Differential Fertilization Success Between Two Populations of Eastern Oyster,Crassostrea virginica

2010 ◽  
Vol 219 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haibin Zhang ◽  
John Scarpa ◽  
Matthew P. Hare
PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0243569
Author(s):  
Zoe G. Nichols ◽  
Scott Rikard ◽  
Sayyed Mohammad Hadi Alavi ◽  
William C. Walton ◽  
Ian A. E. Butts

Oyster aquaculture is expanding worldwide, where many farms rely on seed produced by artificial spawning. As sperm motility and velocity are key determinants for fertilization success, understanding the regulation of sperm motility and identifying optimal environmental conditions can increase fertility and seed production. In the present study, we investigated the physiological mechanisms regulating sperm motility in Eastern oyster,Crassostrea virginica. Sperm motility was activated in ambient seawater with salinity 4–32 PSU with highest motility and velocity observed at 12–24 PSU. In artificial seawater (ASW) with salinity of 20 PSU, sperm motility was activated at pH 6.5–10.5 with the highest motility and velocity recorded at pH 7.5–10.0. Sperm motility was inhibited or totally suppressed in Na+, K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+-free ASW at 20 PSU. Applications of K+(500 μM glybenclamide and 10–50 mM 4-aminopyridine), Ca2+(1–50 μM mibefradil and 10–200 μM verapamil), or Na+(0.2–2.0 mM amiloride) channel blockers into ASW at 20 PSU inhibited or suppressed sperm motility and velocity. Chelating extracellular Ca2+ions by 3.0 and 3.5 mM EGTA resulted in a significant reduction and full suppression of sperm motility by 4 to 6 min post-activation. These results suggest that extracellular K+, Ca2+, and Na+ions are involved in regulation of ionic-dependent sperm motility in Eastern oyster. A comparison with other bivalve species typically spawning at higher salinities or in full-strength seawater shows that ionic regulation of sperm motility is physiologically conserved in bivalves. Elucidating sperm regulation inC.virginicahas implications to develop artificial reproduction, sperm short-term storage, or cryopreservation protocols, and to better predict how changes in the ocean will impact oyster spawning dynamics.


2020 ◽  
Vol 640 ◽  
pp. 79-105
Author(s):  
ET Porter ◽  
E Robins ◽  
S Davis ◽  
R Lacouture ◽  
JC Cornwell

Anthropogenic disturbances in the Chesapeake Bay (USA) have depleted eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica abundance and altered the estuary’s environment and water quality. Efforts to rehabilitate oyster populations are underway; however, the effect of oyster biodeposits on water quality and plankton community structure are not clear. In July 2017, we used 6 shear turbulence resuspension mesocosms (STURMs) to determine differences in plankton composition with and without the daily addition of oyster biodeposits to a muddy sediment bottom. STURM systems had a volume-weighted root mean square turbulent velocity of 1.08 cm s-1, energy dissipation rate of ~0.08 cm2 s-3, and bottom shear stress of ~0.36-0.51 Pa during mixing-on periods during 4 wk of tidal resuspension. Phytoplankton increased their chlorophyll a content in their cells in response to low light in tanks with biodeposits. The diatom Skeletonema costatum bloomed and had significantly longer chains in tanks without biodeposits. These tanks also had significantly lower concentrations of total suspended solids, zooplankton carbon, and nitrite +nitrate, and higher phytoplankton carbon concentrations. Results suggest that the absence of biodeposit resuspension initiates nitrogen uptake for diatom reproduction, increasing the cell densities of S. costatum. The low abundance of the zooplankton population in non-biodeposit tanks suggests an inability of zooplankton to graze on S. costatum and negative effects of S. costatum on zooplankton. A high abundance of the copepod Acartia tonsa in biodeposit tanks may have reduced S. costatum chain length. Oyster biodeposit addition and resuspension efficiently transferred phytoplankton carbon to zooplankton carbon, thus supporting the food web in the estuary.


Author(s):  
Kevin M. Johnson ◽  
Hollis R. Jones ◽  
Sandra M. Casas ◽  
Jerome F. La Peyre ◽  
Morgan W. Kelly

Aquaculture ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 529 ◽  
pp. 735649
Author(s):  
Alexandra J. McCarty ◽  
K. McFarland ◽  
J. Small ◽  
S.K. Allen ◽  
L.V. Plough

2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Mann ◽  
Melissa Southworth ◽  
Juliana M. Harding ◽  
James A. Wesson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document