Oecologia

, Volume 3, Issue 3–4, pp 277–316 | Cite as

The ecology of Mytilus edulis L. (Lamellibranchiata) on exposed rocky shores

I. Breeding and settlement
Article

Summary

The population structure and apparently erratic distribution patterns exhibited by M. edulis on many open exposed coasts, are discussed in the light of findings relating to the breeding and settlement of this species. In the absence of previous literature concerning open coast mussels, the reproductive cycle has been described in some detail. These mussels do contribute to the spawning stock, and in the three years from October 1964–December 1967, the period of spawning was shown to be particularly extended. Spawning occurred mainly from early spring to late summer, though individuals could be found in the spawning condition more or less throughout the year. No marked or consistent differences in the spawning periods of mussels from different local habitats or amongst animals of different size (=age) were recorded. Sexual maturity was attained in the first year of life.

The appearance of larvae in plankton samples confirmed the times of major spawnings recorded from histological preparations of the gonad. Settlement of young mussels (=plantigrades) on existing beds was not direct, there being a period of temporary attachment spent especially upon filamentous substrates. This occurred after about 3–5 weeks of planktonic existence. The majority of plantigrades remained on these primary sites for a period of 4 weeks (i.e. until they measured from 1–2 mm in length), although those settling later in the year often remained there overwinter before migrating on to adult beds. The stimulus to migrate is due to changes in the thigmotactic requirements of small mussels. Whilst filamentous substrates were ideally suitable to early plantigrades, somewhat older individuals preferred the niches and crevices provided on adult beds (especially amongst the byssus threads) and by the small cracks and pits in the rock surface. Since the thigmotactic requirements of all plantigrades were not satisfied at exactly the same time, some migration to adult beds occurred throughout the year, though periods of maximum settlement occurred from 8–10 weeks after spawning. Migration from these extensive “reservoirs” of temporary attachment could account for the sporadic outbursts of settlement recorded on many shores at certain times of the year and which often could not necessarily be predicted on a knowledge of the breeding cycle alone.

Although the extended settlement period is an important contributory factor, it is not thought that this alone could account for the distinctive population structure in this species. At settlement, mussels are particularly gregarious, attraction of plantigrades to adult beds being essentially a thigmotactic response, aided by their ability to attach and detach themselves until favourable situations are encountered. Settlement is favoured by roughened, scarred or pitted surfaces and the distribution patterns on many shores could partly be attributed both to the surface texture or topography of the shore (smooth, rapidly draining shores being particularly unsuitable) or the amount of local wave splash.

In a subsequent publication, the population structure and distribution patterns will be examined in the light of growth and mortality rates of this species on exposed shores.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Battle, H.: Rhythmical sexual maturity and spawning of certain bivalve molluscs. Contr. Can. Biol. Fish. 7 (20) 257–76 (1932).Google Scholar
  2. Bayne, B. L.: Responses of Mytilus edulis L. to increases in hydrostatic pressure. Nature (Lond.) 198, 406–7 (1963).Google Scholar
  3. —: Primary and secondary settlement in Mytilus edulis L. (Mollusca). J. Anim. Ecol. 33, 513–23 (1964).Google Scholar
  4. —: The responses of the larvae of Mytilus edulis L. to light and gravity. Oikos 15, 162–74 (1964a).Google Scholar
  5. —: Growth and delay of metamorphosis of the larvae of Mytilus edulis L. Ophelia 2 (1), 1–47 (1965).Google Scholar
  6. Berner, L.: La reproduction des moules comestibles Mytilus edulis L. et M. galloprovincialis (Lmk) et leur répartition géographique. Bull. Inst. oceanogr. Monaco. 680, 1–8 (1935).Google Scholar
  7. Blok, J. W. De, and H. J. Geelen: The substratum required for the setting of mussels (Mytilus edulis). Arch. néerl. Zool. Vol. Jubilaire, 446–60 (1958).Google Scholar
  8. Bouxin, H.: Observations sur le frai de Mytilus edulis var galloprovincialis (Lmk) dates précises de frai, et facteurs provoquant l'émission de produits génitaux. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Commn int. Explor. Scient. Mer Mediterr. 140 (3), 43–6 (1956).Google Scholar
  9. Bruce, J. R.: The respiratory exchange of the mussel (Mytilus edulis). Biochem. J. 20, 829–46 (1926).Google Scholar
  10. Carriker, M. R.: Interrelation and functional morphology, behaviour and autecology in early stages of the bivalve Venus mercenaria. J. Elisha Mitchell sci. Soc. 77, 168–242 (1961).Google Scholar
  11. Chipperfield, P. N. J.: Observations on the breeding and settlement of Mytilus edulis L. in British Waters. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 32, 449–76 (1953).Google Scholar
  12. Coe, W. R., and D. L. Fox: Biology of the Californian sea mussel (Mytilus californianus). I Influence of temperature, food supply, sex and age on the rate of growth. J. exp. Zool. 90, 1–30 (1942).Google Scholar
  13. Field, I. A.: Biology and economic value of the sea mussel Mytilus edulis. Bull. Bur. Fish. Wash. 38, 127–259 (1922).Google Scholar
  14. Giese, A. C.: Comparative physiology. Annual reproductive cycles of marine invertebrates. A. Rev. Physiol. 21. 547–76 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Havinga, B.: Krebse und Weichtiere. Handb. Seefisch. Nordeur. 3(2), 147 pp (1929).Google Scholar
  16. Johnstone, J.: The spawning of the mussel (Mytilus edulis). Proc. Trans. Lpool biol. Soc. 13, 104–21 (1898).Google Scholar
  17. Kändler, R.: Muschellarven aus dem Helgoländer Plankton. Wiss. Meeresunters., Abt. Helgoland 16 (5), 9 pp (1926).Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, J. R.: The ecology of rocky shores. E.U.P. London, 1964.Google Scholar
  19. Lubet, P.: Cycle neurosécrétoire chez Chlamys varia et Mytilus edulis. C.R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 241, 119–21 (1955).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. —: Effets de l'ablation des centres nerveux sur l'émissions des gamètes chez Mytilus edulis et Chlamys varia. Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.) 2, 175–83 (1956).Google Scholar
  21. —: Cycle sexuel de Mytilus edulis L. et M. galloprovincialis (Lmk) dans le bassin d'Arcachon (Gironde). Année biol. 33, (1–2), 19–29 (1957).Google Scholar
  22. Maas Geesteranus, R. A.: On the formation of banks by Mytilus edulis. Arch. néerl. Zool. 6, 283–325 (1942).Google Scholar
  23. Orton, J. H., A. J. Southward, and J. M. Dodd: Studies on the biology of limpets. II. The breeding of Patella vulgata L. in Britain. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 35, 149–76 (1956).Google Scholar
  24. Raymont, J. E. G., and B. G. A. Carrie: The production of zooplankton in Southampton waters. Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 49 (2), 185–232 (1964).Google Scholar
  25. Rees, C. B.: The identification and classification of lamellibranch larvae. Hull. Bull. mar. Ecol. 3, 73–104 (1950).Google Scholar
  26. Savage, R. E.: The great spatfall of mussels in the R. Conway estuary in spring 1940. Fishery Invest. (Lond.), Ser. II 20 (7), 1–21 (1956).Google Scholar
  27. Scott, A.: Note on the spawning of the mussel Mytilus edulis. Proc. Trans. Lpool biol. soc. 15, 161–164 (1901).Google Scholar
  28. Seed, R.: Unpublished data. Ph.D. thesis: University of Leeds (1967).Google Scholar
  29. Stafford, J.: On the recognition of bivalve larvae in plankton samples. Contr. Can. Biol. Fish. (1906–1910), 221–42 (1912).Google Scholar
  30. Takatsuki, S. I.: On the nature and functions of the amoebocytes of Ostrea edulis. Quart. J. micr. Sci. 76, 379–431 (1934).Google Scholar
  31. Thorson, G.: Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates with special reference to the planktonic larvae of the sound (Øresund). Meddr. Kommn. Danm. Fisk. -og Havanders. Ser. Plankton 4 (1), 523 pp. (1946).Google Scholar
  32. —: Bottom communities (Sub littoral or shallow shelf). Mem. geol. Soc. Amer. 67 (1), 461–534 (1957).Google Scholar
  33. Verwey, J.: On the ecology and distribution of cockle and mussel in the Dutch Waddensea, their role in sedimentation and the source of their food supply. Arch. néerl. Zool. 10, 171–239 (1952).Google Scholar
  34. Whedon, W. F.: Spawning habits of the mussel Mytilus californianus with notes on the possible relation to mussel poison. Univ. Calif. Publs. Zool. 41, 35–44 (1936).Google Scholar
  35. White, K. M.: Mytilus. L.M.B.C. Memoirs 31. Liverpool University Press 1937.Google Scholar
  36. Williamson, H. C.: The spawning growth and movement of the mussel (Mytilus edulis), horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus) and the spoutfish (Solen siliqua). Sci. Invest. Fishery Bd. Scotl., 25th Annual Report (1906), 221–55 (1907).Google Scholar
  37. Wilson, B. R., and E. P. Hodgkin: A comparative account of the reproductive cycles of five species of marine mussels (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) in the vicinity of Freemantle, W. Australia. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 18, 175–203 (1967).Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, J.: On the development of the common mussel (Mytilus edulis). Sci. Invest. Fishery Bd. Scotl., 5th Annual Report, 247–56 (1886).Google Scholar
  39. Young, R.T.: Spawning and setting season of the mussel Mytilus californianus Ecology 27, 354–63 (1946).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Seed
    • 1
  1. 1.Wellcome Marine LaboratoryUniversity of LeedsUK

Personalised recommendations