Advertisement

A Set of Models to Investigate the Role of Benthic Suspension Feeders in Estuarine Ecosystems

  • Peter M. J. Herman
Part of the Nato ASI Series book series (volume 33)

Abstract

Benthic suspension feeders are an important component of estuarine ecosystems. They often represent a considerable biomass, and their filtration activities can be the key mortality factor for the phytoplankton. It is not unusual that the daily filtration capacity of the suspension feeders is in the order one fifth to one third of the total system water volume, thus imposing on the phytoplankton a mortality rate in the order of 0.20 to 0.33 d-1 (Dame et al 1991; Smaal 1991; Hily 1991). Coupled to this high grazing rate is the importance of the suspension feeders for nutrient recycling and for sedimentation/resuspension of particulate matter. Based on the relatively low mortality rates of benthic suspension feeders, it has been argued that their role in energy transfer pathways is minor, compared with their role in element cycling in the ecosystem (Kautsky and Evans 1987).

Keywords

Clearance Rate Nominal Model Nutrient Limitation Mytilus Edulis Suspension Feeder 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asmus H Asmus RM (1990) Trophic relationships in tidal flat areas: to what extent are tidal flats dependent on imported food? Neth J Sea Res 27:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacher C (1989) Capacité trophique du bassin de Marennes-Oléron: couplage d’un modèle de transport particulaire et d’un modèele de croissance de l’huître Crassostrea gigas. Aquat Living Resour 2:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacher C (1991) Etude de l’impact du stock d’huîtres et des mollusques compétiteurs sur le performances de croissance de Crassostrea gigas à l’aide d’un modèle de croissance. ICES mar Sci Symp 192:41–47Google Scholar
  4. Bacher Héral M. Deslous-Paoli JM Razet D (1991) Modèle énergétique uniboite de la croissance des huîtres (Crassostrea gigas) dans le bassin de Marennes-Oléron. Can J Fish aq Sci 48:391–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baretta J Ruardij P (1988) Tidal flat estuaries. Simulation and analysis of the Ems estuary. Springer-Verlag BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayne BL (1976) Marine mussels — their ecology and physiology. International Biological Programme 10Google Scholar
  7. Burris JE (1980) Respiration and photorespiration in marine algae. In: Falkowsky PG (ed) Primary productivity in the sea. Plenum Press New York: 411–432Google Scholar
  8. Cranford PJ Grant J (1990) Particle clearance and absorption of phytoplankton and detritus by the sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin). J exp mar Biol Ecol 137:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crosby MP Langdon CJ Newell RIE (1989) Importance of refractory plant material to the carbon budget of the oyster Crassostrea virginica. Mar Biol 100:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dame R Dankers N Prins T Jongsma H Smaal A (1991) The influence of mussel beds on nutrients in the Western Wadden Sea and Eastern Scheldt estuaries. Estuaries 14:130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DiToro DM (1980) Application of cellular equilibrium and Monod theory to phytoplankton growth dynamics. Ecol Modell 8:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eilers PHC Peeters JCH (1988) A model for the relationship between light intensity and the rate of photosynthesis in phytoplankton. Ecol Modell 42:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fréchette M Grant J (1991) An in situ estimation of the effect of wind-driven resuspension on the growth of Mytilus edulis. J exp mar Biol Ecol 148:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fréchette M Butman CA Geyer WR (1989) The importance of boundary-layers flows in supplying phytoplankton to the benthic suspension feeder, Mytilus edulis L. Limnol Oceanogr 34: 19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herman PMJ Scholten H (1990) Can suspension-feeders stabilise estuarine ecosystems? In: M Barnes and RN Gibson (eds) Trophic relationships in the marine environment. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen pp 104–116Google Scholar
  16. Hily C (1991) Is the activity of benthic suspension feeders a factor controlling water quality in the Bay of Brest? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 69: 179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoop BJ de Herman PMJ Scholten H Soetaert K (1992) SENECA 1.5. A simulation environment for ecological applications. User Manual. Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Centre for Estuarine and Coastal Ecology. YersekeGoogle Scholar
  18. Jørgensen CB Larsen PS Riisgård HU (1990) Effects of temperature on the mussel pump. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 64: 89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kautsky N Evans S (1987) Role of biodeposition by Mytilus edulis in the circulation of matter and nutrients in a Baltic coastal ecosystem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 38: 201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiørboe R Møhlenberg F (1981) Particle selection in suspension-feeding bivalves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 5:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klepper O (1989) A model of carbon flows in relation to macrobenthic food supply in the Oosterschelde estuary (S.W. Netherlands). Ph D thesis, University of Wageningen, Wageningen, 1–270Google Scholar
  22. Klepper Peeters JCH van de Kamer JPG Eilers P (1988) The calculation of primary production in an estuary. A model that incorporates the dynamic response of algae, vertical mixing and basin morphology. in: Marani A (ed): Advances in environmental modelling, Elsevier: 373–394Google Scholar
  23. Klepper van der Tol MWM Scholten H Herman PMJ (in press) SMOES, a simulation model for the Oosterschelde ecosystem. Part I: description and uncertainty analysis. HydrobiologiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Kremer JN Nixon SW (1978) A coastal marine ecosystem — simulation and analysis. Springer Verlag, Berlin 271 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Møhlenberg F Riisgård HW (1979) Filtration rate, using a new indirect technique, in thirteen species of suspension feeding bivalves. Mar Biol 54:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monismith SG Koseff JR Thompson JK O’Riordan CA Nepf HM (1990) A study of model bivalve siphonal currents. Limnol Oceanogr 35:680–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Officer CB Smayda TJ Mann R (1982) Benthic filter feeding: a natural eutrophication control. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 9: 203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Press WH Flannery BP Teukolsky SA Vetterling WT (1987) Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodhouse PG Roden CM (1987) Carbon budget for a coastal inlet in relation to intensive cultivation of suspensionfeeding bivalve molluscs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 36:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smaal AC van Stralen MR (1990) Average annual growth and condition of mussels as a function of food source. Hydrobiologia 195:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomann RV Mueller JA (1987) Principles of surface water quality modelling and control. New York, Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson RJ (1984) The reproductive cycle and physiological ecology of the mussel Mytilus edulis in a subarctic, nonestuarine environment. Mar Biol 79:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smaal AC (1991) the ecology and cultivation of mussels: new advances. Aquaculture 94:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. de Vries I Hopstaken F Goossens H de Vries M de Vries H Heringa J (1988) GREWAQ: an ecological model for Lake Grevelingen. Rijkswaterstaat, Tidal Water Division report T 0215-03Google Scholar
  35. Williams P 1982 Detritus utilization by Mytilus edulis Estuar. Coastal Shelf Sci 12: 739–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter M. J. Herman
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Estuarine and Coastal EcologyNetherlands Institute of EcologyYersekeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations