Bivalve Assemblages as Hotspots for Biodiversity

Many bivalve species occur in aggregations, and locally cover large partsof the seafloor. Above a certain density they provide a distinct, three dimensional structure and the aggregations are called bivalve beds or reefs. These persistent aggregations form a biogenic habitat for many other species. Bivalve beds, therefore, often have, in comparison with the surrounding areas, a high biodiversity value and can be seen as hotspots for biodiversity. Bivalve have a wide global distribution, on rocky and sedimentary coasts. Different processes and mechanisms influence the presence of associated benthic fauna. This paper reviewed the main drivers that influence the biodiversity, such as the bivalve species involved, the density, the size and the age of the bed, the depth or height in the tidal zone and the substratum type. Bivalve beds not only occur naturally in many subtidal and intertidal areas around the world, but mussels and oysters are also extensively cultured. Addition of physical cultivation structures in the water column or on the bottom allows for development of substantial and diverse communities that have a structure similar to that of natural beds. Dynamics of culture populations may however differ from naturalbivalve reefs as a result of culture site and/or maintenance and operation likeharvesting of the bivalve cultures. We used the outcome of the review on the drivers for wild assemblages to evaluate trade-offs between bivalve aquaculture and biodiversity conservation. Studies comparing natural and cultured assemblages proved to allow for a better understanding of the effect of the culture strategies and, consequently, to forward sustainable bivalve cultures. This is illustrated by a case study in the Dutch Wadden Sea

Feedbacks from Filter Feeders: Review on the Role of Mussels in Cycling and Storage of Nutrients in Oligo- Meso- and Eutrophic Cultivation Areas

Cultured and wild bivalve stocks provide ecosystem services through regulation of nutrient dynamics; both by regeneration of nutrients that become available again for phytoplankton production (positive feedback), and by extractionof nutrients through filtration and storage in tissue (negative feedback). Consequently, bivalves may fulfil a role in water quality management. The magnitude of regulating services by filter feeding bivalves varies between coastal ecosystems. This review uses the blue mussel as a model species and evaluates how cultured mussel stocks regulate nutrient dynamics in oligo- meso- and eutrophic ecosystems. We thereby examine (i) the eco-physiological response of mussels, and (ii) the positive and negative feedback mechanisms between mussel stocks and the surrounding ecosystem. Mussel culture in nutrient-poor areas (deep Norwegian fjords) are compared with cultures in other coastal systems with medium- to rich nutrient conditions. It was found that despite differences in eco-physiological rates under nutrient-poor conditions (higher clearance, lower egestion, similar excretion and tissue storage rates), the proportion of nutrients regenerated was similar between (deep) nutrient-poorand (shallow) nutrient-rich areas. Of the filtered nutrients, 40–50% is regeneratedand thus made available again for phytoplankton growth, and 10–50% of thefiltered nutrients is stored in tissue and could be removed from the system by harvest. A priori, we inferred that as a consequence of low background nutrient levels, mussels would potentially have a larger effect on ecosystem functioning in nutrient-poor systems and/or seasons. However, this review showed that due to the physical characteristics (volume, water residence time) and low mussel densities in nutrient-poor Norwegian fjord systems, the effects were lower for these sites, while estimates were more profound in shallow nutrient-rich areas with more intensive aquaculture activities, especially in terms of the negative feedback mechanisms (filtration intensity)