Clumping behavior and byssus production as strategies for substrate competition in Mytilus edulis

Abstract

Laboratory experiments showed that the mussel Mytilus edulis aggregated more intensely around living organisms (the bivalve Hiatella arctica and the solitary ascidian Styela rustica, which commonly co-occur with mussels in fouling communities) than around inanimate objects. When exposed to an inanimate object, mussels attached their byssal threads primarily to the substrate, close to the object, but when exposed to a living organism, they attached their byssal threads directly to the organism. The ascidian was more intensely covered with byssal threads than was the bivalve. Mussel attachment to the ascidians was apparently determined by the physical characteristics of the tunic and to a lesser extent by the excretion-secretion products released by S. rustica. This study indicates that mussels can use byssus threads as a means of entrapment of potential competitors for space. It remains unclear why mussels preferentially attached to ascidians compared to the bivalve. This can be explained either by competitive interactions, or by attractiveness of the ascidian tunic as an attachment substratum.

Selective byssus attachment behavior of mytilid mussels from hard- and soft-bottom coastal systems

“…This is in line with previous studies, which showed that mussels can recognize damaged conspecifics, and react by increased production of byssus (Cheung et al, 2009). In this context, studies by Khalaman and Lezin (2015) showed similar preferential attachment behavior of blue mussels to animal ('living') surfaces compared to inert material suggesting that this species can discriminate living organisms from inanimate objects.…”

“…However, these traits are also significantly affected by selective choice of mussels (Lezin and Khalaman, 2007;Khalaman and Lezin, 2015; this study). Conspecific and interspecific selectivity have been attributed to competition (Khalaman and Lezin, 2015), and to predator presence (Côte, 1995;Reimer and Tedengren, 1997;Lezin and Khalaman, 2007). Thus, conspecific selection seems to have a role for coexistence with diverse species comprising the benthic community, and could also be important for the mussels' potential to colonize novel (i.e.…”

“…Indeed, these findings indicate that blue mussels are capable of distinguishing between different substratum types (e.g. Khalaman and Lezin, 2015) and also suggest high plasticity in adhesion strategies of individuals within the mussel matrix. However, it is not known whether byssus placement on conspecifics is selective in mytilid mussels and how habitat predictability for attachment substratum (hard versus soft bottoms) could influence selectivity.…”

“…heart beat) or chemical cues related to living or dead conspecifics for attachment selection (e.g. Kobak, 2001;Khalaman and Lezin, 2015).…”

Lipid Composition Modifications in the Blue Mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) from the White Sea

“…In the White Sea, M. edulis L. is the dominant species of coastal (intertidal) ecosystems. Numerous studies on White Sea mussels' response to various environmental efects have identiied adaptive mechanisms on molecular, biochemical, cellular, physiological and behavioural levels of biological organization [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38].…”