Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T00:24:32.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A corrected formula for calculation of filtration rate of bivalve molluscs in an experimental flowing system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

D. I. Hildreth  and
D. J. Crisp
D. I. Hildreth
Affiliation:
N.E.R.C. Unit of Marine Invertebrate Biology, Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Gwynedd, U.K.
D. J. Crisp
Affiliation:
N.E.R.C. Unit of Marine Invertebrate Biology, Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Gwynedd, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The filtration rate of Mytilus edulis was measured in a flowing system by estimating the particulate matter concentrations at the inflow (C1) and outflow (C2) of the experimental chamber and immediately surrounding the bivalve (C0). Filtration rate was calculated as R1 = F(C1 – C2)/C0…(1), where F = flow rate through chamber. This formula differs from that previously used in flowing systems (R"t = F(C1 – C1/C2)…(2), by accounting for dilution of inflowing water as it enters the experimental chamber. Formula (1) was used to show that flow rate through the experimental chamber has a negligible effect on filtration rate whereas the use of formula (2) indicates erroneously that flow rate and filtration rate are positively correlated. The particulate matter concentration around the bivalve is also shown to have a negligible effect on filtration rate within the limits tested of approximately 2000–20000 particles ml-1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1976

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.)

References

Aiello, E. & Guideri, G., 1965. Distribution and function of the branchial nerve in the mussel. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 129, 431–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayne, B. L., 1971. Ventilation, the heart beat and oxygen uptake by Mytilus edulis L. in declining oxygen tension. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 40A, 1065–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belding, D. L., 1910. A report on the scallop fishery of Massachusetts. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Marine Fisheries Series, No. 3, 150 pp.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. A. & Marshall, N., 1963. Condition of the bay scallop Aequipecten irradians, in relation to age and environment. Chesapeake Science, 4, 126–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galtsoff, A. M., 1964. The American oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. Fishery Bulletin. Fish and Wildlife Service. United States Department of the Interior, 64, 480 pp.Google Scholar
Grave, C., 1901. The oyster reefs of North Carolina. Johns Hopkins University Circulars, 20, 50–3.Google Scholar
Grave, C., 1905. Investigations for the promotion of the oyster industry of North Carolina. Report. United States Bureau of Fisheries, 1903, 29, 247–315.Google Scholar
Gutsell, J. S., 1930. Natural history of the bay scallop. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries. Washington, 46, Fisheries document No. 1100, 569–632.Google Scholar
Haven, D. S. & Morales-Alamo, R., 1970. Filtration of particles from suspension by the American oyster Crassostrea virginica. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 139, 248–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirby-Smith, W. W., 1972. Growth of the bay scallop: influence of experimental water currents. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 8 (1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, E. J., 1957. A quantitative study of clearance of a turbid medium and feeding by the oyster. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, 4, 296–312.Google Scholar
Tenore, K. R. & Dunstan, W. M., 1973. Comparison of feeding and biodeposition of three bivalves at different food levels. Marine Biology, 21, 190–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theede, H., 1963. Experimented Untersuchungen iiber die Filtrierleistung der Miesmuschel Mytilus edulis L. Kieler Meeresforschungen, 19, 20–41.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. J. & Bayne, B. L., 1972. Active metabolism associated with feeding in the mussel Mytilus edulis L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 9, 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walne, P. R., 1972. The influence of current speed, body size and water temperature on the filtration rate of five species of bivalves. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 52, 345–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdows, J. & Bayne, B. L., 1971. Temperature acclimation of Mytilus edulis with reference to its energy budget. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 51, 827–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, J. E., 1969. On the influence of food concentration and other factors on filtration rates and food utilization in the mussels Arctica islandica and Modiolus modiolus. Marine Biology, 4, 87–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, J. E., 1970. Filter feeding and food utilisation in Arctica islandica L. and Modiolus modiolus L. at different food concentrations. In Marine food chains. Proceedings of a symposium held at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, 1968, ed. Steele, J. H., 196–206. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar