Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T17:28:51.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex-related differences in growth and morphology of blue mussels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2003

Suzanne C. Mills  and
Isabelle M. Côté
Suzanne C. Mills
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, PO Box 35 YAC, FIN–40351, Jyväskylä, Finland, E-mail: mills@cc.jyu.fi Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK, E-mail: i.cote@uea.ac.uk
Isabelle M. Côté
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK, E-mail: i.cote@uea.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The morphology and growth pattern of male and female blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) from the north Norfolk coast, UK, were studied. In allometric terms, the external shell parameters of females grew faster relative to shell length than those of males. In absolute terms, females also grew more quickly than males for all external shell parameters and for most internal body parts. At a given age, females are therefore larger than males. Females had a higher shell to tissue weight ratio and a relatively heavier foot than males. A discriminant function incorporating age, weight and shell length, width, and height correctly sexed 81% of individuals in the sample from which it was derived. Both natural and sexual selection may be involved in the evolution of sexual dimorphism in blue mussels.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , October 2003 , pp. 1053 - 1057
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2003

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

Andersson, M., 1994. Sexual selection. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avelar, W.E.P., Silva Costa, A. da, Jose Colusso, A. & Dal Bó, C.M.R., 1991. Sexual dimorphism in Castalia undosa undosa Martens, 1827, (Bivalvia: Hyriidae). The Veliger, 34, 229–231.Google Scholar
Bayne, B.L., ed., 1976. Marine mussels: their ecology and physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bayne, B.L. & Worrall, C.M., 1980. Growth and production of mussels Mytilus edulis from two populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 3, 317–328.Google Scholar
Brande, S., Turner, M., Heller, J. & Ben Yehuda, O., 1996. Statistical discrimination of sex in Melanoides tuberculata (Gastropoda: Thiaridae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 59, 87–112.Google Scholar
Coe, W.R., 1943. Sexual differentiation in Mollusks. I. Pelecypods. Quarterly Review ofBiology, 18, 154–164.Google Scholar
Cote, I.M., 1995. Effects of predatory crab effluent on byssus production in mussels. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 188, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estebenet, A.L., 1998. Allometric growth and insight on sexual dimorphism in Pomacea canaliculata (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae). Malacologia, 39, 207–213.Google Scholar
Goetmark, F., Post, P., Olsson, J. & Himmelmann, D., 1997. Natural selection and sexual dimorphism: sex-biased sparrowhawk predation favours crypsis in female chaffinches. Oikos, 80, 540–548.Google Scholar
Gosling, E.M., ed., 1992. The mussel Mytilus: ecology, physiology, genetics and culture. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.Google Scholar
Hedrick, A.V. & Temeles, E.J., 1989. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 136–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulscher, J.B. & Ens, B.J., 1992. Is the bill of the male oystercatcher a better tool for attacking mussels than the bill of the female? Netherlands Journal of Zoology, 42, 85–100.Google Scholar
Jabbar, A. & Davies, J.I., 1987. A simple and convenient biochemical method for sex identification in the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 107, 39–44.Google Scholar
Kantor, Y.I. & Sysoev, A.V., 1991. Sexual dimorphism in the apertural notch of a new species of Gemmula (Gastropoda: Turridae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 57, 205–209.Google Scholar
Kurata, K. & Kikuchi, E., 2000. Comparisons of life-history traits and sexual dimorphism between Assiminea japonica and Angustassiminea castanea (Gastropoda: Assimineidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66, 177–196.Google Scholar
Lutz, R.A., 1976. Annual growth patterns in the inner shell layer of Mytilus edulis L. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56, 723–731.Google Scholar
Okamura, B., 1986. Group living and the effects of spatial position in aggregations of Mytilus edulis. Oecologia, 69, 341–347.Google Scholar
Ortman, A.E., 1921. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 8, 1–384.Google Scholar
Reimer, O. & Harms-Ringdahl, S., 2001. Predator-inducible changes in blue mussels from the predator-free Baltic Sea. Marine Biology, 139, 959–965.Google Scholar
Reimer, O. & Tedengren, M., 1996. Phenotypical improvement of morphological defences in the mussel Mytilus edulis induced by exposure to the predator Asterias rubens. Oikos, 75, 383–390.Google Scholar
Reimer, O. & Tedengren, M., 1997. Predator-induced changes in byssal attachment, aggregation and migration in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 30, 251–266.Google Scholar
Richardson, C.A., 1989. An analysis of the microgrowth bands in the shell of the common mussel Mytilus edulis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 69, 477–491.Google Scholar
Richardson, C.A., Seed, R. & Naylor, E., 1990. Use of internal growth bands for measuring individual and population growth rates in Mytilus edulis from offshore production platforms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 66, 259–265.Google Scholar
Ruiz, G.M., 1991. Consequences of parasitism to marine invertebrates: host evolution? American Zoologist, 31, 831–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute, 2001. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8.02. Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Seed, R., 1969. The ecology of Mytilus edulis L. (Lamellibranchiata) on exposed rocky shores. I. Breeding and settlement. Oecologia, 3, 277–316.Google ScholarPubMed
Seed, R., 1973. Absolute and allometric growth in the mussel, Mytilus edulis L. (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 40, 343–357.Google Scholar
Seed, R., 1976. Ecology. In Marine mussels: their ecology and physiology (ed. B.L. Bayne), pp. 13–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seed, R. & Suchanek, T.H., 1992. Population and community ecology of Mytilus. In The mussel Mytilus: ecology, physiology, genetics and culture (ed. E.M. Gosling), pp. 87–169. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Temeles, E.J., Pan, I.L., Brennan, J.L. & Horwitt, J.N., 2000. Evidence for ecological causation of sexual dimorphism in a hummingbird. Science, New York, 289, 441–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theisen, B.F., 1973. The growth of Mytilus edulis L. (Bivalvia) from Disko and Thule District, Greenland. Ophelia, 12, 59–77.Google Scholar
Trivers, R.L., 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (ed. B. Campbell), pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Voight, J.R., 1995. Sexual dimorphism and niche divergence in a mid-water octopod (Cephalopoda, Bolitaenidae). Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 189, 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, E.L. & Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., 2000. Status of the Rayed Bean, Villosa fabalis (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in Ontario and Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 114, 248–258.Google Scholar
Wiklund, C. & Karlsson, B., 1988. Sexual size dimorphism in relation to fecundity in some Swedish Satyrid butterflies. American Naturalist, 131, 132–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar