Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 445, Issue 1–3, pp 109–119 | Cite as

Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) glochidiosis in wild and farmed salmonid stocks in Scotland

  • Lee C. Hastie
  • Mark R. Young
Article

Abstract

Samples of salmonids were taken from six Scottish rivers and examined for freshwater mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera (L.)) glochidiosis. The prevalence and magnitude of natural infections observed were comparable to those reported elsewhere. In most rivers, older fish seem to be less susceptible than 0+ fish, possibly due to an acquired immunity resulting from previous exposures. Initial infection loads may be greater on older fish due to greater ventilation rates and/or gill surface areas. However, this host size effect appears to be transitory. In a stock of farmed 0+ salmon, an entire parasitic stage was monitored. This took up to 11 months and only 5–10% of the initially attached glochidia managed to metamorphose and excyst as juvenile mussels. There are apparent differences in host utilisation between salmon and trout in certain rivers. Some trout stocks appear to be under-utilised by M. margaritifera, possibly due to differences in behaviour and/or spawning site. 0+ salmon are the most important hosts in several rivers. However, there are a number of mussel populations located in small streams which have no salmon, and these are entirely trout-dependent. This may be important in terms of conservation, with regard to the recent collapse of migratory trout stocks in Scotland.

salmon trout glochidia infection conservation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arey, L. B., 1932. The formation and structure of the glochidial cyst. Bull. Mar. Biol. Lab. Woods Hole 62: 212–221.Google Scholar
  2. Awakura, T., 1968. The ecology of parasitic glochidia of the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera laevis (Haas). Sci. Rep. Hokkaido Fish Hatch. No. 23.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, G., 1979. Untersuchungen zur Fortpflanzungsbiologie der Flubperlmuschel im Fichtelgebirge. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 85: 152–165.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, G., 1987a. The parasitic stage of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) III. Host relationships. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 76: 413–423.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, G., 1987b. The parasitic stage of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) II. Susceptibility of brown trout. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 76: 403–412.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, G., 1987c. Reproductive strategy of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. J. anim. Ecol. 56: 691–704.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, G., 1988. Threats to the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera in central Europe. Biol. Conserv. 45: 239–253.Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, G., 1992. Variation in the life span and size of the freshwater pearl mussel. J. anim. Ecol. 61: 425–436.Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, G. & C. Vogel, 1987. The parasitic stage of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) I. Host response to glochidiosis. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 76: 393–402.Google Scholar
  10. Bauer, G., S. Hochwald & W. Silkenat, 1991. Spatial distribution of freshwater mussels: the role of host fish and metabolic rate. Freshwat. Biol. 26: 377–386.Google Scholar
  11. Beasley, C. R., 1996. The distribution and ecology of the freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera L. 1758, in County Donegal, Ireland and implications for its conservation. Unpubl. PhD Thesis, Queen's University of Belfast.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, J., 1998. Wester Ross Fisheries Trust (WRFT): Annual Review 1997. Wester Ross Fisheries Trust, Inverness: 54 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Chesney, H. C. G. & P. G. Oliver, 1998. Conservation issues for Margaritiferidae in the British Isles and western Europe. In Killeen, I. J. & A. M. Holmes (eds), Molluscan Conservation. A Strategy for the 21st Century. Journal of Conchology Special Publication No 2: 231–242.Google Scholar
  14. Cosgrove, P. J., M. R. Young, L. C. Hastie, M. Gaywood & P. J. Boon, 2000. The status of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) in Scotland. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 10: 197–208.Google Scholar
  15. Cunjak, R. A. & S. E. McGladdery, 1991. The parasite-host relationship of glochidia (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae) on the gills of young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can. J. Zool. 69: 353–358.Google Scholar
  16. Elliot, J. M., 1994. Quantitative Ecology and the Brown Trout. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 286 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Fustish, C. A. R. E. & Millemann, 1978. Glochidiosis of salmonid fishes. II. Comparison of tissue response of Coho and Chinook salmon to experimental infection with Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) (Pelecypoda: Margaritiferidae). J. Parasitol. 64: 155–157.Google Scholar
  18. Grundelius, E., 1987. The decline of the freshwater pearl mussel in the province of Dalarna. Information fran sotvattans laboratoriet Drottningholm 4: 1–72.Google Scholar
  19. Hastie, L. C., 1999. Conservation and Ecology of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Unpubl. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  20. Hastie, L. C., M. R. Young, P. J. Boon, P. J. Cosgrove & B. Henninger, 2000a. Sizes, densities and age structures of Scottish Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) populations. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 10: 229–247.Google Scholar
  21. Hastie, L. C., P. J. Boon & M. R. Young, 2000b. Physical microhabitat requirements of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Hydrobiologia 429: 59–71.Google Scholar
  22. Hruska, J., 1992. The freshwater pearl mussel in South Bohemia: evaluation of the effect of temperature on reproduction, growth and age structure of the population. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 126: 181–191.Google Scholar
  23. Karna, D. W. & R. E. Millemann, 1978. Glochidiosis of salmonid fishes. III. Comparative susceptiblity to natural infection with Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) (Pelycypoda: Margaritiferidae) and associated histopathology. J. Parasitol. 64: 528–537.Google Scholar
  24. Lefevre, G. & W. C. Curtis, 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propagation of freshwater mussels. Bull. Bureau Fish. 30: 105–201.Google Scholar
  25. Meyers, T. R. & R. E. Millemann, 1977. Glochidiosis of salmonid fishes. I. Comparative susceptibility to experimental infection with Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) (Pelecypoda: Margaritiferidae). J. Parasitol. 63: 728–733.Google Scholar
  26. Meyers, T. R., R. E. Millemann & C. A. Fustish, 1980. Glochidiosis of salmonid fishes. IV. Humoral and tissue responses of Coho and Chinook salmon to experimental infection with Margaritifera margaritifera (L.) (Pelecypoda: Margaritiferidae). J. Parasitol. 66: 274–281.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, D. G., 1976. Notes on the biology of Margaritifera margaritifera (Lin.) in Central Massachusetts. Am. Midl. Nat. 96: 252–256.Google Scholar
  28. Walker, A. F., 1993. Sea trout and salmon stocks in the Western Highlands. In Problems with Sea Trout and Salmon in the Western Highlands. Atlantic Salmon Trust, Pitlochry: 6–18 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Young, M. R., 1991. Conserving the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in the British Isles and continental Europe. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 1: 73–77.Google Scholar
  30. Young, M. R. & J. C. Williams, 1983. The status and conservation of the freshwater pearl mussel in Great Britain. Biol. Conserv. 25: 35–52.Google Scholar
  31. Young, M. R. & J. C. Williams, 1984a. The reproductive biology of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (Linn.) in Scotland I. Field studies. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 99(4): 405–422.Google Scholar
  32. Young, M. R. & J. C. Williams, 1984b. The reproductive biology of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera (Linn.) in Scotland II. Field studies. Archiv für Hydrobiol. 100: 29–43.Google Scholar
  33. Young, M., J. Purser & B. Al-Mousawi, 1987. Infection and successful reinfection of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta (L.)) with glochidia of Margaritifera margaritifera (L.). Am. Malacological Bull. 5: 125–128.Google Scholar
  34. Ziuganov, V., A. Zotin, L. Nezlin & V. Tretiakov, 1994. The Freshwater PearlMussels and Their Relationships with Salmonid Fish. VNIRO, Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow: 104 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee C. Hastie
    • 1
  • Mark R. Young
    • 2
  1. 1.Culterty Field StationUniversity of AberdeenScotlandU.K.
  2. 2.Culterty Field StationUniversity of AberdeenScotlandU.K

Personalised recommendations