Cw. Emerson et al., GROWTH AND SURVIVAL OF SEA SCALLOPS PLACOPECTEN-MAGELLANICUS - EFFECTS OF CULTURE DEPTH, Marine ecology. Progress series, 108(1-2), 1994, pp. 119-132
We combined extensive water sampling with monthly growth measurements
of juvenile sea scallops held in cages 0 to 200 cm above the bottom to
(1) construct predictive empirical models of shell and soft-tissue gr
owth based on oceanographic variables, and (2) determine whether scall
ops on or near the bottom can derive a food supplement from resuspende
d sediment when seasonal phytoplankton production is low, Variation in
growth was strongly dependent on depth, but this relationship was not
consistent over time or tissue type. In late fall, when phytoplankton
biomass was generally low (approximately 1 mug chl l-1), the adductor
muscle of scallops on the bottom lost mass (approximately 1.5 mg dry
wt d-1), but for scallops held only 20 cm higher in the water column,
growth was 2.5 mg d-1. During the winter, soft-tissue growth on the bo
ttom was significantly lower than that of scallops held above the sedi
ment surface. At this time, there was no variation in shell growth wit
h respect to depth. At the end of the study, soft-tissue weight (exclu
ding muscle tissue) of scallops on the bottom was approximately 40 % l
ess than that of scallops growing greater-than-or-equal-to 50 cm above
bottom. Rather than providing an energetic benefit, results suggest t
hat high concentrations of seston near the bottom inhibit growth. Empi
rical regression models of scallop growth using data from water sampli
ng every 2 wk accounted for up to 68% of growth variation, with temper
ature and seston quality being the most important predictor variables.
Marginal improvements to the model using data collected hourly with i
n situ probes suggest that estimates of food supply should be correcte
d, i.e. reduced, when high flows or high seston concentrations limit f
iltration rates. In addition, results indicate that attention to the m
agnitude and variation of predictor variables without consideration of
their seasonal coherence may be a primary factor limiting the ability
to construct truly predictive models of bivalve growth.