54
J.A. Commito and N.M.J.A. Dankers
2.7 Conclusions
Many features of soft-bottom mussel beds are common across species and
geographic locations. Mussel beds are highly dynamic, and fractal geometry
can reveal predictable patterns in their complex spatial distribution and surface topography. Field and laboratory investigations, including density manipulation experiments, show that individual mussel performance, predation
rates, resident infauna, and fluxes of sediment, larvae, and post-larvae are
controlled by mussel abundance and bed structure.
Most mussel beds are affected by human activities in the form of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment to coastal waters (certainly a resource-based,
bottom-up factor) and dredging of seed and adult mussels (which is similar to
natural physical disturbances as well as top-down predation). How these
processes interact to change the ecology of mussel beds and the fauna
associated with them is not known. Continued dredging of natural beds and
the susceptibility of cultured beds to predators and storms calls for enlightened management (Dankers and Zuidema 1995). Management informed
by the best possible science means that increasing attention will be paid by
scientists and managers alike to the spatial and temporal complexity of softbottom mussel beds.
References
Abelson A, Denny M (1997) Settlement of organisms in flow. Annu Rev Ecol Syst
28:317-339
Albrecht AS (1998) Soft bottom versus hard rock: community ecology of macro algae on
intertidal mussel beds in the Wadden Sea. J Exp Mar BioI Ecol 229:85-109
Albrecht A, Reise K (1994) Effects of Fucus vesiculosus covering intertidal mussel beds in
the Wadden Sea. Helgolander Meeresunters 48:243-256
Asmus H (1987) Secondary production of an intertidal mussel bed community related to
its storage and turnover compartments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 39:251-266
Asmus RM, Asmus H (1991) Mussel beds: limiting or promoting phytoplankton? J Exp
Mar BioI EcolI48:215-232
Asmus H, Asmus RH, Prins TC, Dankers N, France G, Maafi B, Reise K (1992) Benthicpelagic flux rates on mussel beds: tunnel and tidal flume methodology compared.
Helgolander Meeresunters 46:341-361
Bayne BL, Thompson RJ, Widdows J (1976) Physiology. 1. In: Bayne BL (ed) Marine
mussels: their ecology and physiology. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp
121-206
Beck MW (1998) Comparison of the measurement and effects of habitat structure on
gastropods in rocky intertidal and mangrove habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 169:
165-178
Bertness MD, Grosholz E (1985) Population dynamics of the ribbed mussel, Geukensia
demissa: the costs and benefits of an aggregated distribution. Oecologia 67:192-204
J.A. Commito and N.M.J.A. Dankers
2.7 Conclusions
Many features of soft-bottom mussel beds are common across species and
geographic locations. Mussel beds are highly dynamic, and fractal geometry
can reveal predictable patterns in their complex spatial distribution and surface topography. Field and laboratory investigations, including density manipulation experiments, show that individual mussel performance, predation
rates, resident infauna, and fluxes of sediment, larvae, and post-larvae are
controlled by mussel abundance and bed structure.
Most mussel beds are affected by human activities in the form of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment to coastal waters (certainly a resource-based,
bottom-up factor) and dredging of seed and adult mussels (which is similar to
natural physical disturbances as well as top-down predation). How these
processes interact to change the ecology of mussel beds and the fauna
associated with them is not known. Continued dredging of natural beds and
the susceptibility of cultured beds to predators and storms calls for enlightened management (Dankers and Zuidema 1995). Management informed
by the best possible science means that increasing attention will be paid by
scientists and managers alike to the spatial and temporal complexity of softbottom mussel beds.
References
Abelson A, Denny M (1997) Settlement of organisms in flow. Annu Rev Ecol Syst
28:317-339
Albrecht AS (1998) Soft bottom versus hard rock: community ecology of macro algae on
intertidal mussel beds in the Wadden Sea. J Exp Mar BioI Ecol 229:85-109
Albrecht A, Reise K (1994) Effects of Fucus vesiculosus covering intertidal mussel beds in
the Wadden Sea. Helgolander Meeresunters 48:243-256
Asmus H (1987) Secondary production of an intertidal mussel bed community related to
its storage and turnover compartments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 39:251-266
Asmus RM, Asmus H (1991) Mussel beds: limiting or promoting phytoplankton? J Exp
Mar BioI EcolI48:215-232
Asmus H, Asmus RH, Prins TC, Dankers N, France G, Maafi B, Reise K (1992) Benthicpelagic flux rates on mussel beds: tunnel and tidal flume methodology compared.
Helgolander Meeresunters 46:341-361
Bayne BL, Thompson RJ, Widdows J (1976) Physiology. 1. In: Bayne BL (ed) Marine
mussels: their ecology and physiology. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp
121-206
Beck MW (1998) Comparison of the measurement and effects of habitat structure on
gastropods in rocky intertidal and mangrove habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 169:
165-178
Bertness MD, Grosholz E (1985) Population dynamics of the ribbed mussel, Geukensia
demissa: the costs and benefits of an aggregated distribution. Oecologia 67:192-204