Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:06:38.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecophenotypy, temporal and spatial fidelity, functional morphology, and physiological trade-offs among intertidal bivalves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2018

John Warren Huntley ,
James D. Schiffbauer ,
Teresa D. Avila  and
Jesse S. Broce
John Warren Huntley
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, 101 Geology Building, Columbia, Missouri 65211, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected].
James D. Schiffbauer
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences and X-Ray Microanalysis Core Facility, University of Missouri, 101 Geology Building, Columbia, Missouri 65211, U.S.A.
Teresa D. Avila
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, 101 Geology Building, Columbia, Missouri 65211, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected].
Jesse S. Broce
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Missouri, 101 Geology Building, Columbia, Missouri 65211, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ecophenotypic variation in populations is driven by differences in environmental variables. In marine environments, ecophenotypic variation may be caused by differences in hydrodynamic conditions, substrate type, water depth, temperature, salinity, oxygen concentration, and habitat heterogeneity, among others. Instances of ecophenotypic variation in modern and fossil settings are common, but little is known about the influences of time averaging and spatial averaging on their preservation. Here we examine the shell morphology of two adjacent populations, both live collected and death assemblages, of the infaunal, suspension-feeding, intertidal bivalve Leukoma staminea from the well-studied Argyle Creek and Argyle Lagoon locations on San Juan Island, Washington. Individuals in the low-energy lagoon are free to burrow in the fine-grained substrate, while clams in the high-energy creek are precluded from burrowing in the rocky channel. Our results demonstrate variation in size and shape between the adjacent habitats. Lagoon clams are larger, more disk-shaped, and have relatively larger siphons than their creek counterparts, which are smaller, more spherical in shape, and have a relatively shallower pallial sinus. This ecophenotypy is preserved among death assemblages, although with generally greater variation due to time averaging and shell transport. Our interpretation is that ecophenotypic variation, in this case, is induced by differing hydrodynamic regimes and substrate types, cumulatively resulting in physiological trade-offs diverting resources from feeding and respiration to stability and shell strength, all of which have the potential to be preserved in the fossil record.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 530 - 545
Copyright
© 2018 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved. 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Present address: School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, U.S.A.

