Negative effects of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) presence in eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds in Flensborg fjord, Denmark

Vinther, Hanne Fogh; Laursen, Jens Sund; Holmer, Marianne

doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2007.09.007

Cited by 34 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Blue mussels often occur in close proximity to the macrophyte stands formed by Fucus sp. or Z. marina (Reusch et al 1994;Bostrom and Bonsdorff 1997;Wikstrom and Kautsky 2007;Vinther et al 2008). More than 95% of the shell's wet weight consist of bimineralic calcium carbonate (Yin et al 2005) deposited as aragonite in the inner layer and calcite in the outer layer (Dalbeck et al 2006).…”

Section: Study Organismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroalgae may mitigate ocean acidification effects on mussel calcification by increasing pH and its fluctuations

Wahl

Covachã

Saderne

et al. 2017

Limnology & Oceanography

127

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ocean acidification (OA) is generally assumed to negatively impact calcification rates of marine organisms. At a local scale however, biological activity of macrophytes may generate pH fluctuations with rates of change that are orders of magnitude larger than the long-term trend predicted for the open ocean. These fluctuations may in turn impact benthic calcifiers in the vicinity. Combining laboratory, mesocosm and field studies, such interactions between OA, the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus, the sea grass Zostera marina and the blue mussel Mytilus edulis were investigated at spatial scales from decimetres to 100s of meters in the western Baltic. Macrophytes increased the overall mean pH of the habitat by up to 0.3 units relative to macrophytefree, but otherwise similar, habitats and imposed diurnal pH fluctuations with amplitudes ranging from 0.3 to more than 1 pH unit. These amplitudes and their impact on mussel calcification tended to increase with increasing macrophyte biomass to bulk water ratio. At the laboratory and mesocosm scales, biogenic pH fluctuations allowed mussels to maintain calcification even under acidified conditions by shifting most of their calcification activity into the daytime when biogenic fluctuations caused by macrophyte activity offered temporal refuge from OA stress. In natural habitats with a low biomass to water body ratio, the impact of biogenic pH fluctuations on mean calcification rates of M. edulis was less pronounced. Thus, in dense algae or seagrass habitats, macrophytes may mitigate OA impact on mussel calcification by raising mean pH and providing temporal refuge from acidification stress.

show abstract

Section: Study Organismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroalgae may mitigate ocean acidification effects on mussel calcification by increasing pH and its fluctuations

Wahl

Covachã

Saderne

et al. 2017

Limnology & Oceanography

127

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…leaf δ 15 N; Vizzini and Mazzola, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2010), studies on bivalve (e.g. oysters) aquaculture effects are very scarce and mostly based on vegetative responses (Everett et al, 1995;Wisehart et al, 2007;Vinther et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissolved inorganic nitrogen uptake kinetics and δ15N of Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) in a coastal lagoon with oyster aquaculture and upwelling influence

Sandoval‐Gil

Camacho-Ibar

Ávila-López

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Given this general context, the question arises regarding the effects of cultured shellfish on seagrass. Based on studies worldwide, at least three outcomes are suggested: (1) disturbance from harvest is likely to reduce seagrass density, with a context‐specific recovery rate (Peterson et al ., ); (2) bivalves at high density may reduce seagrass shoot density (Booth and Heck, ; Tallis et al ., ); and (3) bivalves could alter local chemical conditions that affect individual‐level performance of seagrass (Peterson and Heck, ; Vinther et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bivalves can ameliorate nutrient limitation in primary producers through increased cycling or pools of nutrients (Reusch and Williams, 1998;Peterson and Heck, 2001;Nizzoli et al, 2006), and burrowing bivalves can aerate sediment and lower sulfides (Reynolds et al, 2007). Other effects of bivalves could make conditions less suitable for seagrass, for instance, biodeposits from suspension-feeders can enhance denitrification (Newell et al, 2002) or promote sulfate-reducing bacteria whose metabolic products are toxic (Vinther et al, 2008). Given this general context, the question arises regarding the effects of cultured shellfish on seagrass.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) disturbance from harvest is likely to reduce seagrass density, with a context-specific recovery rate (Peterson et al, 1987); (2) bivalves at high density may reduce seagrass shoot density (Booth and Heck, 2009;Tallis et al, 2009); and (3) bivalves could alter local chemical conditions that affect individual-level performance of seagrass (Peterson and Heck, 2001;Vinther et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seasonal effects of clams (Panopea generosa) on eelgrass (Zostera marina) density but not recovery dynamics at an intertidal site

Ruesink

Rowell

2012

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's marine ecosystems experience multiple stressors that complicate management and pose risks to resource protection. Clam aquaculture has several potential environmental effects including disturbance, space occupation, and modification of nutrient availability, which were assessed through a crossed experimental design of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) removal and geoduck clam (Panopea generosa Gould) addition in 1 m2 plots, in an eelgrass meadow in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Gaps recovered via clonal growth, with gap edges requiring more than 1 year and gap centres almost 2 years. Clams neither increased nor impeded eelgrass recovery, and clams did not reduce winter density of eelgrass. During summer, clams reduced eelgrass density by 30% but increased shoot length by 13% and clonal branching by 9%. Eelgrass growth rates (~1 mgDW shoot‐1 d‐1) and C:N ratios (~11) did not differ across clam‐addition treatments, indicating no enhancement by fertilization. At the end of the 2‐year experiment, clams were harvested, and this disturbance reduced eelgrass density by 70% in the geoduck plots. As managers consider expansion of intertidal geoduck aquaculture regionally, these data indicate only a minor effect on eelgrass from the presence of clams themselves, but harvest disturbance is comparable with other studies of fishing in eelgrass. Nets and tubes that serve as predator‐exclusion devices during the early stages of the 5‐year crop cycle for geoduck clams remain to be examined for their ecological effects. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Negative effects of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) presence in eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds in Flensborg fjord, Denmark

Cited by 34 publications

References 71 publications

Macroalgae may mitigate ocean acidification effects on mussel calcification by increasing pH and its fluctuations

Macroalgae may mitigate ocean acidification effects on mussel calcification by increasing pH and its fluctuations

Dissolved inorganic nitrogen uptake kinetics and δ15N of Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) in a coastal lagoon with oyster aquaculture and upwelling influence

Seasonal effects of clams (Panopea generosa) on eelgrass (Zostera marina) density but not recovery dynamics at an intertidal site

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About