Читать книгу Marine Mussels - Elizabeth Gosling - Страница 48

In wave‐exposed areas, Mytilus requires a hard and stable substratum such as rocks or large boulders on which to form beds, while in sheltered areas infaunal beds may occur on gravel or even in quite sandy areas. Mussel larvae settle on a wide variety of substrates (e.g. rocks and ridged, hard surfaces, filamentous macroalgae, hydroids, eelgrass, byssus of conspecific adults, artificial substrates such as polypropylene fibrous ropes or artificial seaweed; see details on the mechanism of byssus attachment to substrates and larval settlement cues in Chapters 2 and 5, respectively). The capability of mussels to attach byssal threads to the substratum and to form dense aggregations has permitted them to colonise both hard‐ and soft‐bottom habitats, where they attach to one another because little suitable attachment substratum is available (Aguilera et al. 2017). Specifically, shells of recently dead mussels, for example, are common in mussel beds, yet they do not offer the same hold as the shells of living conspecifics. However, shells (empty, alive or fragmented) do offer substrata for attachment of epibionts, provide refuge from predation, alleviate physical or physiological stress and control transport of solutes and particles in the benthic environment (Gutiérrez et al. 2003).

In field studies, Aguilera et al. (2017) examined the attachment strength of the mussels Perumytilus purpuratus, growing on Pacific hard‐ and soft‐bottom shores in Chile, and M. edulis, growing on an Atlantic rocky shore in France and a sedimentary shore in the North Sea (Germany). They found that the attachment strength of P. purpuratus on hard bottoms was substantially higher than that on soft bottoms even though mussels produced more byssus in the latter habitat. In contrast, M. edulis showed only a slightly reduced attachment strength on soft compared to hard bottoms. In laboratory experiments, the authors examined the mussel substratum selectivity of both bivalve species from soft and hard bottoms by offering living versus dead, barnacle‐fouled versus unfouled and firmly attached versus loose conspecifics. In these experiments, P. purpuratus from both habitats showed a significant preference for living conspecifics, while M. edulis had no preference for particular conspecifics – except those that preferred fouled over clean mussels from soft‐bottom habitats. In summary, their results confirmed that marine mussels show active substratum choice for byssus attachment, which depends on mussel species and habitat type. Also, their results suggest that mussels are adapted to a particular habitat type, with P. purpuratus showing lower adaptation to soft‐bottom areas and M. edulis showing equal preference for both substrate types. In a previous study, Thiel & Ullrich (2002) described the fauna associated with hard‐bottom mussel (P. purpuratus) beds at eight sites along the Pacific coast of Chile, with the aim of elucidating the functional role of mussel beds in hard‐ and soft‐bottom environments. At all sites, the associated fauna was dominated by suspension feeding organisms (cirripeds, spionid and sabellid polychaetes), followed by grazing crustaceans and gastropods. Predators and scavengers also reached high abundances, while deposit‐ and detritus‐feeding organisms were of minor importance. The majority of organisms associated with these hard‐bottom mussel beds feed on resources obtained from the water column, or grow on the mussels rather than on materials (faeces, pseudofaeces) deposited by the mussels. This is in contrast to the fauna associated with mussel beds on soft bottoms, which comprise many species feeding on material accumulated by mussels and deposited within the mussel bed, indicating that mussels on hard bottoms primarily provide substratum for associated fauna, while mussels on soft bottoms provide both substratum and food resources.

Growth and mortality rates and inducible defence characters on medium‐sized M. edulis (18–22 mm shell length) exposed to shore crab (Carcinus maenas) predation were examined on three different substrate types in combined field and laboratory experiments (Frandsen & Dolmer 2002). The substrate types used were: a smooth substrate, classified as simple, that structurally resembles sand; unbroken shells, classified as complex; and live M. edulis, classified as complex. High complexity and heterogeneity of a substrate is believed to reduce predation pressure by increasing the number of spatial refuges (references in Frandsen & Dolmer 2002). The experiments showed that crab predation was significantly higher (one‐way ANOVA, P < 0.001) on the smooth substrate compared to the two more complex substrates, with no significant difference in predation between the complex types. However, increased intraspecific competition for food on the complex substrates resulted in significantly lower growth rates of the mussels. Inducible defence characters were also influenced by substrate type. Mussels were more affected by predators on the structurally simple substrate, where they developed thicker shells and a significantly (P < 0.01) larger posterior adductor muscle, both of which are defence responses that cause predators to take much longer to open the mussels (Freeman 2007). Finally, interspecific substrate preferences have been described in Gilg et al. (2010, ch. 5) and Katolikova et al. (2016, ch. 9).