Macrophyte canopy structure and the success of an invasive marine bivalve

In both terrestrial and aquatic environments introductions of non-indigenous species are continuing and represent one important component of global change. Negative biotic interactions by resident species may prevent successful invaders from becoming pests. Few experimental data are available on the presence and significance of such biotic resistance other than predation or competition. This study addresses the role of habitat structure provided by a native eelgrass (Zostera marina) canopy on growth and survival of the non-indigenous mussel Musculista senhousia, a habitat-modifying gregarious suspension feeder with strong effects on native infauna and eelgrass. In 2 southern California bays, a series of transplantation experiments using tagged mussels revealed that inside an eelgrass canopy, Musculista growth rates were reduced by more than half in 3 of 4 experiments compared to adjacent unvegetated areas. Musculista survival also decreased inside the vegetation in a 4-mo experiment. As one element of habitat structure, we tested the effects of eelgrass parch size, using natural (1 site) and planted (1 site) eelgrass patches of defined sizes. Growth rates of Musculista were highest outside the veneration and decreased as eelgrass patch size increased. As a potential mechanism for the canopy effects, we suggest that Musculista receives less food inside the vegetation. In the experimental plots, the presence and spatial extent of the macrophyte canopy strongly affected near bottom (10 cm) horizontal water flow assessed with a direct dye tracking method. Reduced mussel growth rates were linearly associated with lower water flow, and presumably, food flux. Over a period of 7 mo, food resources (particulate chlorophyll a) were consistently lower 1 and 5 cm above the sea floor inside eelgrass patches compared to the sand Aat. The reduction in food availability matched the growth reduction of Musculista. Also, mussel condition (dry flesh mass/shell mass) was worse in individuals growing in eelgrass than in the sand Aat. Previous experiments revealed that dense beds of Musculista impede the rhizome growth and vegetative propagation of eelgrass, yet mussels attain abundances sufficient for interference only if eelgrass beds are patchy. Thus, anthropogenic disturbances on eelgrass beds, which often result in meadow fragmentation, and the proliferation of Musculista may have synergistic negative effects on the persistence of eelgrass beds