Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-956mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T17:23:57.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Distribution of Nucula Turgida (Bivalvia: Protobranchia) From Dublin Bay, Ireland, and the Effect of Sediment Organic Content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

James G. Wilson  and
Colin Shelley
James G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Colin Shelley
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent investigations (Walker & Rees, 1980; Davis & Wilson, 1983b) have shown that the protobranch bivalve Nucula turgida (Leckenby and Marshall) occupies an important niche in the ecology of Dublin Bay, where it is the dominant organism over much of the southern part of the outer bay. This is an area of moderately sorted fine sand (Harris, 1980) with a pelite (silt and clay) fraction of less than 10% and a consequently low percentage of organic matter of around 1% (Davis & Wilson, 1983 b). Trevallion (1965) described the N. turgida habitat as one of firm muddy sand, adding that the animals avoided mud due to their inability to maintain position or feeding and respiratory currents and also avoided gravel due to their inability to burrow in coarse substrates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 119 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chisara, P. K., 1981. Production of Some Macrobenthos in Red Wharf Bay. M.Sc. Thesis, University College of North Wales, Bangor.Google Scholar
Clark, P. J. & Evans, P. C., 1954. Distance to nearest neighbour as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology, 35 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. B. & Milne, A., 1955. The sublittoral fauna of two sandy bays on the Isle of Cumbrae, Firth of Clyde. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 34 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. P. & Wilson, J. G., 1983 a. Seasonal changes in tissue weight and biochemical composition of the bivalve Nucula turgida in Dublin Bay with reference to gametogenesis. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 17, 84—95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. P. & Wilson, J. G., 1983 b. The population structure and ecology of Nucula turgida (Leckenby and Marshall) in Dublin Bay. Progress in Underwater Science, 8 53–60.Google Scholar
Deans, E. A., Anderson, J. G. & Meadows, P. S., 1977. Responses ofabenthic marine invertebrate to γ-irradiated sediment. Nature, London, 270 595–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabrikant, R., 1984. The effect of sewage effluent on the population density and size of the clam Parvilucina tenuisculpta. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 15 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, W. H., 1968. Distribution and dispersion patterns of the dwarf tellin clam, Tellina agilis. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 135 419–420.Google Scholar
Gray, J. S., 1981. The Ecology of Marine Sediments. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, C. R., 1980. Recent sediment distribution in Dublin Bay and its approaches. Journal of Earth Sciences, Royal Dublin Society, 3 41–52.Google Scholar
Holme, N. A., 1950. Population-dispersion in Tellina tenuis da Costa. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 29 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holme, N. A., 1961. The bottom fauna of the English Channel. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 41 397–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holme, N. A., 1966. The bottom fauna of the English Channel. Part II. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 46 401–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinton, J., 1972. Spatial distribution of Nucula proxima Say (Protobranchia): an experimental approach. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 143 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longbottom, M. R., 1970. The distribution of Arenicola marina L. with particular reference to the effects of particle size and organic matter in sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 5 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, P. S., 1964. Experiments on substrate selection by Corophium species: films and bacteria on sand particles. Journal of Experimental Biology, 41 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, P. S. & Campbell, J. I., 1972. Habitat selection by aquatic invertebrates. Advances in Marine Biology, 10 271–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, P. S. & Mitchell, K. A., 1973. An analysis of inter- and intraspecific aggregations in two sympatric species of hermit crab (Decapoda, Anomura, Paguridae). Marine Behaviour and Physiology, 2 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, P. S. & Williams, G. B., 1963. Settlement of Spirorbis borealis Daudin larvae on surfaces bearing films of micro-organisms. Nature, London, 198 610–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, R. C., 1965. The role of detritus in the nutrition of two marine deposit-feeders, the prosobranch Hydrobia ulvae and the bivalve Macoma balthica. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 144 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, T. H. & Rosenberg, R., 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology, an Annual Review, 16 229–311.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C., 1969. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. New York: Wiley Intersience.Google Scholar
Probert, P. K., 1975. The bottom fauna of china clay waste deposit in Mevagissey Bay. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 55 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachor, E., 1976. Structure, dynamics and productivity of a population of Nucula nitidosa (Bivalvia, Protobranchia) in the German Bight. Berichte der Deutschen wissenschaftlichen Kommission für Meeresforschung, 24 296–331.Google Scholar
Rhoads, D. C. & Young, D. K., 1970. The influence of deposit-feeding organisms on sediment stability and community trophic structure. Journal of Marine Research, 28 150–178.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. L., 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzard's Bay. 1. Animal-sediment relationships. Limnology and Oceanography, 3 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slegel, S., 1956. Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill, Kogakusha.Google Scholar
Tebble, N., 1966. British Bivalve Seashells. London: Trustees of the British Museum.Google Scholar
Tenore, K. R., 1977. Growth of Capitella capitata cultured on various levels of detritus derived from different sources. Limnology and Oceanography, 22 936–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorson, G., 1946. Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates. Meddelelser fra Kommissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri- og Havundersegelser (ser. Plankton), 4, 523Google Scholar
Trevallion, A. C. 1965. A Study of Detritus Feeding Bivalves. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Walker, A. J. M. & Rees, E. I. S., 1980. Benthic ecology of Dublin Bay in relation to sludge dumping: fauna. Irish Fisheries Investigations (B), no. 22, 59 pp.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. G., 1976. Dispersion of Tellina tenuis from Kames Bay, Millport, Scotland. Marine Biology, 37 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. G., 1977. The distribution of two closely related species of Tellina (T. tenuis da Costa and T. fabula Gmelin). Progress in Underwater Science, 2 35–45.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. G. & Davis, J. P., 1985. The energy budget and population structure of Nucula turgida (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Journal of Animal Ecology, 54 557–572.Google Scholar
Yonge, C. M., 1939. The protobranchiate Mollusca: a functional interpretation of their structure and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B), 330 79–147.Google Scholar