Mini-review: distribution of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) and hybrids in the Northeast Pacific.
KEY WORDS: introduced marine species, hybridization, Pacific Northwest, Mytilus galloprovincialis
The marine mussel genus Mytilus includes a complex of 3 sibling species, M. edulis L. 1758, M. trossulus Gould 1850, and M. galloprovincialis Lamarck 1819. All three are now globally widespread and form hybrid zones where they overlap (McDonald et al. 1991, Sarver & Foltz 1993, Hilbish et al. 2000). The role of human activity in establishing the global but disjunct distributions of these species has been addressed in terms of genetic evidence, fossil evidence, and the available introduction pathways. (e.g., McDonald et al. 1991, Carlton 1999, Daguin & Borsa 2000, Hilbish et al. 2000)
Certain features of Mytilus species make them likely candidates tot human-mediated introduction: their planktonic larval stage allows them to be passively transported in the ballast water of commercial ships (e.g., Carlton & Geller 1993), byssal threads produced by juveniles and adults allow transport on hard substrata including ship and boat hulls (Carlton & Hodder 1995, Apte et al. 2000), and their palatability and relative ease of culture has led to their widespread introduction for aquaculture (Heath el al. 1995, Couturier 2003 and references therein).
M. galloprovincialis is the most widely distributed of the three sibling species, and recent genetic analyses distinguish among multiple hypotheses for its origin and spread (Daguin & Borsa 2000). In the Northeast Pacific, M. galloprovincialis ranges from Mexico to central California, and recent surveys confirm its presence throughout the inner waters of Washington State (Suchanek et al. 1997, Anderson et al. 2002, present study). The origin, timing, and pathways of its introduction to Washington remain unclear, and it has likely been introduced on multiple occasions. Here, I summarize recent genetic analyses of Mytilus spp. distributions globally and in the northeast Pacific, provide additional sampling results from Washington State waters, review our current understanding of the M. galloprovincialis introduction to the region, and identify ecologic questions to be addressed concerning this introduction.
Global Mytilus Distributions
Because Mytilus sibling species and their hybrids cannot reliably be distinguished with morphologic characters alone, genetic analysis is required to determine their distributions and origins. M. edulis and M. galloprovincialis are the most closely related and M. trossulus is the most divergent according to genomic DNA (Beynon & Skibinski 1996, Eirin-Lopez et al. 2002, Martinez-Lage et al. 2002) and mtDNA analysis (Rawson & Hilbish 1995b, Quesada et al. 1998, Geller 1999, Hilbish et al. 2000). Two additional studies report evidence that may suggest that M. galloprovincialis is the most divergent of the three species (Wenne & Skibinski 1995, Varvio et al. 1988). However, the mtDNA-based species determinations in one study (Wenne & Skibinski 1995) may have been confounded by sex-specific differences, and the other study stated clearly that their allozyme analysis should not be taken to indicate relative relatedness among the species (Varvio et al. 1988).
The three sibling species have distinct but overlapping distributions. M. trossulus is circumpolar in the north Pacific, northwest Atlantic, and Baltic, but has not been unambiguously identified in the southern hemisphere (McDonald et al. 1991, Hilbish et al. 2000). M. edulis is found in the northeast and northwest Atlantic, and edulis-like mussels arc reported from South America (McDonald et al. 1991). M. edulis has also been introduced to British Columbia tot aquaculture (Heath et al. 1995). M. galloprovincialis is distributed throughout the Mediterranean and into the northeast Atlantic, with additional populations in California, Japan, South Africa, Australasia and Chile (McDonald et al. 1991, Sanjuan et al. 1997, Daguin & Borsa 2000, Hilbish et al. 2000). To account for its disjunct distribution, M. galloprovincialis has been proposed variously to be endemic to the Mediterranean and introduced in the north and south Pacific (Barsotti & Meluzzi 1968, McDonald et al. 1991, Carlton 1999), possibly endemic to the south Pacific (Koehn 1991, McDonald et al. 1991), and endemic to both the Pacific and Mediterranean (Sanjuan et al. 1997). These alternate hypotheses are comprehensively reviewed by Daguin and Borsa (2000) and Hilbish et al. (2000); the key points are summarized here.
Northern hemisphere populations of M. galloprovincialis in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean can be distinguished by allozyme (Quesada et al. 1995b, Sanjuan et al. 1997) and mtDNA analysis (Quesada et al. 1995a, Quesada et al. 1998, Ladoukakis et al. 2002). The Californian population is more closely related to the Mediterranean than to the Atlantic population in allozyme (McDonald & Koehn 1988, Sanjuan et al. 1997) and genomic DNA studies (Daguin & Borsa 2000). In the southern hemisphere, Mytilus sp. appear in fossil beds and middens, and genomic DNA analysis indicates that present-day populations arc closest to, but readily distinguished from, Mediterranean populations (Daguin & Borsa 2000, Hilbish et al. 2000).
The emerging evolutionary and historical picture that appears most consistent with genetic and geological data is that the genus Mytilus evolved in the north Pacific, that the M. trossulus stock migrated ~3.5 mya through the Bering Strait to the north Atlantic where the M. edulis stock arose, and that M. galloprovincialis subsequently diverged from M. edulis in the Mediterranean (Vet meij 1991, 1992; Daguin and Borsa 2000; Hilbish et al. 2000). Subsequently, both M. galloprovincialis and M. edulis migrated to the southern hemisphere (Vermeij 1991, 1992, Daguin & Borsa 2000, Hilbish et al. 2000). Since these early natural dispersal events, more recent translocations have occurred to California, southern Africa, and the northwest Pacific (Wilkins 1983, Grant & Cherry 1985. Lee & Morton 1985, McDonald & Koehn 1988, Inoue et al. 1997, Sanjuan et al. 1997, Daguin & Borsa 2000). Because none of these introductions is known to have been intentional, they most likely occurred accidentally via commercial ship ping transport. Mytilus species may also have been recently transported to the southern hemisphere by shipping; this remains to be determined.
Northeast Pacific Mytilus
The broad-scale distribution of Mytilus species along the Pacific coast of North America is well established. M. trossulus is currently found from Alaska south to Monterey Bay, California (~36 [degrees]N) and M. galloprovincialis from Mexico north to Humboldt Bay, California (~38 [degrees]N). An apparently stable hybrid zone extends between San Diego (~32 [degrees]N) and Humboldt Bay (McDonald & Koehn 1988. McDonald el al. 1991, Sarver & Foltz 1993). The congener M. californianus is a morphologically, genetically, and ecologically distinct species that is found on exposed shores along the entire coast (Sarver & Foltz 1993); it is not treated further here.
Until recently, only a handful of M. galloprovincialis and hybrids had been collected from Oregon to British Columbia, and the coastline north of Humboldt Bay was not considered a major zone of sympatry and hybridization (Heath et al. 1995, Rawson & Hilbish 1995a, Suchanek et al. 1997, Rawson et al. 1999). However, M. galloprovincialis has been widely introduced for aquaculture in Washington and British Columbia, and M. edulis to a lesser extent in British Columbia (Brooks 1991, Heath et al. 1995, Hilbish 1999, Anderson et al. 2002). In addition, M. galloprovincialis has been identified in ballast water loaded in Japan and scheduled for discharge in Oregon (Carlton & Gullet 1993, Geller et al. 1994, Suchanek et al. 1997). Given the large scale of both aquaculture and ship-mediated invasion pathways in the Pacific Northwest (Wonham & Carlton 2004), we might expect M. galloprovincialis (and possibly M. edulis) to be more widely distributed in these waters. Indeed, recent surveys of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington, indicate that M. galloprovincialis alleles are distributed broadly in the south and central sound and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Anderson et al. 2002, present study). Along the outer coast, M. galloprovincialis is reported from northern California and Oregon, but seems to be largely absent from Washington (Suchanek et al. 1997, Brooks 1991). Northeast Pacific records of M. galloprovincialis and hybrids are detailed here by province and state.
Heath et al. (1995) sampled 12 sites on Vancouver Island and the adjacent mainland (Fig. 1. Table 1). They found non native alleles belonging to either M. galloprovincialis or M. edulis at five sites from Yellow Island to Victoria. Because mussel aquaculture is continuing to develop in BC, new surveys in this region using species-specific markers are welcome.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The subtidal distribution of M. galloprovincialis alleles in Washington extends throughout the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the North Puget Trough, and Puget Sound (Fig. 2, see Table 1). M. galloprovincialis was identified as early as 1988 in the eastern strait (Brooks 1991), and extensive sampling in the straits and Puget Sound indicates it is now ubiquitous in this region (Anderson et al. 2002, present study). It has been found in the East, Main, and South Basins of Puget Sound, but not in Hood Canal, and appears less frequently in Northern Puget Trough (see Fig. 1, Table 1). Brooks (1991) found no M. galloprovincialis on the outer coast of Washington; one hybrid was reported from Tatoosh Island by Suchanek et al. (1997) but none was found there in recent sampling (present study; see Fig. 1, Table 1).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
In this study, I made 16 collections totaling 390 individual Mytilus at 15 Washington sites from 1997 to 2000 (see Table 1). Subtidal mussels were collected by hand from public docks and marinas and one aquaculture farm. Ten of the docks and marinas were sampled during a rapid-assessment survey for introduced marine species (Cohen et al. 1998), and an additional four were sampled along the northern Olympic peninsula (see Fig. 1, Table 1). At each site, up to 15 mussels were collected by hand from underneath floating docks. Mussels were selected haphazardly, but because they were collected as visible and accessible among other fouling species, they tended to be large (all 3-10 cm long). Mussels in the same size range were also collected from suspended culture ropes at Taylor United Shellfish farm, Shelton, Washington. These included both cultured mussels (i.e., M. galloprovincialis seeded from hatchery stock) and natural-set mussels (see Table 1). Intertidal mussels (1-3 cm shell length, representing the largest mussels at the site) were collected from the rocky shores of Tatoosh Island at the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Saddlebag Island in Padilla Bay (see Fig. 1, Table 1). All specimens were stored at -10[degrees]C until identification.
Mussels were dissected and DNA was extracted from 0.5 g of gonad tissue following Geller et al. (1994). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification followed Suchanek et al. (1997) using the species-specific primers developed by Inoue et al. (1995). The PCR product was run on a 2% agarose gel: individuals homozygous for this marker exhibit a single band and heterozygotes exhibit bands of both parental species (Inoue et al. 1995, Suchanek et al. 1997, Wonham 2001). All heterozygotes are M. galloprovincialis x M. trossulus hybrids, whereas homozygotes may represent either pure or introgressed genomic DNA strains. Although introgression seems to be limited in these populations (Rawson et al. 1999), heterozygote frequencies nonetheless probably underestimate the relative abundance of hybrids. Reference DNA samples for each species were provided by J. Mitton, University of Colorado. For further collection and analysis details see Wonham (2001).
I found M. galloprovincialis genes in subtidal mussel samples throughout Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and northern Puget Trough. Homozygote M. galloprovincialis and heterozygores were present at 4/4 marinas along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and 6/8 marinas in Puget Sound (Figs. 1 and 2, see Table 1). Together they averaged of 22% of mussels in both regions (range 0% to 50% in the strait and 8% to 54% in the sound, excluding aquaculture samples). They were present at only one site in northern Puget Trough (see Fig. 1, Table 1).
This Puget Sound and Trough distribution of M. galloprovincialis is largely consistent with that found by Anderson et al. (2002), who sampled similar locations. Differences are that I found M. galloprovincialis alleles at Steilacoom and Elliott Bay Marinas where they did not, but not at Seattle (Harbor Island Marina) or Tacoma (Ole and Charlie's Marina), where they did. I take these minor differences between studies to indicate local spatial heterogeneity in mussel species distributions; with larger sample sizes at identical sites the results would likely be consistent.
The frequency of M. galloprovincialis genes (22%) exceeds previous estimates for Puget Sound by approximately 4-fold (Brooks 1991, Suchanek et al. 1997, Anderson et al. 2002, cultured mussels excluded from all studies). Because my collections and those of Anderson et al. (2002) were made in the same year, the difference does not reflect a temporal change. Instead, I suggest that it may reflect differences in the size of sampled mussels. The subtidal mussels I collected were 3-10 cm in shell length, whereas those analyzed by Anderson et al. (2002) were as small as 0.5 cm. Further evidence for a difference in sizes is found in the detailed analysis by Anderson et al. (2002) of mussels at one site, where they found that smaller mussels had predominantly M. trossulus alleles and larger ones had predominantly M. galloprovincialis alleles. The potentially larger size of M. galloprovincialis has implications for the invader's fecundity and spread relative to its native sibling species.
Although M. galloprovincialis was readily found at subtidal sites, I found none in intertidal samples from Tatoosh Island. Because M. galloprovincialis is common at other intertidal sites in the Pacific and Atlantic (Sarver & Foltz 1993, Quesada et al. 1995b, Rawson & Hilbish 1995a, Wilhelm & Hilbish 1998), it seems likely that it will also invade this habitat in Washington waters. On the other hand, at one site in Posjet Bay, Russia, McDonald et al. (1991) found exclusively M. trossulus intertidally and exclusively M. galloprovincialis subtidally. Only one intertidal hybrid has been reported from Washington (Suchanek et al. 1997), and further sampling is warranted to determine whether M. galloprovincialis is invading intertidal as well as subtidal habitats.
Oregon and Northern California
On the Oregon coast, M. galloprovincialis alleles have been reported only from Yaquina and Coos Bays (see Table 1). Surveys in northern California (north of Cape Mendocino) repeatedly identify M. galloprovincialis alleles in Crescent City and Humboldt Bay (see Table 1). The central and southern California distribution of M. galloprovincialis is summarized elsewhere (McDonald & Koehn 1988, McDonald et al. 1991, Sarver & Foltz 1993, Suchanek et al. 1997).
For a subset of sites in three Northeast Pacific regions (those sites at which M. galloprovincialis alleles were reported, and genetic markers distinguished heterozygotes from homozygotes), mean genotype frequencies were calculated (Table 2). In each region the observed frequencies differed significantly from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in goodness-of-fit tests using the total number of each genotype (see Table 2). These departures from equilibrium reflect an under-representation of M. galloprovincialis alleles, which is consistent both with the early stages of an invader's spread into a native population and with more general observations of heterozygote deficiency in Mytilus populations (Raymond et al. 1997).
It seems likely that M. galloprovincialis has been introduced to the Northeast Pacific through both aquaculture and shipping or boating. Most commercial M. galloprovincialis seed in the region is currently supplied by a single farm in Washington, which originally obtained its stock from California in the 1980s (G. King, Taylor United Shellfish, pers. comm.). These mussels were initially imported because they seemed to be resistant to bivalve disseminated-hemic neoplasia, a disease of unknown pathogenic agent that affects native M. trossulus particularly in culture (Brooks & Elston 1989a, Brooks & Elston 1989b). At the time of import, the genetic identity of the disease-resistant Californian mussels was not recognized (G. King, pers. comm.). The introduction date of M. galloprovincialis to California is unknown, but it has been suggested that historical records of a Mytilus invasion in southern California (Burch 1943-1958, Smith 1944, Coe 1945, 1946) reflect the arrival of M. galloprovincialis (Carlton 1979, Geller 1999). Aquaculture farms currently serve as localized sources of reproductively mature M. galloprovincialis whose larvae presumably disperse as far as currents permit. Additional dispersal within the region may occur from wild populations and via adult mussels transported on boat hulls.
Ship ballast water and ship and boat hulls may also provide a continual supply of organisms, including M. galloprovincialis, to Pacific Northwest waters (Carlton & Geller 1993, Geller et al. 1994, Suchanek et al. 1997). Shipping to the region comes primarily from Asia, where M. galloprovincialis is also introduced (Wilkins et al. 1983, Lee & Morton 1985, Inoue et al. 1995, Inoue et al. 1997, Suchanek et al. 1997, Wonham & Carlton 2004). This pathway may be particularly relevant to M. galloprovincialis populations along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where Vancouver-bound vessels may deballast (Larson et al. 2003, Levings et al. 2004).
