Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:22:53.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Reduced Salinity on the Shell Growth of Small Mytilus Edulis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Patricia C. Almada-Villela
Patricia C. Almada-Villela
Affiliation:
N.E.R.C. Unit of Marine Invertebrate Biology, Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Gwynedd, LL EH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The shell growth of small coastal Mytilus edulis L. was measured at three different constant low salinities over short periods of time. Growth was significantly depressed in 6·4 and 16‰ S but not in 22·4‰ S. Fluctuating salinities between 0 and 32‰ S depressed growth whether the fluctuations were of sinusoidal or abrupt form. After 1 week of preconditioning to constant 32‰ S the growth of coastal (Bangor) mussels was better than estuarine (Conwy) mussels. However, after two weeks’ preconditioning to 32‰ S the estuarine mussels displayed the best growth. In the fluctuating regime, both coastal and estuarine mussels exhibited poor growth rates. The long-term response of the shell growth of coastal M. edulis was followed over a period of 44 days. Salinities in the range 1·8–9·6‰ S were lethal to the mussels within 10 days. In 12·8 and 16‰ S growth was initially delayed but recovered eventually. There was a gradual decline in the growth rate of the mussels exposed to the higher salinities (19·2–32‰) and an improvement in the growth of the mussels living in lower salinities (12·8 and 16‰) to levels nearly matching that of the high salinity animals by day 37. This suggests that acclimation of the shell growth of M. edulis to salinities in the 12·8–28·8‰ S range was achieved by the mussels during the experimental period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , February 1984 , pp. 171 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1984

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

Almada-Villela, P. C. 1980. Growth and Behavioural Responses of Small Mytilus edulis L. and Pecten maximus L. to Various Current Velocities. M.Sc. Dissertation, University College of North Wales.Google Scholar
Almada-Villela, P. C.Davenport, J. & Gruffydd, Ll. D. 1982. The effects of temperature on the shell growth of young Mytilus edulis L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 59, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayne, B. L., 1965. Growth and the delay of metamorphosis of the larvae of Mytilus edulis L. Ophelia, 2, 4–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belding, D. L. 1931. The quahog fishery of Massachusetts. Marine Fisheries Series. Division of Fisheries and Game, Massachusetts Department of Conservation, no. 2, 41 pp.Google Scholar
Castagna, M. & Chanley, P. 1973. Salinity tolerance limits of some species of pelecypods from Virginia. Malacologia, 12, 47–96.Google Scholar
Cawthorne, D. F. 1979. A comparative study of the closure responses of some cirripede species exposed to falling seawater concentrations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 59, 811–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanley, P. E. 1958. Survival of some juvenile bivalves in water of low salinity. Proceedings, National Shellfisheries Association, 48, 52–65.Google Scholar
Davenport, J. 1979. The isolation response of mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) exposed to falling sea-water concentrations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 59, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, J. 1982. Environmental simulation experiments upon marine and estuarine animals. Advances in Marine Biology, 19, 133–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, J.Gruffydd, Ll. D. & Beaumont, A. R. 1975. An apparatus to supply water of fluctuating salinity and its use in a study of the salinity tolerances of larvae of the scallop Pecten maximums L. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 55, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H. C. 1958. Survival and growth of clam and oyster larvae at different salinities. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 114, 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J. H. 1951. The ecology of South African estuaries. 1. A review of estuarine conditions in general. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 33, 53–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruffydd, Ll. D.Huxley, R. & Crisp, D. J. 1984. The reduction in growth of Mytilus edulis in fluctuating salinity regimes measured using laser diffraction patterns and the exaggeration of this effect by using tap water as the diluting medium. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 64 (2). (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrs-Brenko, M. & Calabrese, A. 1969. The combined effects of salinity and temperature on larvae of the mussel Mytilus edulis. Marine Biology, 4, 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, D. J. & Hanley, L. 1977. Genetic aspects of larval growth under reduced salinity in Mytilus edulis. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 153, 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinne, o. 1971. Salinity: animals; invertebrates. In Marine Ecology, vol. 1 (2) (ed. o. Kinne,) pp. 821–995. Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Lassig, J. 1965. The distribution of marine and brackish water lamellibranchs in the northern Baltic Sea. Commentationes biologicae, 28 (5), 41 pp.Google Scholar
Malone, P. G. & Dodd, J. R. 1967. Temperature and salinity effects on calcification rate in Mytilus edulis and its paleoecological implications. Limnology and Oceanography, 12, 432–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, A. 1940. The ecology of the Tamar Estuary. IV. The distribution of the fauna and flora on buoys. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 24, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, D. M. & Campbell, D. A. 1956. Environmental factors affecting growth in Venus mercenaria. Limnology and Oceanography, 1, 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remane, A. & Schlieper, C. 1971. Biology of Brackish Water. 372 pp. Stuttgart: Schweizerart.Google Scholar
Schiliepep, C. 1957. Comparative study of Asterias rubens and Mytilus edulis from the North Sea (30 per 1000 S) and the western Baltic Sea (15 per 1000 S). Année biologique, 33, 119–127.Google Scholar
Seed, R. 1976. Ecology. In Marine Mussels: Their Ecology and Physiology (ed. B. L. Bayne,) pp. 13–65. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shumway, S. E. 1977. The effects of fluctuating salinity on the osmotic pressure and Na, Ca and Mg concentrations in the haemolymph of bivalves. Marine Biology, 41, 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. & Cochran, W. G. 1976. Statistical Methods, 6th ed. 593 pp. Iowa University Press.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, xxi, 776 pp. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D. 1981a. The kinetics of growth control in a colonial hydroid. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 61, 35–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D. 1981b. The effects of reduced salinity on colonial growth and membership in a hydroid. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 55, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar