| Literature DB >> 29768424 |
Juan C Astudillo1,2, Timothy C Bonebrake2, Kenneth M Y Leung1,2,3.
Abstract
This study tested the potential bio-control role of the common native predatory whelk Reishia clavigera on the invasive bivalves Xenostrobus securis and Mytilopsis sallei and the native Brachidontes variabilis in Hong Kong. Predation experiments were conducted in the laboratory under salinity levels of 22‰ and 32‰, as well as under field conditions. The results indicate that the invasive bivalves are more vulnerable to predation than the native bivalve in environments with high salinity, whereas environments with moderately low salinity (22‰) may reduce predation. Because R. clavigera did not show clear prey preference, the low survival of the invasive species might be due to a lack of effective anti-predatory defenses under experimental conditions. These findings could explain the high abundance of the invasive bivalves in disturbed environments in Hong Kong where predation appears to be lower.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29768424 PMCID: PMC5955525 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of the study sites.
Filled squares indicate where the bivalves were collected and experiments conducted.
Summary of morphological features of the bivalve species Xenostrobus securis, Mytilopsis sallei and Brachidontes variabilis presented as average ratios of maximum shell height (H) and width (W) to length (L), adductor muscle biomass (AB) to total biomass (TB) and average of shell thickness index (STI).
Values in brackets indicate the range of minimum and maximum values while a bolded P value indicate statistically significant difference among the three species in the corresponding parameter (by ANOVA tests).
| Size (cm) | 16.74 | 13.84 | 14.81 | |
| (15.10–18.88) | (10.06–17.56) | (11.57–18.15) | ||
| H:L | 0.52 | 0.58 | 0.51 | |
| (0.47–0.55) | (0.52–0.65) | (0.48–0.54) | ||
| W:L | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.44 | |
| (0.33–0.43) | (0.38–0.47) | (0.41–0.51) | ||
| AB:TB | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.021 | |
| (0.006–0.028) | (0.009–0.027) | (0.015–0.034) | ||
| STI | 0.59 | 0.65 | 0.72 | |
| (0.48–0.76) | (0.50–0.89) | (0.53–0.91) |
Results of Chi-square tests to determine prey preference by Reishia clavigera on the bivalves Xenostrobus securis (Xs), Mytilopsis sallei (Ms) and Brachidontes variabilis (Bv).
| Test | Obs | Obs | Obs | Obs | Obs | Obs | Exp | Exp | Exp | Exp | Exp | Exp | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S1 | S1 | S2 | S2 | S2 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S2 | S2 | S2 | |||
| 1 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 7.35 | >0.05 |
| 2 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 8.1 | 12.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 4.78 | >0.10 |
| 3 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 4.9 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 16.42 | |
| 4 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 9.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 5.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.28 | >0.10 |
| 5 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 12.0 | 11.0 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 2.09 | >0.10 |
| 6 | 8 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 8.3 | 12.0 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 0.2 | 1.04 | >0.10 |
| 7 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 8.5 | 12.0 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 0.7 | 7.94 | |
| 8 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 4.6 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 10.08 | |
| 9 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 12.0 | 10.9 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 3.71 | >0.10 |
| 10 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 4.8 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 35.48 | |
| 11 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 8.4 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 11.45 | |
| 12 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 12.0 | 10.7 | 0.8 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 0.2 | 5.81 | >0.10 |
| 13 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 5.21 | >0.10 |
| 14 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 12.0 | 10.9 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 24.24 | |
| 15 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8.7 | 12.0 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 0.7 | 5.26 | >0.10 |
| 16 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 8.5 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 7.10 | >0.05 |
| 17 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 1.03 | >0.10 |
| 18 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 6.32 | >0.05 |
| 19 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8.4 | 12.0 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 12.47 | |
| 20 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 5.84 | >0.10 |
| 21 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7.2 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 39.47 | |
| 22 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 12.0 | 11.0 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 4.96 | >0.10 |
| 23 | 9 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 9.7 | 12.0 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 0.6 | 9.13 | |
| 24 | 12 | 12 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 0.7 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 3.96 | >0.10 |
| 25 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 12.0 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 4.1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 30.51 | |
| 26 | 9 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 9.5 | 10.8 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 4.52 | >0.10 |
| 27 | 8 | 12 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 8.5 | 12.0 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 5.10 | >0.10 |
| 28 | 12 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 12.0 | 11.0 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 0.81 | >0.10 |
| 29 | 8 | 12 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 8.4 | 12.0 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 3.3 | 0.4 | 7.92 | |
| 30 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 12.0 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 16.28 | |
| 31 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 5.21 | >0.10 |
| 32 | 9 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 9.0 | 12.0 | 5.3 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 30.72 | |
| 33 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 12.0 | 11.0 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 4.96 | >0.10 |
The test compared observed (Obs) and expected (Exp) number of bivalves eaten in single choice (stage 1 = S1) and multiple choice experiments (stage 2 = S2). Probabilities in bold indicate prey preference.
Results of the ANOVA tests to compare the survival of the invasive bivalves .
| MS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A) Single choice | ||||
| Species | 2 | 142.72 | 16.88 | |
| Error | 15 | 8.46 | ||
| B) Multiple choice | ||||
| Species | 2 | 44.76 | 13.09 | |
| Error | 30 | 3.42 | ||
| C) Multiple choice under two salinities | ||||
| Species | 2 | 19.08 | 9.76 | |
| Salinity | 1 | 21.78 | 11.14 | |
| Sp x Sa | 2 | 8.69 | 4.45 | |
| Error | 30 | 1.96 | ||
| D) Acute test on | ||||
| Temperature | 2 | 2.70 | 3.48 | 0.053 |
| Salinity | 2 | 7.81 | 10.05 | |
| Temp x Sa | 4 | 3.37 | 4.33 | 0.013 |
| Error | 18 | 0.78 | ||
Acute test analysis was conducted with raw data and alpha value reduced to 0.01 due to heterogeneity of variances. Bold P-values indicate significant differences.
Fig 2Survival (± 95% CI) of the invasive bivalves Bars with different lowercase letters indicate significantly different mean values (based on the ANOVA and the Tukey’s post-hoc tests; P < 0.05).
Fig 3A) Survival of the invasive bivalves to the predatory whelk Error bars indicate ± 95% CI. Letters on the columns indicate the results of the Tukey’s post-hoc test for differences among species within each salinity treatment. Numbers on the right corner indicate differences between salinity treatments. X.s = Xenostrobus securis.
Results of two-way ANOVA tests to compare the survival of the bivalve species (Xenostrobus securis, Mytilopsis sallei and Brachidontes variabilis) exposed to A) Reishia clavigera at Kwun Tong and Stanley piers, and exposed to natural predators (i.e., open panels and control panels with predator excluded) in B) Kwun Tong pier and C) Stanley pier.
| MS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A) | ||||
| Sites | 1 | 14.69 | 5.76 | 0.023 |
| Species | 2 | 17.44 | 6.84 | |
| Si x Sp | 2 | 0.78 | 0.31 | 0.739 |
| Error | 30 | 2.55 | ||
| B) Kwun Tong pier | ||||
| Species | 2 | 1.44 | 4.81 | 0.015 |
| Treatments | 1 | 0.44 | 1.48 | 0.233 |
| Sp x Tr | 2 | 0.11 | 0.37 | 0.694 |
| Error | 30 | 0.30 | ||
| C) Stanley pier | ||||
| Species | 2 | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.512 |
| Treatments | 1 | 8.03 | 7.34 | 0.011 |
| Sp x Tr | 2 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.838 |
| Error | 30 | 1.09 | ||
Tests were conducted with raw data and alpha value reduced to 0.01 due to heterogeneity of variances. The bold P-value indicates significant differences.
Fig 4Survival (± 95% CI) of bivalve species ( Letters on the right corner indicate the results of the Tukey’s post-hoc tests between species.