Within the northeast Pacific, no study to date has explicitly been designed to assess the spatial spread of mussels from aquaculture facilities, ports, or marinas. Detailed genetic investigation of possible source populations (i.e., Japan, California, and the Mediterranean) may shed light on the likeliest invasion pathways for M. galloprovincialis to the region (Rawson & Hilbish 1995a, Sanjuan et al. 1997, Quesada et al. 1998). Within the region, sampling a range of mussel sizes and habitats (i.e., intertidal and subtidal; rock and floats) at increasing distances from farms, ports, and marinas could provide a clearer picture of the role of these potential M. galloprovincialis sources. Because the species is now widespread, more ecologically interesting questions concern its success and impacts as an invader (e.g., Hockey & Van Erkom Schurink 1992, Geller 1999, Gilg & Hilbish 2000, Secor et al. 2001).
The combined results reported here identity a major zone of sympatry and hybridization between M. galloprovincialis and M. trossulus in Washington waters, in addition to the well-recognized California zone (McDonald & Koehn 1988, McDonald et al. 1991, Sarver & Foltz 1993, Suchanek et al. 1997). The apparent absence of M. galloprovincialis genes between Yaquina Bay, Oregon, and Cape Flattery, Washington, may reflect the absence of mussel culture and major shipping ports along this stretch of coastline. On the other hand, given coastal currents and shipping traffic (Levings et al. 1998, Larson et al. 2003), and the associated potential for larval release and dispersal, it would not be surprising if further sampling revealed that the Washington and California zones comprised a larger Mytilus-complex hybrid swarm extending along the North American Pacific coast.
TABLE 1. Mussel Mytilus spp. records on the Pacific coast or North America from Queen Charlotte Strait, British Columbia, to Humboldt Bay, California. For each site, proportion of, homozygous M. galloprovincialis alleles, Mg, homozygous M. trossulus alleles, Mt, and heterozygous hybrids, Mg x Mt, given. N, number of individuals sampled. Sites in bold are those with M. galloprovincialis or hybrid individuals; p, genes present but not quantified; nd, data not provided in original study; -, marker could not distinguish heterozygotes. Latitude ([degrees]N), longitude ([degrees]W), and sampling date (m/yy) given for intertidal and subtidal mussel Mytilus spp. collection sites in the present study; sites indicated with * were sampled during a rapid-assessment survey for introduced marine species in Puget Sound (Cohen et al. 1998). Location Site Mg Mg x Mt Mt British Columbia outer coast Vancouver Island Coal Harbour 0.00 0.00 1.00 Ucluelet Harbour 0.00 0.00 1.00 Strait of Georgia & Queen Charlotte Strait Vancouver Island Port Hardy 0.00 0.00 1.00 Sayward 0.00 0.00 1.00 Yellow Island 0.00 0.06 0.94 Union Bay 0.04 0.00 0.96 French Creek 0.06 0.03 0.91 Nanaimo 0.03 0.03 0.93 Chemainus 0.14 0.00 0.86 Mainland Horseshoe Bay 0.00 0.00 1.00 North Puget Trough Bellingham Bay * 0.18 0.09 0.73 0.00 -- 1.00 Saddlebag Island, Padilla Bay 0.00 0.00 1.00 Anacortes Anacortes 0.00 -- 1.00 Anacortes City Pier * 0.00 0.00 1.00 San Juan Island Argyle Creek 0.00 0.00 1.00 Eagle Cove 0.00 0.00 1.00 Friday Harbor Laboratory * 0.00 0.00 1.00 Puget Sound-East Basin Whidbey Is. (E) Deception Pass Marina 0.00 -- 1.00 Oak Harbor Crescent Harbor 0.00 -- 1.00 Penn Cove 0.25 0.10 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.00 Holmes Harbor (Honeymoon H.) 0.01 0.02 0.97 Holmes Harbor (Freeland) 0.00 -- 1.00 Possession Point 0.00 -- 1.00 Puget Sound-Hood Canal Hood Canal 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lilliwaup 0.00 -- 1.00 Seal Rock, Brinnon 0.00 -- 1.00 Potlatch State Park 0.00 -- 1.00 Twanoh State Park 0.00 -- 1.00 Belfair State Park 0.00 -- 1.00 Puget Sound-Main Basin Whidbey Is. (W) Fort Casey p nd nd Keystone Ferry 0.00 -- 1.00 Mutiny Bay 0.00 -- 1.00 Edmonds Edmonds Marina * 0.07 0.20 0.73 Edmonds 0.19 -- 0.82 Seattle Seahurst County Park 0.19 -- 0.81 Shilshole Bay 0.12 -- 0.88 Elliott Bay Marina * 0.00 0.15 0.85 0.00 -- 1.00 Seattle Pier 91 0.00 -- 1.00 West Seattle 0.00 -- 1.00 Harbor Island Marina * 0.00 0.00 1.00 Des Moines Saltwater State Park 0.04 -- 0.96 Des Moines Marina * 0.14 0.14 0.71 Tacoma Point Defiance 0.07 -- 0.93 Ole & Charlie's Marina * 0.00 0.00 1.00 Manchester Manchester p nd nd Manchester State Park 0.00 -- 1.00 Silverdale, Dyes Inlet 0.35 -- 0.65 0.18 0.67 0.15 Poulsbo, Liberty Bay 0.00 -- 1.00 Kingston p nd nd Puget Sound-South Basin Steilacoom Marina * 0.