Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 153, Issue 6, pp 1153–1164 | Cite as

Distribution of a marginal population of Mytilus edulis: responses to biotic and abiotic processes at different spatial scales

  • Mats WesterbomEmail author
  • Olli Mustonen
  • Mikael Kilpi
Research Article

Abstract

Physical and biological processes interact to produce pattern in nature. Pattern is scale dependent as processes generating pattern are heterogeneous in time and space. We tested some causes of variation in abundance and distribution of three marginal populations of sublittoral blue mussels, Mytilus edulis, in the non-tidal northeastern Baltic Sea. We studied the role of substrate inclination, perennial algae and siltation along local wave exposure gradients on mussel distribution over a regional salinity gradient. We found marked differences on regional scales (p < 0.001) with lower densities and biomasses of mussels with declining salinity. Along local gradients, mussel densities increased with increasing exposure (p < 0.001) and declining slope and sedimentation (p < 0.01). Site specifically, densities of blue mussels and the perennial red algae, Furcellaria lumbricalis, were positively related, results supported by a colonisation experiment. Also, young post-recruits showed significant relations to adult biomass, wave exposure, algal biomass, bottom slope and sediment cover. Findings showed that the relative importance of the determinants affecting blue mussels at the edge of their range vary with scale and are affected by the density and size structure of mussel populations. The study provides an indication of the types of factors that may be invoked as causes of spatial variation in marginal blue mussel populations and reinforces the need to consider multiple aspects when distributional patterns are assessed.

Keywords

Sediment Cover Blue Mussel Wave Exposure Colonisation Experiment Sheltered Site 
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 appreciate the constructive comments of Prof. N. Kautsky on the draft of the manuscript. We are very grateful to M. Hario at the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute for helping in the field at Söderskär and to the Finnish Institute of Marine Research for providing data on offshore salinity conditions. Constructive and most valuable comments were provided by two anonymous referees on an earlier version of the manuscript. The study was supported by the EU-project (AC 340165) and grants from Svenska kulturfonden (MW), Oscar Öflunds stiftelse (MW), Waldemar von Frenckells stiftelse (MW) and Walter och Andrée de Nottbecks stiftelse (MW; OM). The study complies with current laws in Finland.

References

  1. Airoldi L (2003) The effects of sedimentation on rocky coast assemblages. Oceanogr Mar Biol 41:161–236Google Scholar
  2. Baardseth E (1970) A square-scanning, two stage sampling method of estimating seaweed quantities. Rep Norw Inst Seaweed Res 33:1–41Google Scholar
  3. Bayne BL (1964) Primary and secondary settlement in Mytilus edulis L. (Mollusca). J Anim Ecol 33:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bégin C, Johnson L, 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
  5. Benedetti-Cecchi L (2001) Variability in abundance of algae and invertebrates at different spatial scales on rocky sea shores. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 215:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benedetti-Cecchi L, Bulleri F, Cinelli F (2000) The interplay of physical and biological factors in maintaining mid-shore and low-shore assemblages on rocky coasts in the north-west Mediterranean. Oecologia 123:406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bruno JF, Bertness MD (2001) Habitat modification and facilitation in benthic marine communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  9. Cheung SG, Shin PKS (2005) Size effects of suspended particles on gill damage in green-lipped mussel Perna viridis. Mar Pollut Bull 51:801–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis AR, Moreno CA (1995) Selection of substrata by juvenile Choromytilus chorus (Mytilidae): are chemical cues important. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 191:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erlandsson J, McQuaid CD (2004) Spatial structure of recruitment in the mussel Perna perna at local scales: effects of adults, algae and recruit size. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 267:173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffiths SP, Davis AR, West RJ (2006) Role of habitat complexity in structuring temperate rockpool ichthyofaunas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 313:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holt RD, Keitt TH (2005) Species’ borders: a unifying theme in ecology. Oikos 108:3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Hunt HL, Scheibling RE (1997) Role of post-settlement mortality in recruitment of benthic marine invertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 155:269–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Irving AD, Tanner JE, McDonald BK (2007) Priority effects of faunal assemblages within artificial seagrass. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 340:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kautsky H, van der Maarel E (1990) Multivariate approaches to the variation in phytobenthic communities and environmental vectors in the Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 60:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiirikki M (1996) Mechanisms affecting macroalgal zonation in the northern Baltic Sea. Eur J Phycol 31:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCook LJ, Chapman ARO (1991) Community succession following massive ice-scour on an exposed rocky shore: effects of Fucus canopy algae and of mussels during late succession. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 154:137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McQuaid CD, Lindsay TL (2005) Interacting effects of wave exposure, tidal height and substratum on spatial variation in densities of mussel Perna perna plantigrades. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 301:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menge BA, Branch GM (2001) Rocky intertidal communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  22. Moreno CA (1995) Macroalgae as a refuge from predation for recruits of the mussel Choromytilus chorus (Molina, 1782) in Southern Chile. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 191:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan SG (2001) The larval ecology of marine communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Navarrete SA, Castilla JC (1990) Barnacle walls as mediators of intertidal mussel recruitment: effects of patch size on the utilization of space. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 68:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pedersén M, Snoeijs P (2001) Patterns of macroalgal diversity, community composition and long-term changes along the Swedish west coast. Hydrobiologia 459:83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips NE, Shima JS (2006) Differential effects of suspended sediments on larval survival and settlement of New Zealand urchins Evechinus chloroticus and abalone Haliotis iris. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 314:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Qvarfordt S, Kautsky H, Malm T (2006) Development of fouling communities on vertical structures in the Baltic Sea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 67:618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robles CD, Alvarado MA, Desharnais RA (2001) The shifting balance of littoral predator-prey interaction in regimes of hydrodynamic stress. Oecologia 128:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steffani CN, Branch GM (2003) Growth rate, condition, and shell shape of Mytilus galloprovincialis: responses to wave exposure. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 246:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stoffels RJ, Closs GP, Burns CW (2003) Multiple scales and the relationships between density and spatial aggregation in littoral communities. Oikos 103:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thrush SF, Hewitt JE, Herman PMJ, Ysebaert T (2005) Multi-scale analysis of species-environment relationships. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 302:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tuya F, Haroun RJ (2006) Spatial patterns and response to wave exposure of shallow water algal assemblages across the Canarian Archipelago: a multi-scaled approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 311:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Underwood AJ, Keough MJ (2001). Supply-side ecology. The nature and consequences of variation in recruitment of intertidal organisms. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Westerbom M, Jattu S (2006) Effects of wave exposure on the sublittoral distribution of blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) in a heterogeneous archipelago. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 306:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Westerbom M, Kilpi M, Mustonen O (2002) Blue mussels, Mytilus edulis, at the edge of the range: population structure, growth and biomass along a salinity gradient in the northeastern Baltic Sea. Mar Biol 140:991–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westerbom M, Lappalainen A, Mustonen O (2006) Invariant size selection of blue mussels by roach despite variable prey size distributions? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 328:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wieters EA (2005) Upwelling control of positive interactions over mesoscales: a new link between bottom-up and top-down processes on rocky shores. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 301:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Witman JD, Dayton PK (2001) Rocky subtidal communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  39. Zardi GI, Nicastro KR, McQuaid CD, Rius M, Porri F (2006a) Hydrodynamic stress and habitat partitioning between indigenous (Perna perna) and invasive (Mytilus galloprovincialis) mussels: constraints of an evolutionary strategy. Mar Biol 150:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zardi GI, Nicastro KR, Porri F, McQuaid CD (2006b) Sand stress as a non-determinant of habitat segregation of indigenous (Perna perna) and invasive (Mytilus galloprovincialis) mussels in South Africa. Mar Biol 148:1031–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mats Westerbom
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Olli Mustonen
    • 2
  • Mikael Kilpi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Novia University of Applied SciencesEkenäsFinland
  2. 2.Tvärminne Zoological StationHankoFinland
  3. 3.Aronia Research CentreÅbo Akademi UniversityEkenäsFinland

Personalised recommendations