Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bivalve carrying capacity in coastal ecosystems

  • Published:
Aquatic Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The carrying capacity of suspension feeding bivalvesin 11 coastal and estuarine ecosystems is examined. Bivalve carrying capacity is defined in terms of watermass residence time, primary production time andbivalve clearance time. Turnover times for the 11ecosystems are compared both two and threedimensionally. Fast systems, e.g., Sylt and NorthInlet, have turnover times of days or less, while,slow systems, e.g., Delaware Bay, have turnover timesof months and years. Some systems,Marennes-Oléron, South San Francisco Bay and NorthInlet, require a net influx of phytoplankton in orderto support their bivalve populations. Three systems,Carlingford Lough, Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay,have very long bivalve clearance times due to small orreduced bivalve filter feeder populations. Carlingford Lough stands out because it is a naturallyplanktonic system now being converted to bivalveculture with an adherently stronger benthic-pelagiccoupling.

Existing models of bivalve carrying capacity arereviewed. The Herman model is utilized as anappropriate ecosystem level model to examine carryingcapacity because it includes the three major turnovertime elements of water mass residence time, primaryproduction time and bivalve filter feeder clearancetime.

The graphical analysis suggests that massive andsuccessful bivalve filter feeder populations are foundin systems with relatively short residence times(<40 days) and short primary production times (<4days) in order to sustain a high bivalve biomass withits associated rapid clearance times. Outliersystems are constrained by long water mass residencetimes, extended primary production times, and longclearance times.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asmus H (1987) Secondary production of an intertidal mussel bed community related to its storage and turnover compartments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 39: 251–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Asmus H, Asmus RM and Reise K (1990) Exchange processes in an intertidal mussel bed:a Sylt-flume study in the Wadden Sea. Ber Biol Anst Helgoland 6: 1–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Asmus RM and Asmus H (1991) Mussel beds: limiting or promoting phytoplankton? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 148: 215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacher C (1989) Capacité trophique du bassin de Marennes-Oléron: couplage d'un modèle de transport particulaire et d'un modèle de croissance de l'huitre Crassostrea gigas. Aquat Living Res 48: 199–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball B, Raine R and Douglas D (1997) Phytoplankton and particulate matter in Carlingford Lough, Ireland: An assessment of food availability and the impact of bivalve culture. Estuaries 20: 430–440.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs RB and Howell BA (1984) The estuary as a sediment trap: alternate approaches toestimating filter efficiency. In: Kenney VS (ed.) The Estuary As A Filter (pp. 107–129. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadée GC (1986) Recurrent and changing seasonal patterns in phytoplankton of the westernmost inlet of the Dutch Wadden Sea from 1969–1985, Mar Biol 93: 281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadée GC and Hegeman J (1986) Seasonal and annual variation in Phaeocystis pouchetii (Haptophyceae) in the westernmost inlet of the Wadden Sea during the 1973–1985 period. Neth J Sea Res 20: 29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloern JE (1982) Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in South San FranciscoBay? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 9: 191–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloern JE (1996) Phytoplankton bloom dynamics in coastal ecosystems: a review with some general lessons from sustained investigation of San Francisco Bay, California. Rev. Geophysics 34: 127–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cloern JE, Grenz C and Vidergar-Lucas L (1995) An empirical model of the phytoplankton chlorophyll: carbon ratio — the conversion factor between productivity and growth rate. Limnol Oceanogr 40: 1313–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dame RF (1993) Bivalve Filter Feeders in Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Processes. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Dame RF (1996) Ecology of Marine Bivalves: An Ecosystem Approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Dame RF, Chrzanowski T, Bildstein K, Kjerfve B, McKellar H, Nelson D, Spurrier J, Stancyk S, Stevenson H, Vernberg J and Zingmark R (1986) The outwelling hypothesis and North Inlet, South Carolina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 33: 217–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Dame RF, Dankers N, Prins T, Jongsma H and Smaal A (1991) The influence of mussel beds on nutrients in the Western Wadden Sea and Eastern Scheldt estuaries. Estuaries 14: 130–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dame RF, Spurrier JD, Williams TM, Kjerfve B, Zingmark RG, Wolaver TG, Chrzanowski TH, McKellar HN and Vernberg FJ (1991) Annual material processing by a salt marsh estuarine basin in South Carolina, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 72: 153–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Dame RF, Zingmark RG, Stevenson H and Nelson D (1980) Filter feeding coupling between the water column and benthic systems. In: Kennedy VS (ed.) Estuarine Perspectives (pp. 521–526) Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira JG, Duarte P and Ball B (1998) Trophic capacity of Carlingford Lough for oyster culture — analysis by ecological modelling. Aquat Ecol 31: 361–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerritsen J, Holland AF and Irvine D (1994) Suspension-feeding bivalves and the fate of primary production: an estuarine model applied to Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 17: 403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding LW, Meeson BW and Fisher TR (1986) Phytoplankton production in two cast coast estuaries: photosynthesis-light functions and patterns of carbon assimilation in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Est Coast Shelf Sci 23: 773–806

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heip CHR, Goosen NK, Herman PMJ, Kromkamp J, Middelburg J and Soetaert K (1995) Production and consumption of biological particles in temperate tidal estuaries. Ann Rev Ocean Mar Biol 33: 1–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Héral M (1993) Why carrying capacity models are useful tools for management of bivalveculture. In: Dame RF (ed.) Bivalve Filter Feeders in Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Processes (pp. 455–477). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Héral M, Deslous-Paoli J-M and Prou J (1988) Approche de la capacité trophique d'un écosystème conchylicole. J Cons Int Explor Mer cm 1988/K, 22 pp.

  • Herman PMJ (1993) A set of models to investigate the role of benthic suspension feeders inestuarine ecosystems. In: Dame RF (ed.) Bivalve Filter Feeders in Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Processes (pp. 421–454) Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremer J and Nixon S (1978) A Coastal Marine Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ (1978) Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer D, Watling L and Keck R (1971) The Delaware oyster industry: A reality? Trans Am Fish Soc 100: 101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro E, Iglesias JIP, Perez Camacho A, Labarta U and Beiras R (1991) The physiological energetics of mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialias) from different cultivation rafts in Ria de Arosa (Galicia, N.W. Spain). Aquaculture 94: 177–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell RIE (1988) Ecological changes in Chesapeake Bay: Are they the result of overharvesting the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica? In: Lynch, MP and Krome EC (eds.), Understanding the Estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research (pp. 536–546). Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomon's, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols FH and Pamatmat M (1988) The ecology of the soft-bottom benthos of San Francisco Bay: a community profile. USF & WS Biol. Rep. 85 (7.19)

  • Nienhuis PH and Smaal AC (1994) The Oosterschelde Estuary: A Case Study of a Changing Ecosystem (Reprinted from Hydrobiogia 282/283), Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP (1983) Basic Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Officer CB, Smayda TJ and Mann R (1982) Benthic filter feeding: a natural eutrophication control. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 9: 203–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez Camacho A, Gonzalez R and Fuentes J (1991) Mussel culture in Galicia (N.W. Spain). Aquaculture 92: 263–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilson MQ (1985) On the residence time of water in Narragansett Bay, Estuaries 8: 2–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reise K (1985) Tidal Flat Ecology — An Experimental Approach to Species Interactions. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Raillard O, Deslous-Paoli J-M, Héral M and Razet D (1993) Modelling growth and feeding of the Japanese oyster Crassostrea gigas in Marennes-Oléron Bay (France). Oceanol Acta 16: 73–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Selner KG, Zingmark RG and Miller TG (1976) Interpretations of the 14C method of measuring the total annual production of phytoplankton in a South Carolina estuary. Bot Mar 19: 119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smaal AC and Prins TC (1993) The uptake of organic matter and the release of inorganic nutrients by bivalve suspension feeder bed. In: Dame, RF (ed.) Bivalve Filter Feeders in Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Processes (pp. 273–298). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaal AC, Verhagen JHG, Coosen J and Haas HA (1986) Interactions between seston quantity and quality and benthic suspension feeders in the Oosterschelde, The Netherlands, Ophelia 26: 385–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith EM and Kemp WM (1995) Seasonal and regional variations in plankton community production and respiration for Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 116: 217–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenore KR, Boyer LF, Cal RM, Corral J, Garcia-Fernandez C, Gonzalez N, Gonzalez-Gurrianan E., Hanson RB, Iglesias J, Krom M, Lopez-Jamar E, McClain J, Pamatmat MM, Perez A, Rhoads DC, de Santiago G, Tiejen J, Westrich J and Windom HL (1982) Coastal upwelling in the Rias Bajas, NW Spain: contrasting the benthic regimes of the Rias de Arosa and de Muros. J Mar Res 40: 701–772

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JK and Nichols FH (1988) Food availability controls seasonal cycle of growth in Macoma balthica (L.) in San Francisco Bay, California. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 116: 43–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulanowicz RE and Tuttle JH (1992) The trophic consequences of oyster stock rehabilitation in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15: 257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, 29528, USA

    Richard F. Dame & Theo C. Prins

  2. Centre for Estuarine and Coastal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, P.O. Box 140, 4401 AC, Yerseke, The Netherlands

    Theo C. Prins

Authors
  1. Richard F. Dame
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theo C. Prins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dame, R.F., Prins, T.C. Bivalve carrying capacity in coastal ecosystems. Aquatic Ecology 31, 409–421 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009997011583

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009997011583

Search

Navigation