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 -- 1.00 Budd Inlet Skookum Bay 0.00 0.00 1.00 Tolmie State Park 0.00 -- 0.00 Boston Harbor Marina * 0.18 0.09 0.82 Totten Inlet Taylor United Shellfish (c) 1.00 0.00 0.00 Taylor United Shellfish (n) 0.75 0.25 0.00 Taylor United Shellfish 1.00 -- 0.00 Carlyon 0.08 -- 0.92 Hammersley Inlet Shelton Yacht Club * 0.43 0.57 0.50 Shelton 0.33 -- 0.67 Kamilche Sea Farms 0.00 0.19 0.81 Case Inlet Grapeview Marina 0.09 -- 0.91 Joemma Beach State Park 0.02 -- 0.98 Carr Inlet Penrose Point State Park 0.02 -- 0.98 Purdy 0.04 -- 0.96 Strait of Juan de Fuca Vancouver Island Sooke Harbour 0.00 0.01 0.99 Victoria 0.00 0.03 0.97 Sequim John Wayne Marina 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.82 Washington Harbor 0.00 0.00 1.00 Van Riper's Marina, Sekiu 0.10 0.00 0.90 Makah Marina, Neah Bay 0.00 0.08 0.92 Port of Port Angeles 0.23 0.31 0.46 Tatoosh Island, Cape Flattery 0.17 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 1.00 Washington outer coast Ruby Beach 0.00 0.00 1.00 Westport, Grays Harbor 0.00 0.00 1.00 Willapa Bay Bay Center 0.00 0.00 1.00 Port of Willapa 0.00 0.00 1.00 Columbia River 0.00 0.00 1.00 Oregon coast Tillamook Bay 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Yaquina Bay Yaquina Bay 0.00 0.11 0.89 0.00 0.00 1.00 Newport 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Alsea Bay 0.00 0.00 1.00 Umpqua River 0.00 0.00 1.00 Coos Bay 0.09 0.00 0.91 Port Orford 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 California coast Crescent City 0.00 p? p 0.06 0.00 0.94 p nd nd 0.04 0.04 0.92 0.00 0.00 1.00 Humboldt Bay Humboldt Bay 0.88 0.08 0.04 p nd nd Arcata Bay 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.98 Eureka 0.00 0.00 1.00 Eureka Slough 0.00 0.01 0.99 Woodley Island 0.00 0.00 1.00 Location Site N Source British Columbia outer coast Vancouver Island Coal Harbour 22 Heath et al. 1995 (a) Ucluelet Harbour 23 Heath et al. 1995 Strait of Georgia & Queen Charlotte Strait Vancouver Island Port Hardy 29 Heath et al. 1995 Sayward 35 Heath et al. 1995 Yellow Island 79 Heath et al. 1995 Union Bay 26 Heath et al. 1995 French Creek 35 Heath et al. 1995 Nanaimo 29 Heath et al. 1995 Chemainus 29 Heath et al. 1995 Mainland Horseshoe Bay 25 Heath et al. 1995 North Puget Trough Bellingham Bay * 11 Present study (9/98) (48[degrees]76', 122[degrees]49') 22 Anderson et al. 2002 (c) Saddlebag Island, Padilla Bay 1 Present study (7/97) (48[degrees]32', 123[degrees]33') Anacortes Anacortes 32 Anderson et al. 2002 Anacortes City Pier * 10 Present study (9/98) (48[degrees]31', 122[degrees]36') San Juan Island Argyle Creek 6 Suchanek et al. 1997 Eagle Cove 6 Suchanek et al. 1997 Friday Harbor Laboratory * 2 Present study (9/98) (48[degrees]32', 123[degrees]01') Puget Sound-East Basin Whidbey Is. (E) Deception Pass Marina 30 Anderson et al. 2002 Oak Harbor Crescent Harbor 32 Anderson et al. 2002 Penn Cove 20 Suchanek et al. 1997 563 Brooks 1991 (d) Holmes Harbor (Honeymoon H.) 200 Brooks 200 Holmes Harbor (Freeland) 30 Anderson et al. 2002 Possession Point 28 Anderson et al. 2002 Puget Sound-Hood Canal Hood Canal 54 Brooks 1991 Lilliwaup 30 Anderson et al. 2002 Seal Rock, Brinnon 54 Anderson et al. 2002 Potlatch State Park 30 Anderson et al. 2002 Twanoh State Park 32 Anderson et al. 2002 Belfair State Park 26 Anderson et al. 2002 Puget Sound-Main Basin Whidbey Is. (W) Fort Casey nd Brooks 2000 Keystone Ferry 32 Anderson et al. 2002 Mutiny Bay 30 Anderson et al. 2002 Edmonds Edmonds Marina * 15 Present study (9/98) (47[degrees]49', 122[degrees]23') Edmonds 26 Anderson et al. 2002 Seattle Seahurst County Park 32 Anderson et al. 2002 Shilshole Bay 68 Anderson et al. 2002 Elliott Bay Marina * 13 Present study (9/98) (47[degrees]38', 122[degrees]22') 66 Anderson et al. 2002 Seattle Pier 91 29 Anderson et al. 2002 West Seattle 24 Anderson et al. 2002 Harbor Island Marina * 13 Present study (9/98) (47[degrees]35', 122[degrees]22') Des Moines Saltwater State Park 28 Anderson et al. 2002 Des Moines Marina * 14 Present study (9/98) (47[degrees]24', 122[degrees]19') Tacoma Point Defiance 28 Anderson et al. 2002 Ole & Charlie's Marina * 9 Present study (9/98) (47[degrees]12', 122[degrees]29') Manchester Manchester nd Brooks 2000 Manchester State Park 48 Anderson et al. 2002 Silverdale, Dyes Inlet 126 Anderson et al. 2002 54 Brooks 1991 Poulsbo, Liberty Bay 32 Anderson et al. 2002 Kingston nd Brooks 2000 Puget Sound-South Basin Steilacoom Marina * 12 Present study (9/98) (47[degrees]10', 122[degrees]36' 62 Anderson et al. 2002 Budd Inlet Skookum Bay 7 Suchanek et al. 1997 Tolmie State Park 44 Anderson et al. 2002 Boston Harbor Marina * 11 Present study (9/98) (47[degrees]08', 122[degrees]54') Totten Inlet Taylor United Shellfish (c) 32 Present study (7/97) (48[degrees]13', 123[degrees]06') Taylor United Shellfish (n) 4 Present study (7/97) Taylor United Shellfish 58 Anderson et al. 2002 Carlyon 26 Anderson et al. 2002 Hammersley Inlet Shelton Yacht Club * 14 Present Study (9/98) (47[degrees]13', 122[degrees]05') Shelton 26 Anderson et al. 2002 Kamilche Sea Farms 63 Brooks 1991 Case Inlet Grapeview Marina 32 Anderson et al. 2002 Joemma Beach State Park 58 Anderson et al. 2002 Carr Inlet Penrose Point State Park 60 Anderson et al. 2002 Purdy 52 Anderson et al. 2002 Strait of Juan de Fuca Vancouver Island Sooke Harbour 73 Heath et al. 1995 Victoria 30 Heath et al. 1995 Sequim John Wayne Marina 9 Brooks 1991 11 Present study (10/98) (48[degrees]04', 123[degrees]06') Washington Harbor 63 Brooks 1991 Van Riper's Marina, Sekiu 10 Present study (10/98) (48[degrees]16', 124[degrees]18') Makah Marina, Neah Bay 13 Present study (10/98) (48[degrees]22', 124[degrees]37') Port of Port Angeles 13 Present study (10/98) (48[degrees]07', 123[degrees]26') Tatoosh Island, Cape Flattery 6 Suchanek et al. 1997 92 Present study (6/00) (48[degrees]23', 124[degrees]44') Washington outer coast Ruby Beach 72 Brooks 1991 Westport, Grays Harbor 63 Brooks 1991 Willapa Bay Bay Center 81 Brooks 1991 Port of Willapa 54 Brooks 1991 Columbia River 54 Brooks 1991 Oregon coast Tillamook Bay 25 McDonald and Koehn 1988 (e) 121 McDonald and Siebenaller 1989 17 Suchanek et al. 1997 Yaquina Bay Yaquina Bay 54 Brooks 1991 338 McDonald and Siebenaller 1989 Newport 25 McDonald and Koehn 1988 68 Rawson and Hilbish 1995 Alsea Bay 144 McDonald and Siebenaller 1989 Umpqua River 111 McDonald and Siebenaller 1989 Coos Bay 43 Suchanek et al. 1997 Port Orford 25 McDonald and Koehn 1988 30 Rawson and Hilbish 1995 California coast Crescent City 21 McDonald and Koehn 1988 84 Rawson et al. 1999 [greater Sarver and Loudenslager than or 1991 equal to] 32 48 Salver and Foltz 1993 29 Rawson and Hilbish 1995 Humboldt Bay Humboldt Bay 98 Brooks 1991 [greater Sarver and Loudenslager than or 1991 equal to] 59 Arcata Bay 34 Rawson and Hilbish 1995 83 Rawson et al. 1999 Eureka 25 McDonald and Koehn 1988 Eureka Slough 192 Sarver and Foltz 1993 Woodley Island 60 Sarver and Foltz 1993 Notes: (a) ITS alleles only. This marker did not distinguish M. galloprovincialis from the introduced Atlantic M. edulis, so samples listed here under M. galloprovincialis may have included both. (b) Mussels in present study selected for large size (all 3-10 cm shell length). (c) Mussels in Brooks (1991) selected for M. galloprovincialis-type morphologies. (d) In Anderson et al. (2002), hybrids were not distinguished from individuals with only M. galloprovincialis alleles. (e) Mpi alleles only. TABLE 2. Mean ([+ or -] SD) for homozygote and heterozygote Mytilus allele frequencies in 3 regions of the northeast Pacific from Table 1 (number of sites per region in parentheses). Allele frequencies in all 3 regions for Mg, homozygous M. galloprovincialis, Mt, homozygous M. trossulus, and Mg x Mt, heterozygous hybrids, are significantly different from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium at p < 0.0001, based on contingency table tests using the number of mussels of each genotype. Site Mg Mg x Mt Puget Sound (11) 0.18 (0.23) 0.24 (0.20) Strait of Juan de Puca (8) 0.06 (0.09) 0.20 (0.34) Oregon & California (7) 0.15 (0.32) 0.04 (0.04) Site Mt [chi square] Puget Sound (11) 0.63 (0.30) 228.9 Strait of Juan de Puca (8) 0.74 (0.34) 136.5 Oregon & California (7) 0.81 (0.34) 495.3
Many thanks to J. Mitton and B. Kreiser at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and S. Edwards at the University of Washington, Seattle, for making laboratory space, equipment, and reference samples available. K. Ward provided expert laboratory assistance, and K. Brooks and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments. G. King arid Taylor Shellfish Inc. generously made mussel samples available. This work was supported by Graduate Research Fellowship NA77OR0250, Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve). Access to Tatoosh Island was permitted by the Makah Tribal Council.
Anderson, A. S., A. L. Bilodeau, M. R. Gilg & T. J. Hilbish. 2002. Routes of introduction of the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) to Puget Sound and Hood Canal. J. Shellfish Res. 21:75-79.
Apte, S., B. S. Holland. L. S. Godwin & J. P. A. Gardner. 2000. Jumping ship: a stepping stone event mediating transfer of nonindigenous species via a potentially unsuitable environment. Biological Invasions 2: 75-79.
Barsotti. G. & C. Meluzzi. 1968. Osservazioni su Mytilus edulis e M. galloprovincialis Lmk. Conchiglie 4:50-58.
Beynon. C. M. & D. O. F. Skibinski. 1996. The evolutionary relationships between three species of mussel (Mytilus) based on anonymous DNA polymorphisms. J. Exper. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 203:1-10.
Brooks, K. M. 1991. The genetics and epizootiology of heroic neoplasia in Mytilus edulis. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle
Brooks, K. M. & R. A. Elston. 1989a. Epizootiology of hemic neoplasia in Mytilus trossulus within Washington State. J. Shellfish Res. 8:411.
Brooks. K. M. & R. A. Elston. 1989b. Epizontiology of hemic neoplasia in Mytilus trossulus within Washington State. Part 2. J. Shellfish Res. 10: 233.
Burch, J. Q. 1943-1958. Notes on Mytilus. Minutes of the Conchological Club of southern California 30:9, 36:6-9, 16. 39:25, 41:15, 51:67, 52:43, 55:41. 107:4, 176:5.
Carlton, J. T. 1979. History, biogeography, and ecology of the introduced marine and estuarine invertebrates of the Pacific coast of North America. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA.
Carlton, J. T. 1999. Molluscan invasions in marine and estuarine communities. Malacologia 41:439-454.
Carlton, J. T. & J. B. Geller, 1993. Ecological roulette: The global transport of nonindigenous marine organisms. Science 261:78-82.
Carlton, J. T. & J. Hodder. 1995. Biogeography and dispersal of coastal marine organisms: experimental studies on a replica of a sixteenth century sailing vessel. Mar. Biol. 121:721-730.
Coe, W. R. 1945. Mytilus edulis diegensis, new subspecies. Minutes of the Conchological Club of southern California 48:28.
Coe, W. R. 1946. A resurgent population of the California bay mussel (Mytilus edulis diegensis). J. Morphol, 78:85-104,50:38,51:64.
Cohen, A., C. Mills, H. Berry, M. Wonham, B. Bingham, B. Bookheim, J. T. Carlton, J. Chapman, J. Cordell, L. Harris, T. Klinger, A. Kohn, C. Lambert, G. Lambert, K. Li. D. Secord & J. Toft. 1998. Puget sound expedition: a rapid assessment survey of non-indigenous species in the shallow waters of Puget Sound. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA.
Couturier, C. 2002. Proceedings of the First International Mussel Forum, Charlottetown. PEI, September 17-20 2002. St. Andrews, NB, Canada: Aquaculture Association of Canada.
Daguin, C. & P. Borsa. 2000. Genetic relationships of Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck populations worldwide: evidence from nuclear DNA markers. In: J. A. Crame. ed. The evolutionary biology of the Bivalvia. London: Geological Society. pp 389-397.
Eirin-Lopez, J. M., A. M. Gonzalez-Tizon. A. Martinez & J. Mendez. 2002. Molecular and evolutionary analysis of mussel histone genes (Mytilus spp.): possible evidence of an "orphan origin" for H1 histone genes. J. Mol. Evol. 55:272-283.
Geller, J. B. 1999. Decline of a native mussel masked by sibling species invasion. Conserv. Biol. 13:661-664.
Geller, J. B., J. T. Carlton & D. A. Powers. 1994. PCR based detection of mtDNA haplotypes of native and invading mussels on the northeastern Pacific coast--latitudinal pattern of invasion. Mar. Biol. 119:243-249.
Gilg, M. R. & T. J. Hilbish. 2000. The relationship between allele frequency and tidal height in a mussel hybrid zone: a test of the differential settlement hypothesis. Mar. Biol. 137(3):371-378.
Heath, D. D., P. D. Rawson & T. J. Hilbish. 1995. PCR-based nuclear markers identify alien blue mussel (Mytilus spp.) genotypes on the west coast of Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:2621-2627.
Hilbish, T. J. 1999. Genetic and ecological consequences of contact between species of Mytilus: lessons from California, Puget Sound and Europe. Bulletin of the Aquaculture Association of Canada 99:14-16.
Hilbish, T. J., A. Mullinax, S. I. Dolven, A. Meyer, R. K. Koehn & P. D. Rawson. 2000. Origin of the antitropical distribution pattern in marine mussels (Mytilus spp.): routes and timing of transequatorial migration. Mar. Biol. 136:69-77.
Hockey, P. A. R. & C. Van Erkom Schurink. 1992. The invasive biology of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis on the southern African coast. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 48:123-139.
Inoue, K., S. Odo, T. Noda, S. Nakao, S. Takeyama, E. Yamaha, F. Yamazaki & S. Harayama. 1997. A possible hybrid zone in the Mytilus edulis complex in Japan revealed by PCR markers. Mar. Biol. 128:91-95.
Inoue. K., J. H. Waite, M. Matsuoka, S. Odo & S. Harayama. 1995. Interspecific variations in adhesive protein sequences of Mytilus edulis, M. galloprovincialis, and M. trossulus. Biol. Bull. 189:370-375.
Koehn, R. K. 1991. The genetics and taxonomy of species in the genus Mytilus. Aquaculture 94:125-145.
Ladoukakis, E. D., C. Saavedra, A. Magoulas & E. Zouros. 2002. Mitochondrial DNA variation in a species with two mitochondrial genomes: the case of Mytilus galloprovincialis from the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Mol. Ecol. 11:755-769.
Larson, M. R., M. G. G. Foreman, C. D. Levings & M. R. Tarbotton. 2003. Dispersion of discharged ship ballast water in Vancouver Harbour, Juan de Fuca Strait, and offshore Washington coast. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Science 2:163-176.
Lee, S. Y. & B. Morton. 1985. The introduction of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis into Hong Kong. Malacol. Rev. 18: 107-109,
Levings, C. D., J. R. Cordell, S. Ong & G. E. Piercey. 2004. The origin and identity of invertebrate organisms being transported to Canada's Pacific coast by ballast water. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1-11.
Martinez-Lage, A., F. Rodriguez, A. M. Gonzalez-Tizon, E. Prats, L. Cornudella & J. Mendez. 2002. Comparative analysis of different satellite DNAs in four Mytilus species. Genome 45:922-929.
McDonald, J. H. & R. K. Koehn. 1988. The mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and Mytilus trossulus on the Pacific coast of North America. Mar. Biol. 99:111-118.
McDonald, J. H., R. Seed & R. K. Koehn. 1991. Allozymes and morphometric characters of 3 species of Mytilus in the northern and southern hemispheres. Mar. Biol. 111:323-333.
Quesada, H., C. M. Beynon & D. O. F. Skibinski. 1995a. A mitochondrial DNA discontinuity in the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk.: pleistocene vicariance biogeography and secondary intergradation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:521-524.
Quesada, H., M. Warren & D. O. F. Skibinski. 1998. Nonneutral evolution and differential mutation rate of gender-associated mitochondrial DNA lineages in the marine mussel Mytilus. Genetics 149:1511-1526.
Quesada, H., C. Zapata & G. Alvarez. 1995b. A multilocus allozyme discontinuity in the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis: the interaction of ecological and life-history factors. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 116:99-115.
Rawson, P. D., V. Agrawal & T. J. Hilbish. 1999. Hybridization between the blue mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and M. trossulus along the Pacific coast of North America: evidence for limited introgression. Mar. Biol. 134:201-211.
Rawson, P. D. & T. J. Hilbish. 1995a. Distribution of male and female mtDNA lineages in populations of blue mussels, Mytilus trossulus and M. galloprovincialis, along the Pacific coast of North America. Mar. Biol. 124:245-250.
Rawson, P. D. & T. J. Hilbish. 1995b. Evolutionary relationships among the male and female mitochondrial-DNA lineages in the Mytilus edulis species complex. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:893-901.
Raymond, M., R. L. Vaanto, F. Thomas, F. Rousset. T. deMeeus & F. Renaud. 1997. Heterozygote deficiency in the mussel Mytilus edulis species complex revisited. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Set. 156:225-237.
Sanjuan, A., C. Zapata & G. Alvarez. 1997. Genetic differentiation in Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk. throughout the world. Ophelia 47:13-31.
Sarver, S. K. & D. W. Foltz. 1993. Genetic population structure of a species complex of blue mussels (Mytilus spp.). Mar. Biol. 117:105-112.
Secor, C. L., A. J. Day & T. J. Hilbish. 2001. Factors influencing differential mortality within a marine mussel (Mytilus spp.) hybrid population in southwestern England: reproductive effort and parasitism. Mar. Biol. 138(4):731-739.
Smith, A. G. 1944. Notes on Mytilus, Minutes of the Conchological Club of southern California 37:11, 38:16, 39:4, 41:7-13
Suchanek, T. H., J. B. Geller, B. R. Kreiser & J. B. Mitton. 1997. Zoogeographic distributions of the sibling species Mytilus galloprovincialis and M. trossulus (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) and their hybrids in the north Pacific. Biol. Bull. 193:187-194.
Varvio, S. L., R. K. Koehn & R. Vainola. 1988. Evolutionary genetics of the Mytilus edulis complex in the North Atlantic region. Mar. Biol. 98:51-60.
Vermeij, G. J. 1991. Anatomy of an invasion: The trans-Arctic interchange. Paleobiology 17:281-307.
Vermeij, G. J. 1992. Trans-equatorial connections between biotas in the temperate eastern Atlantic. Mar. Biol. 112:343-348.
Wenne, R. & D. O. F. Skibinski. 1995. Mitochondrial-DNA heteroplasmy in European populations of the mussel Mytilus trossulus. Mar. Biol. 122:619-624.
Wilhelm, R. & T. J. Hilbish. 1998. Assessment of natural selection in a hybrid population of mussels: evaluation of exogenous vs. endogenous selection models. Mar. Biol. 131:505-514.
Wilkins, N. P., K. Fujino & E. M. Gosling. 1983. The Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk. in Japan. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 20:365-374.
Wonham, M. 2001. Ecology and management of marine biological invasions: distribution and environmental constraints in Mytilus galloprovincialis. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Zoology, Seattle
Wonham, M. J. & J. T. Carlton. 2004. Cool-temperate marine invasions at local and regional scales: The Northeast Pacific as a model system. Biological Invasions.
MARJORIE J. WONHAM *
University of Washington, Department of Zoology, Box 351800, Seattle, WA, USA 98195-1800
* Corresponding author. E-mail: email@example.com
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Wonham, Marjorie J.|
|Publication:||Journal of Shellfish Research|
|Date:||Aug 1, 2004|
|Previous Article:||Localized synchronous spawning of Mytilus californianus conrad in Barkley Sound, British Columbia, Canada.|
|Next Article:||Variations in density, shell-size and growth with shore height and wave exposure of the rocky intertidal snail, Calyptraea spirata (Forbes, 1852), in...|