Attachment of Larvae of the Olympia Oyster, Ostrea Lurida, to Plane Surfaces

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Olympia OysterOstrea lurida: Recent Advances in Natural History, Ecology, and Restoration

“…For example, 1153 more spat were found on the under-side of horizontal surfaces (settlement plates) compared with the upper, and 33 more on the underside of horizontal surfaces compared with vertical surfaces (Hopkins 1935). This is likely due to the swimming orientation of a larva, with the velum pointed upward (Hopkins 1935).…”

“…During the 1950s, sulfur liquor pollution from pulp mills was problematic, notably in Puget Sound, where these diatoms ''bloomed'' all year long-the dead diatoms accumulated up to 15 cm in dykes where O. lurida was grown, causing local extinction (Steele 1957). The sulfur waste liquor caused a continuous decline of O. lurida in the 1950s (Hopkins 1935, McKernan et al 1949, Steele 1957, partially owing to its facilitation of M. borreri growth. Despite the historic impact on O. lurida, no recent work was found for this review to indicate if this diatom is still ecologically important.…”

“…For example, 1153 more spat were found on the under-side of horizontal surfaces (settlement plates) compared with the upper, and 33 more on the underside of horizontal surfaces compared with vertical surfaces (Hopkins 1935). This is likely due to the swimming orientation of a larva, with the velum pointed upward (Hopkins 1935). Other hypotheses suggest settling on the underside of shell, plates, or rocks, prevents the animal from being smothered by sediment (Cole & Knight-Jones 1939, Michener & Kenny 1991.…”

“…Other hypotheses suggest settling on the underside of shell, plates, or rocks, prevents the animal from being smothered by sediment (Cole & Knight-Jones 1939, Michener & Kenny 1991. The oysterÕs preferential attachment is also not a negative phototrophic behavior, but the larvae may be negatively geotactic: a possible evolutionary adaptation to reduce exposure to direct sunlight and decrease thermal stress to the future recruit (Hopkins 1935). Working with settlement plates submerged for 3 mo, however, Hopkins (1935) recognized that these recruitment data might reflect survivorship and not settling preference.…”

Some effects of experimental procedure on settlement ofOstrea LutariaHutton

“…Korringa (1941) established differences similar to those found here in the attractiveness of plain glass, ground glass and rough cement-coated surfaces to settling O. edulis. Hopkins (1935) and Schaefer (1937) found that O. lurida and Crassostrea gigas settled on plain glass surfaces. Pomerat and Reiner (1942) used shot-blasted glass for settlement surfaces for C. virginica, and Butler (1955) established that this species also settled on cement-asbestos plates.…”