References

Literature Cited

Adams, T. L., Strganac, C., Polcyn, M. J., and Jacobs, L. L.. 2010. High resolution three-dimensional laser-scanning of the type specimen of Eubrontes (?) glenrosensis Shuler, 1935, from the Comanchean (Lower Cretaceous) of Texas: implications for digital archiving and preservation. Palaeontologia Electronica 13(3). http://palaeo-electronica.org/2010_3/226/index.html, accessed 7 July 2017.Google Scholar
Ballabeni, P. 1995. Parasite-induced gigantism in a snail: a host adaptation? Functional Ecology 9:887–893.Google Scholar
Berta, A. 1976. An investigation of individual growth and possible age relationships in a population of Protothaca staminea (Mollusca: Pelecypoda). PaleoBios 21:1–26.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D. J. 1980. Branching morphology of the reef coral Acropora cervicornis in different hydraulic regimes. Journal of Paleontology 54:1102–1107.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., Powell, M. G., Arnold, W. S., Bert, T. M., and Daley, G. M.. 2002. Time-averaging, evolution, and morphologic variation. Paleobiology 28:9–25.Google Scholar
Clewing, C., Riedel, F., Wilke, T., and Albrecht, C.. 2015. Ecophenotypic plasticity leads to extraordinary gastropod shells found on the “Roof of the World.”. Ecology and Evolution 5:2966–2979.Google Scholar
Coan, E. V., and Valentich-Scott, P.. 2012. Bivalve seashells of tropical west America. Marine bivalve mollusks from Baja California to northern Peru. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, Calif.Google Scholar
Collins, K. S., and Gazley, M. F.. 2017. Does my posterior look big in this? The effect of photographic distortion on morphometric analyses. Paleobiology 43:508–520.Google Scholar
Daley, G. M. 1999. Environmentally controlled variation in shell size of Ambonychia Hall (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the type Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician). Palaios 14:520–529.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D.. 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologica Electronica 4. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm, accessed 19 March 2015.Google Scholar
Hechinger, R. F., Lafferty, K. D., Mancini, F. T. III, Warner, R. R., and Kuris, A. M.. 2009. How large is the hand in the puppet? Ecological and evolutionary factors affecting body mass of 15 trematode parasitic castrators in their snail host. Evolutionary Ecology 23:651–667.Google Scholar
Huber, M. 2010. Compendium of bivalves. ConchBooks, Hackenheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Hughes, W. W., and Clausen, C. D.. 1980. Variability in the formation and detection of growth increments in bivalve shells. Paleobiology 6:503–511.Google Scholar
Hunt, G. 2004a. Phenotypic variation in fossil samples: modeling the consequences of time-averaging. Paleobiology 30:426–443.Google Scholar
Hunt, G. 2004b. Phenotypic variance inflation in fossil samples: an empirical assessment. Paleobiology 30:487–506.Google Scholar
Huntley, J. W. 2007. Towards establishing a modern baseline for paleopathology: trace-producing parasites in a bivalve host. Journal of Shellfish Research 26:253–259.Google Scholar
Huntley, J. W., and De Baets, K.. 2015. Trace fossil evidence of trematode–bivalve parasite–host interactions in deep time. Advances in Parasitology 90:201–231.Google Scholar
Huntley, J. W., and Scarponi, D.. 2012. Evolutionary and ecological implications of trematode parasitism of modern and fossil northern Adriatic bivalves. Paleobiology 38:40–51.Google Scholar
Kassambara, A. 2017. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ based publication ready plots. R package, Version 0.1.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr, accessed 24 September 2017.Google Scholar
Kassambara, A., and Mundt, F.. 2017. factoextra: extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package, Version 1.0.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra, accessed 9 October 2017.Google Scholar
Kemp, P., and Bertness, M. D.. 1984. Snail shape and growth rates: evidence for plastic shell allometry in Littorina littorea . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:811–813.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Holland, S. M.. 2002. The quality of the fossil record: implications for evolutionary analyses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:561–588.Google Scholar
Kozloff, E. N. 2000. Seashore life of the northern Pacific coast: an illustrated guide to northern California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Wash.Google Scholar
Krause, R. A. Jr. 2004. An assessment of morphological fidelity in the sub-fossil record of a terebratulide brachiopod. Palaios 19:460–476.Google Scholar
Lazo, D. G. 2004. Bivalve taphonomy: testing the effect of life habits on the shell condition of the littleneck clam Protothaca (Protothaca) staminea (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Palaios 19:451–459.Google Scholar
Legendre, P. 2014. lmodel2: model II regression. R package, Version 1.7-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmodel2, accessed 16 August 2017.Google Scholar
Lim, S. S. L., and Green, R. H.. 1991. The relationship between parasite load, crawling behaviour, and growth rate of Macoma balthica (L.) (Mollusca, Pelecypoda) from Hudson Bay, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:2202–2208.Google Scholar
Motani, R. 2005. Detailed tooth morphology in a durophagous ichthyosaur captured by 3D laser scanner. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25:462–465.Google Scholar
Penny, A. M., Wood, R. A., Yu. Zhuravlev, A., Curtis, A., and Bowyer, F.. 2017. Intraspecific variation in an Ediacaran skeletal metazoan: Namacalathus from the Nama Group, Namibia. Geobiology 15:81–93.Google Scholar
Piovesan, E. K., Bergue, C. T., Fauth, G., and Viviers, M. C.. 2015. Palaeoecology of ostracods from the Late Cretaceous from northeastern Brazil and its relation to sequence stratigraphy. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 424:40–48.Google Scholar
Platt, B. F., Hasiotis, S. T., and Hirmas, D. R.. 2010. Use of low-cost multistripe laser triangulation (MLT) scanning technology for three-dimensional, quantitative paleoichnological and neoichnological studies. Journal of Sedimentary Research 80:590–610.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Ruiz, G. M., and Lindberg, D. R.. 1989. A fossil record for trematodes: extent and potential uses. Lethaia 22:431–438.Google Scholar
Scarponi, D., Azzarone, M., Kowalewski, M., and Huntley, J. W.. 2017. Surges in trematode prevalence linked to centennial-scale flooding events in the Adriatic. Scientific Reports ar5732. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05979-6.Google Scholar
Schlüter, N. 2016. Ecophenotypic variation and developmental instability in the Late Cretaceous echinoid Micraster brevis (Irregularia; Spatangoida). PLoS ONE 11:e0148341. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148341.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S., and Eliceiri, K. W.. 2012. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9:671–675.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1970. Relation of shell form to life habits of the bivalvia (Mollusca). Geological Society of America Memoir 125.Google Scholar
Stempien, J. A. 2007. Detecting avian predation on bivalve assemblages using indirect methods. Journal of Shellfish Research 26:271–280.Google Scholar
Swennen, C. 1969. Crawling-tracks of trematode infected Macoma balthica (L.). Netherlands. Journal of Sea Research 4:376–379.Google Scholar
Taskinen, J. 1998. Influence of trematode parasitism on the growth of a bivalve host in the field. International Journal of Parasitology 28:599–602.Google Scholar
Wickham, H. 2009. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Wickham, H. 2011. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 40:1–29.Google Scholar
Wickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L., and Müller, K.. 2017. dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R package, Version 0.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr, accessed 20 August 2017.Google Scholar
Wilk, J., and Bieler, R.. 2009. Ecophenotypic variation in the Flat Tree Oyster, Isognomon alatus (Bivalvia: Isognomonidae), across a tidal microhabitat gradient. Marine Biology Research 5:155–163.Google Scholar
Wilke, C. O. 2017. ggridges: ridgeline plots in ’ggplot2’. R package, Version 0.4.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggridges, accessed 20 August 2017.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. V. H. 1988. Taphonomic processes: information loss and information gain. Geoscience Canada 15:131–148.Google Scholar
Zieritz, A., and Aldridge, D. C.. 2009. Identification of ecophenotypic trends within three European freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionoida) using traditional and modern morphometric techniques. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 98:814–825.Google Scholar