Advertisement

Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 349–359 | Cite as

A review of the feedbacks between bivalve grazing and ecosystem processes

  • Theo C. Prins
  • Aad C. Smaal
  • Richard F. Dame
Article

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of interactions betweenbivalve grazing and ecosystem processes, that mayaffect the carrying capacity of ecosystems for bivalvesuspension feeders. These interactions consist of anumber of positive and negative feedbacks.Bivalve grazing can result in local food depletion,which may negatively influence bivalve growth. On alarger scale, it may induce a top-down control ofphytoplankton biomasss, and structural shifts inphytoplankton composition. In the case of harmfulalgal blooms, phytoplankton may negatively affectbivalve grazing rates.The processing of large amounts of particulate mattermay change nutrient cycling on the scale of estuaries,and can result in changes in the inorganic nutrientpool available for phytoplankton, through regenerationand reduced storage of nutrients in algal biomass.This can reduce nutrient limitation of thephytoplankton and stimulate algal growth rates.Observations from mesocosm studies suggest that apositive feedback from bivalve grazing onphytoplankton growth may also change the physiologicalstate of the algae and improve food quality.

suspension-feeding bivalves phytoplankton nutrient cycling primary production carrying capacity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asmus, H, Asmus R and Reise K (1990) Exchange processes in an intertidal mussel bed: a Sylt-flume study in the Wadden Sea. Ber Biol Anst Helgoland 6: 1–79Google Scholar
  2. Asmus H, Asmus RM and Francés Zubillaga G (1995) Do mussel beds intensify the phosphorus exchange between sediment and tidal waters? Ophelia 41: 37–55Google Scholar
  3. Asmus RM and Asmus H (1991) Mussel beds: limiting or promoting phytoplankton? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 148: 215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudinet D, Alliot E, Berland B, Grenz C, Plante-Cuny M-R, Plante R and Salen-Picard C (1990) Incidence of mussel culture on biogeochemical fluxes at the sediment-water interface. Hydrobiologia 207: 187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg JA and Newell RIE (1986) Temporal and spatial variations in the composition of seston available to the suspension feeder Crassostrea virginica. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 23: 375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beukema JJ and Cadée GC (1986) Zoobenthos response to eutrophication of the Dutch Wadden Sea. Ophelia 26: 55–64Google Scholar
  7. Beukema JJ and Cadée GC (1991) Growth rates of the bivalve Macoma balthica in the Wadden Sea during a period of eutrophication: relationships with concentrations of pelagic diatoms and flagellates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 68: 249–256Google Scholar
  8. Blanton JO, Tenore KR, Castillejo F, Atkinson LP, Schwing FB and Lavin A (1987) The relationship of upwelling to mussel production in the rias on the western coast of Spain. J Mar Res 45: 497–511Google Scholar
  9. Burkholder JM, Glasgow HB Jr. and Hobbs CW (1995) Fish kills linked to a toxic ambush-predator dinoflagellate: distribution and environmental conditions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 124: 43–61Google Scholar
  10. Butman CA, Fréchette M, Geyer WR and Starczak VR (1994) Flume experiments on food supply to the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. as a function of boundary layer flow. Limnol Oceanogr 39: 1755–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cadée GC and Hegeman J (1974) Primary production of phytoplankton in the Wadden Sea. Neth J Sea Res 8: 240–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cloern JE (1982) Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in South San Francisco Bay? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 9: 191–202Google Scholar
  13. Dame RF (1993) Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine and coastal ecosystem processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 579 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Dame RF (1996) Ecology of marine bivalves: an ecosystem approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 254 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Dame RF and Libes S (1993) Oyster reefs and nutrient retention in tidal creeks. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 171: 251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dame RF and Prins TC (1998) Bivalve carrying capacity in coastal ecosystems. Aquat Ecol 31: 409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dame RF, Zingmark RG and Haskin E (1984) Oyster reefs as processors of estuarine materials. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 83: 239–247Google Scholar
  18. Dame RF, Spurrier JD and Wolaver TG (1989) Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus processing by an oyster reef. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 54: 249–256Google Scholar
  19. 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: 153–166Google Scholar
  20. Doering PH, Oviatt CA and Kelly JR (1986). The effects of the filter-feeding clam Mercenaria mercenaria on carbon cycling in experimental marine mesocosms. J Mar Res 44: 839–861Google Scholar
  21. Fegley SR, MacDonald BA and Jacobsen TR (1992) Short-term variation in the quantity and quality of seston available to benthic suspension feeders. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 34: 393–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fréchette M, and Bourget E (1985a) Energy flow between the pelagic and benthic zones: factors controlling particulate organic matter available to an intertidal mussel bed. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42: 1158–1165Google Scholar
  23. Fréchette M. and Bourget E (1985b) Food-limited growth of Mytilus edulis L. in relation to the benthic boundary layer. Can. J Fish Aquat Sci 42: 1166–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fréchette, M. and Grant J (1991) An in situ estimation of the effect of wind-driven resuspension on the growth of the mussel Mytilus edulis L. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 148: 201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fréchette M, Butman CA and Geyer WR (1989) The importance of boundary-layer flows in supplying phytoplankton to the benthic suspension feeder, Mytilus edulis L. Limnol Oceanogr 34: 19–36Google Scholar
  26. Fréchette M, Lefaivre D and Butman CA (1993) Bivalve feeding and the benthic boundary layer. In: Dame RF (ed.), Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine and coastal ecosystem processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 325–370Google Scholar
  27. Furnas, MJ (1990) In situ growth rates of marine phytoplankton: approaches to measurement, community and species growth rates. J Plankton Res 12: 1117–1151Google Scholar
  28. Granéli E, Olsson P, Carlsson P, Granéli W and Nylander C (1993). Weak ‘top-down’ control of dinoflagelate growth in the coastal Skagerrak. J Plankton Res 15: 213–237Google Scholar
  29. Grant J (1996) The relationship of bioenergetics and the environment to the field growth of cultured bivalves. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 200: 239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grant J. and Cranford PJ (1991) Carbon and nitrogen scope for growth as a function of diet in the sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus. J Mar Biol Ass UK 71: 437–450Google Scholar
  31. Grant J, Enright CT and Griswold A (1990) Resuspension and growth of Ostrea edulis: a field experiment. Mar Biol 104: 51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grant J, Dowd M, Thompson K, Emerson C and Hatcher A (1993) Perspectives on field studies and related biological models of bivalve growth and carrying capacity. In: Dame RF (ed.), Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine and coastal ecosystem processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 371–420Google Scholar
  33. Grant J, Hatcher A, Scott DB, Pocklington P, Schafer CT and Winters GV (1995) A multidisciplinary approach to evaluating impacts of shellfish aquaculture on benthic communities. Estuaries 18: 124–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Herman PMJ (1993) A set of models to investigate the role of benthic suspension feeders in estuarine ecosystems. In: Dame RF (ed.), Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine and coastal ecosystem processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 421–454.Google Scholar
  35. Herman PMJ and Scholten H (1990) Can suspension-feeders stabilize estuarine ecosystems? In: Barnes M and Gibson R (eds.), Trophic relationships in the marine environment. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen, pp. 104–116Google Scholar
  36. Horsted SJ, Nielsen TG, Riemann B, Pock-Steen J and Bjørnsen PK (1988) Regulation of zooplankton by suspension-feeding bivalves and fish in estuarine enclosures. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 48: 217–224Google Scholar
  37. Kamermans P (1994) Nutritional value of solitary cells and colonies of Phaeocystis sp. for the bivalve Macoma balthica (L). Ophelia 39: 35–44Google Scholar
  38. Kaspar HF, Gillespie PA, Boyer IC and McKenzie AL (1985) Effects of mussel aquaculture on the nitrogen cycle and benthic communities in Kenepuru Sound, Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. Mar Biol 85: 127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kimmerer WJ, Gartside E and Orsi JJ (1994) Predation by an introduced clam as the likely cause of substantial declines in zooplankton of San Francisco Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 113: 81–93Google Scholar
  40. Klepper O, Van der Tol MWM, Scholten H and Herman PMJ (1994) SMOES: a simulation model for the Oosterschelde ecosystem. I. Description and uncertainty analysis. Hydrobiologia 282/283: 437–451Google Scholar
  41. Lesser MP and Shumway SE (1993) Effects of toxic dinoflagellates on clearance rates and survival in juvenile bivalve molluscs. J Shellfish Res 12: 377–381Google Scholar
  42. Luckenbach MW, Sellner KG, Shumway SE and Greene K (1993) Effects of 2 bloom-forming dinoflagellates, Prorocentrum minimum and Gyrodinium uncatenum, on the growth and survival of the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin 1791). J Shellfish Res 12: 411–415Google Scholar
  43. Mazumder A and Lean DRS (1994) Consumer-dependent responses of lake ecosystems to nutrient loading. J Plankton Res 16: 1567–1580Google Scholar
  44. McNaughton SJ (1979) Grazing as an optimization process: grass-ungulate relationships in the Serengeti. Amer Nat 113: 691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Navarro E, Iglesias JIP, Perez Camacho A, Labarta U and Beiras R (1991) The physiological energetics of mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk) from different cultivation rafts in the Ria de Arosa (Galicia, N.W. Spain). Aquaculture 94: 197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newell CR (1990) The effects of mussel (Mytilus edulis, Linnaeus, 1758) position in seeded bottom patches on growth at subtidal lease sites in Maine. J Shellfish Res 9: 113–118Google Scholar
  47. 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. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomon, pp. 536–546Google Scholar
  48. Nienhuis PH and Smaal AC (1994) The Oosterschelde estuary (The Netherlands). A case-study of a changing ecosystem. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 597 pp.Google Scholar
  49. Officer CB, Smayda TJ and Mann R (1982) Benthic filter feeding: a natural eutrophication control. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 9: 203–210Google Scholar
  50. Olsson P, Granéli E, Carlsson P and Abreu P (1992) Structuring of a postspring phytoplankton community by manipulation of trophic interactions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 158: 249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pieters H, Kluytmans JH, Zandee DI and Cadée GC (1980) Tissue composition and reproduction of Mytilus edulis in relation to food availability. Neth J Sea Res 14: 349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prins TC (1996) Bivalve grazing, nutrient cycling and phytoplankton dynamics in an estuarine ecosystem. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wageningen, 151 pp.Google Scholar
  53. Prins TC and Smaal AC (1994) The role of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis in the cycling of nutrients in the Oosterschelde estuary (The Netherlands). Hydrobiologia 282/283: 413–429Google Scholar
  54. Prins TC, Dankers N and Smaal AC (1994) Seasonal variation in the filtration rates of a semi-natural mussel bed in relation to seston composition. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 176: 69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prins TC, Escaravage V, Smaal AC and Peeters JCH (1995a) Functional and structural changes in the pelagic system induced by bivalve grazing in marine mesocosms. Wat Sci Tech 32: 183–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prins TC, Escaravage V, Smaal AC and Peeters JCH (1995b) Nutrient cycling and phytoplankton dynamics in relation to mussel grazing in a mesocosm experiment. Ophelia 41: 289–315Google Scholar
  57. Prins TC, Smaal AC, Dankers N and Pouwer AJ (1996) Filtration and resuspension of particulate matter and phytoplankton on an intertidal mussel bed in the Oosterschelde estuary (SW Netherlands). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 142: 121–134Google Scholar
  58. Riemann B, Nielsen TG, Horsted SJ, Bjørnsen PK and Pock-Steen J (1988) Regulation of phytoplankton biomass in estuarine enclosures. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 48: 205–215Google Scholar
  59. Smaal AC and Haas HA (1997) Seston dynamics and food availability on mussel and cockle beds. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, in press.Google Scholar
  60. Smaal AC and Nienhuis PH (1992) The Eastern Scheldt (The Netherlands), from an estuary to a tidal bay — A review of responses at the ecosystem level. Neth J Sea Res 30: 161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smaal AC and Prins TC (1993) The uptake of organic matter and the release of inorganic nutrients by bivalve suspension feeder beds. In: Dame RF (ed.), Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine and coastal ecosystem processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 271–298Google Scholar
  62. Smaal AC and Twisk F (1997) Filtration and absorption of Phaeocystis cf globosa by the mussel Mytilus edulis L. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 209: 33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smaal AC and Van Stralen M (1990) Average annual growth and condition of mussels as a function of food source. Hydrobiologia 195: 179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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: 385–399Google Scholar
  65. Smayda TJ (1990) Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea: Evidence for a global epidemic. In: Granéli E, Sundstrom B, Edler L and Anderson DM (eds.), Toxic marine phytoplankton. Elsevier, New York, pp. 29–40Google Scholar
  66. Sommer U (1992) Phosphorus-limited Daphnia: Intraspecific facilitation instead of competition. Limnol Oceanogr 37: 966–973Google Scholar
  67. Sterner RW (1986) Herbivores' direct and indirect effects on algal populations. Science 231: 605–607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sterner RW and Hessen DO (1994) Algal nutrient limitation and the nutrition of aquatic herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25: 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sterner RW, Hagemeier DD, Smith WL and Smith RF (1993) Phytoplankton nutrient limitation and food quality for Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 38: 857–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Takeda S and Kurihara Y (1994) Preliminary study of management of red tide water by the filter feeder Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis Mar Poll Bull 28: 662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tracey GA (1988) Feeding reduction, reproductive failure, and mortality in Mytilus edulis during the 1985 ‘brown tide’ in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 50: 73–81Google Scholar
  72. Ulanowicz RE and Tuttle JH (1992) The trophic consequences of oyster stock rehabilitation in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 15: 298–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Widdows J, Moore MN, Lowe DM and Salkeld PN (1979) Some effects of a dinoflagellate bloom (Gyrodinium aureolum) on the mussel, Mytilus edulis. J Mar Biol Ass UK 59: 522–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wildish DJ and Kristmanson DD (1984) Importance to mussels of the benthic boundary layer. Can J Fish aquat Sci 41: 1618–1625Google Scholar
  75. Wildish DJ and DD Kristmanson, 1993. Hydrodynamic control of bivalve filter feeders: a conceptual view. In: Dame RF (ed.), Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine and coastal ecosystem processes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 299–324Google Scholar
  76. Wilkinson L (1992) Systat for Windows. Systat, Inc., Evanston, Il.Google Scholar
  77. Willows RI (1992) Optimal digestive investment: A model for filter feeders experiencing variable diets. Limnol Oceanogr 37: 829–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theo C. Prins
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aad C. Smaal
    • 3
  • Richard F. Dame
    • 2
  1. 1.Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Centre for Estuarine and Coastal EcologyYersekeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Marine Science DepartmentCoastal Carolina UniversityConwayUSA
  3. 3.National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management/RIKZMiddelburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations