M. Woźniak, and P. Hliwa. 2015. Mass marking of Leuciscus idus larvae using Artemia salina as a vector of fluorescent dyes. Journal of Fish Biology 87 (3): 799–804.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Supan, J. 2014. High-density rearing of oyster larvae in flow-through systems. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication Number 4311.Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, M.S., and M.E. Hellberg. 2003. Genetic evidence for local retention of pelagic larvae in a Caribbean reef fish. Science 299 (3): 107–109.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1079365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thébault, J., L. Chauvaud, J. Clavier, R. Fichez, and E. Morize. 2006. Evidence of a 2-day periodicity of striae formation in the tropical scallop Comptopallium radula using calcein marking. Marine Biology 149 (2): 257–267.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-005-0198-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thorrold, S.R., G.P. Jones, M.E. Hellberg, R.S. Burton, S.E. Swearer, J.E. Neigel, A.G. Morgan, and R.R. Warner. 2002. Quantifying larval retention and connectivity in marine populations with artificial and natural markers. Bulletin of Marine Science 70 (1): 291–308.Google Scholar
  50. Tsukamoto, K., and T. Kajihara. 1987. Age determination of Ayu with otolith. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 53 (11): 1985–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Utting, S. D., and Spencer, B. E. 1991. The hatchery culture of bivalve mollusc larvae and juveniles. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food Directorate of Fisheries Research Laboratory leaflet 68.Google Scholar
  52. van der Geest, M., J.A. van Gils, J. van der Meer, H. Olff, and T. Piersma. 2011. Suitability of calcein as an in situ growth marker in burrowing bivalves. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 399 (1): 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallace, R. K., Waters, P., and Rikard, F. S. 2008. Oyster hatchery techniques. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. Publication No. 4302.Google Scholar
  54. Wilson, C.A., D.W. Beckman, and J.M. Dean. 1987. Calcein as a fluorescent marker of otoliths of larval and juvenile fish. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 116 (4): 668–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zacherl, D.C., G. Paradis, and D.W. Lea. 2003. Barium and strontium uptake into larval protoconchs and statoliths of the marine neogastropod Kelletia kelletii. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 67 (21): 4091–4099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  2. 2.Dauphin Island Sea LabDauphin IslandUSA
  3. 3.Texas A&M University at GalvestonGalvestonUSA
  4. 4.Auburn University Shellfish LaboratoryDauphin IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations