Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica)
Distribution data supplied by the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS). To interrogate UK data visit the NBN Atlas.Map Help
Researched by | Georgina Budd & Will Rayment | Refereed by | Dr Bill Langston |
Authority | Linnaeus, 1758 | ||
Other common names | - | Synonyms | Macoma balthica (Linnaeus, 1758), Limecola balthica (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Summary
Description
Macoma balthica is widely distributed throughout north-west Europe and Britain. It has a plump almost circular shell, up to 25 mm in length, with umbones close to the midline. The posterior of the shell may be very slightly tapered. The colour of the shell varies between pink, purple, yellow, white and may be blackened in sulphide-rich sediments. The colour is either uniform throughout the shell or in concentric bands.
Recorded distribution in Britain and Ireland
Common in estuarine environments around the British Isles, with the exception of the south coast.
Global distribution
Macoma balthica has an extensive geographic range that reaches from temperate to arctic coastal waters in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans.
Habitat
Macoma balthica lives a few centimetres below the surface of sand, mud and muddy sand. It is found from the upper regions of the intertidal into the sublittoral, particularly in estuaries and on tidal flats.
Depth range
1-190mIdentifying features
- Shell equivalve and broadly oval, up to 25 mm long.
- Umbones more or less on mid-line.
- Anterior hinge line and margin regularly convex, posterior hinge line and margin slightly attenuated.
- Periostracum colourless or light brown, most conspicuous at margins.
- Pallial sinus irregular, deep, lower edge largely fused with pallial line.
- Two small cardinal teeth in each valve, no lateral teeth.
- Outer surface dull, with sculpturing of fine, concentric banding.
- Shell pink, purple, white or yellow in various shades, unicolorous or banded; inner surface similar.
- Outer surface may be blackened in sulphide-rich sediments.
Additional information
-none-Listed by
- none -
Biology review
Taxonomy
Level | Scientific name | Common name |
---|---|---|
Phylum | Mollusca | Snails, slugs, mussels, cockles, clams & squid |
Class | Bivalvia | Clams, cockles, mussels, oysters, and scallops |
Order | Cardiida | |
Family | Tellinidae | |
Genus | Macoma | |
Authority | Linnaeus, 1758 | |
Recent Synonyms | Macoma balthica (Linnaeus, 1758)Limecola balthica (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Biology
Parameter | Data | ||
---|---|---|---|
Typical abundance | High density | ||
Male size range | <25 mm | ||
Male size at maturity | 3-6 mm | ||
Female size range | 3-6 mm | ||
Female size at maturity | |||
Growth form | Bivalved | ||
Growth rate | 3 mm/year | ||
Body flexibility | None (less than 10 degrees) | ||
Mobility | Burrower | ||
Characteristic feeding method | Active suspension feeder, Surface deposit feeder | ||
Diet/food source | Detritivore, Planktotroph | ||
Typically feeds on | Diatoms, deposited plankton, suspended phytoplankton & detritus. | ||
Sociability | Solitary | ||
Environmental position | Infaunal | ||
Dependency | No information found. | ||
Supports | No information | ||
Is the species harmful? | No |
Biology information
Abundance. Stephen (1929) reported typical abundances of Macoma balthica from the Firth of Forth to be 0-89/m² and maximum abundance to be 288/m². Ratcliffe et al. (1981) reported adult densities in the Humber Estuary, UK, between 5,000/m² and 40,000/m² depending on the time since a successful spatfall. Bonsdorff et al. (1995) reported juvenile density in the Baltic Sea following settlement to be 300,000 /m² decreasing to a stable adult density of 1,000 /m².
Size at maturity. Caddy (1967) reported Macoma balthica) from the River Thames reaching maturity in their 2nd year at a size of 5-6mm, whereas in the Netherlands, first-year animals larger than 4mm had developed gonads during the spawning season (Lammens, 1967). Lavoie (1970) (cited in Gilbert, 1978) reported that a population of Macoma balthica from a French estuary did not achieve sexual maturity until their second year at a mean length of 3.57mm. Given that the growth rate varies significantly between populations, Gilbert (1978) suggested that Macoma balthica may mature in its second year of life regardless of size or during its first year if a certain size is achieved. Harvey & Vincent (1989), however, consider that sexual maturity is a function of size rather than age in Macoma balthica, maturation occurring when the shell reaches 6mm with corresponding ages of individuals from the same population varying between 10 and 22 months.
Growth rate. Gilbert (1973) reported mean annual growth rate of Macoma balthica to be 3.3 mm/yr with an average length of 18-20 mm for fully grown individuals. However, other studies show considerable variations in growth patterns in relation to habitat and depth. McLusky & Allan (1976) reported the maximum growth rate of Macoma balthica in the laboratory to be 1 mm over an eight month period for 5-7 mm long animals maintained at 15°C and 25 psu.
Toxicity. Macoma balthica is not normally considered to be toxic but may transfer toxicants through the food chain to predators. Macoma balthica was implicated in the Mersey bird kill in the late 1970's, owing to bioconcentration of alklyC-lead residues (Bull et al., 1983).
Habitat preferences
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Physiographic preferences | Enclosed coast or Embayment, Estuary, Ria or Voe |
Biological zone preferences | Lower eulittoral, Mid eulittoral, Upper eulittoral |
Substratum / habitat preferences | Mud, Muddy sand, Sandy mud |
Tidal strength preferences | Moderately strong 1 to 3 knots (0.5-1.5 m/sec.), Weak < 1 knot (<0.5 m/sec.) |
Wave exposure preferences | Extremely sheltered, Sheltered, Very sheltered |
Salinity preferences | Low (<18 psu), Reduced (18-30 psu), Variable (18-40 psu) |
Depth range | 1-190m |
Other preferences | No text entered |
Migration Pattern | Non-migratory or resident |
Habitat Information
Studies have indicated that eastern and western North Atlantic populations of Macoma balthica are morphologically and genetically different from one another and that they may have diverged as sibling species (Meehan & Carlton, 1988).
Depth preferences. Macoma balthica occurs in a wide depth range between the mid-shore and 190m but is most abundant at moderate depths on muddy and sandy bottoms (Olafsson, 1986). However, Macoma balthica is mainly an intertidal species in British waters.
Local distribution. Macoma balthica is a resident species but because of near-surface habitat preference, populations may be subject to tidal re-location and scouring. Also, observations of propulsion stimulus to scallops may assist in local relocation (Langston, W.J., pers. comm.)
Life history
Adult characteristics
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Reproductive type | Gonochoristic (dioecious) |
Reproductive frequency | Annual episodic |
Fecundity (number of eggs) | 10,000-100,000 |
Generation time | 1-2 years |
Age at maturity | See additional information |
Season | See additional information |
Life span | 5-10 years |
Larval characteristics
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Larval/propagule type | - |
Larval/juvenile development | Planktotrophic |
Duration of larval stage | 1-6 months |
Larval dispersal potential | Greater than 10 km |
Larval settlement period | Insufficient information |
Life history information
Lifespan. Gilbert (1973) reviewed the longevity records of Macoma balthica. lifespan is typically 5-10 years but may be as long as 30 years in populations from deep, cold water. The data presented suggest that maximum size and growth rate decrease and longevity increases with increasing latitude and associated cooler temperatures.
Age at maturity. Caddy (1967) reported Macoma balthica from the River Thames reaching maturity in their 2nd year at a size of 5-6 mm, whereas in the Netherlands, first-year animals larger than 4 mm had developed gonads during the spawning season (Lammens, 1967). Lavoie (1970) (cited in Gilbert, 1978) reported that a population of Macoma balthica from a French estuary did not achieve sexual maturity until their second year at a mean length of 3.57 mm. Given that the growth rate varies significantly between populations, Gilbert (1978) suggested that Macoma balthica may mature in its second year of life regardless of size or during its first year if a certain size is achieved. However, Harvey & Vincent (1989) considered that sexual maturity was a function of size rather than age in Macoma balthica, maturation occurring when the shell reached 6 mm with the correspondent ages of individuals from the same population varying between 10 and 22 months.
Gametogenesis and spawning. Caddy (1967) studied gametogenesis and spawning in a population of Macoma balthica from the Thames Estuary, UK. The primary gonad passed through a male phase, maturation being achieved in the second year of life. Gametogenesis was associated with a system of follicle cells which broke down as the gametes approached maturity. The arrangement of the follicle cells was characteristic of the sex. In the female, gametocytes were peripheral to the follicle cells, while in the male they were interstitial. Spermatogenesis proceeded most rapidly in the centre of the follicle, resulting in a gradient of spermatogenic stages of increasing maturity from the periphery to the centre. Spawning occurred principally in the spring and to a lesser extent in the autumn. Several spawnings were identified within a season, but repeated cycles of gametogenesis were absent. Ejection of eggs occurred from the exhalant siphon and continued for 40 minutes with brief spawning bursts at 3-minute intervals. Eggs were expelled at considerable speed to a height in the water column of approximately 8 cm and settled out of suspension slowly. Females of approximately 17mm shell length were estimated to have expelled between 10,000 and 50,000 eggs.
Sensitivity review
The MarLIN sensitivity assessment approach used below has been superseded by the MarESA (Marine Evidence-based Sensitivity Assessment) approach (see menu). The MarLIN approach was used for assessments from 1999-2010. The MarESA approach reflects the recent conservation imperatives and terminology and is used for sensitivity assessments from 2014 onwards.
Physical pressures
Use / to open/close text displayed
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence / Confidence | |
Substratum loss [Show more]Substratum lossBenchmark. All of the substratum occupied by the species or biotope under consideration is removed. A single event is assumed for sensitivity assessment. Once the activity or event has stopped (or between regular events) suitable substratum remains or is deposited. Species or community recovery assumes that the substratum within the habitat preferences of the original species or community is present. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica inhabits the upper layers of sandy and muddy substrata in physiographic locations where activities causing substratum loss occur e.g. channel dredging. Consequently, removal of the substratum would remove the population of Limecola balthica from the area affected and so intolerance is assessed as high. Direct evidence of recovery by Limecola balthica following substratum loss is given by Bonsdorff (1984) (see additional information below) and recoverability is recorded as high. | High | High | Moderate | High |
Smothering [Show more]SmotheringBenchmark. All of the population of a species or an area of a biotope is smothered by sediment to a depth of 5 cm above the substratum for one month. Impermeable materials, such as concrete, oil, or tar, are likely to have a greater effect. Further details. EvidenceLimecola balthica is an infaunal species that is able to burrow both vertically and horizontally through the substratum which it inhabits by use of its foot. It is likely that Limecola balthica is not sensitive to smothering by a layer of sediment 5 cm thick as it is a mobile species able to burrow upwards and surface from a depth of 5 - 6 cm (Brafield & Newell, 1961; Brafield, 1963; Stekoll et al., 1980). | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | High |
Increase in suspended sediment [Show more]Increase in suspended sedimentBenchmark. An arbitrary short-term, acute change in background suspended sediment concentration e.g., a change of 100 mg/l for one month. The resultant light attenuation effects are addressed under turbidity, and the effects of rapid settling out of suspended sediment are addressed under smothering. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica is known to practice two alternative modes of feeding. It either holds its feeding organ, the siphon, at a fixed position just above the sediment surface to filter out food particles suspended in the overlying water, or extends and moves its siphon around on the sediment above it to vacuum up deposited food particles (Peterson & Skilleter, 1994). Facultative switching between the modes of feeding in Limecola balthica is directly affected by food availability in the over-lying water (Lin & Hines, 1994). In turn, changes in feeding mode from suspension to deposit feeding directly affects burial depth and burrowing in the sediment is one of few defensive mechanisms Limecola balthica has against predators. In the laboratory, Lin & Hines (1994) observed specimens of Limecola balthica kept in estuarine water supplemented with 75 µg L-1of algae to maintain a deeper burial position whilst suspension feeding, than those without an enhanced diet who deposit fed. Thus an increase of material in suspension will favour suspension feeding by Limecola balthica and indirectly reduce its vulnerability to lethal and sub-lethal siphon browsing by fish and decapods. Limecola balthica is therefore assessed as 'tolerant' with the potential for growth and reproduction to be enhanced by the increased food supply. | Tolerant* | Not relevant | Not sensitive* | Moderate |
Decrease in suspended sediment [Show more]Decrease in suspended sedimentBenchmark. An arbitrary short-term, acute change in background suspended sediment concentration e.g., a change of 100 mg/l for one month. The resultant light attenuation effects are addressed under turbidity, and the effects of rapid settling out of suspended sediment are addressed under smothering. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica is known to practice two alternative modes of feeding. It either holds its feeding organ, the siphon, at a fixed position just above the sediment surface to filter out food particles suspended in the overlying water, or extends and moves its siphon around on the sediment to vacuum up deposited food particles (Peterson & Skilleter, 1994). A reduction in suspended material is likely to decrease the availability of food attained efficiently by suspension feeding. Facultative switching between the modes of feeding in Limecola balthica is directly affected by food availability in the over-lying water (Lin & Hines, 1994). In turn, changes in feeding mode from suspension to deposit feeding directly affects its burial depth and burrowing in the sediment is one of few defensive mechanisms Limecola balthica has against predators. Thus a decrease in the amount of suspended material in the over-lying water is likely to initiate deposit feeding in Limecola balthica. In doing so, Limecola balthica may decrease the depth at which it resides in order to stretch its siphon over the substratum to feed efficiently. The exposure of its inhalent siphon (rather than just the tip) for deposit feeding is likely to increase the risk of lethal predation and non-lethal siphon browsing by fish and decapods. However, intolerance is assessed to be low since the benchmark change period is one month. | Low | Very high | Very Low | Moderate |
Desiccation [Show more]Desiccation
EvidenceLimecola balthica is a bivalve and can close tightly by contraction of the adductor muscle, storing moisture inside the shell. The silty sediments in which the species lives have a high water content and are therefore resistant to desiccation. Furthermore, Limecola balthica is mobile and would be able to relocate further down the shore by burrowing (Bonsdorff, 1984) or floating (Sörlin, 1988) if exposed to desiccation stress. Limecola balthica has therefore been assessed as 'tolerant' to desiccation at the level of the benchmark. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low |
Increase in emergence regime [Show more]Increase in emergence regimeBenchmark. A one hour change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of one year. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica occurs in the upper regions of the intertidal (Tebble, 1976) and is therefore likely to be tolerant of prolonged emergence. It is a bivalve and can close tightly by contraction of the adductor muscle, storing moisture inside the shell. The silty sediments in which the species lives have a high water content and are therefore resistant to desiccation. Furthermore, Limecola balthica is mobile and able to relocate in the intertidal by burrowing (Bonsdorff, 1984) or floating (Sörlin, 1988). It would be expected to react to an increase in emergence by migrating down the shore to its preferred position. There may be an energetic cost to this migration but it is not expected that mortality would result and so intolerance is recorded as low. Limecola balthica should quickly recover from the energetic cost of relocation and so recoverability is assessed as very high. | Low | Very high | Very Low | Low |
Decrease in emergence regime [Show more]Decrease in emergence regimeBenchmark. A one hour change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of one year. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica occurs in the intertidal and sublittorally down to depths of 190 m (Olafsson, 1986), although is more abundant intertidally, so would be expected to be tolerant of a decrease in emergence regime. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | High |
Increase in water flow rate [Show more]Increase in water flow rateA change of two categories in water flow rate (view glossary) for 1 year, for example, from moderately strong (1-3 knots) to very weak (negligible). Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica thrives in low energy environments such as estuaries (Tebble, 1976) where the substratum has a high proportion of fine sediment. Increased water flow rate will change the sediment characteristics in which the species lives, primarily by re-suspending and preventing deposition of finer particles (Hiscock, 1983). This would result in erosion of the preferred habitat, which may cause mortality of some portion of the population of Limecola balthica. Green (1968) recorded that towards the mouth of an estuary where sediments became coarser and cleaner, Limecola balthica was replaced by another tellin species, Tellina tenuis. Intolerance is therefore recorded as intermediate. Recoverability is recorded as high (see additional information below). | Intermediate | High | Low | Moderate |
Decrease in water flow rate [Show more]Decrease in water flow rateA change of two categories in water flow rate (view glossary) for 1 year, for example, from moderately strong (1-3 knots) to very weak (negligible). Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica thrives in low energy environments such as estuaries (Tebble, 1976) where the substratum has a high proportion of fine sediment. The species is able to maintain a feeding and respiration current independent of ambient flow. As a result of decreased water flow, rate of siltation is likely to increase, making conditions more favourable for deposit feeders. Indeed, Newell (1965) (cited in Green, 1968) noted that Limecola balthica populations in the Thames Estuary, UK, were denser where the grade of deposit was finer, possibly due to greater food availability. Therefore, Limecola balthica is probably tolerant of a decrease in water flow rate. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low |
Increase in temperature [Show more]Increase in temperature
For intertidal species or communities, the range of temperatures includes the air temperature regime for that species or community. Further details EvidenceThe geographic range of Limecola balthica (see distribution) illustrates that the species is tolerant of a range of temperatures and probably becomes locally adapted. In Europe, the species occurs as far south as the Iberian Peninsula and hence would be expected to tolerate higher temperatures than experienced in Britain and Ireland. Oertzen (1969) reported that Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica) could tolerate temperatures up to 49°C before thermal numbing of gill cilia occurred presumably resulting in death. Ratcliffe et al. (1981) reported that Limecola balthica from the Humber Estuary, UK, tolerated 6 hours of exposure to temperatures up to 37.5°C with no mortality. It seems likely therefore that the species could adapt to a chronic change and tolerate a large acute change with no mortality. The worst case scenario following an increase in temperature is an energetic cost associated with sub-optimal metabolic function and so intolerance is assessed as low. Metabolic activity should rapidly return to normal when temperatures fall to original levels so recoverability is assessed as very high. | Low | Very high | Very Low | Moderate |
Decrease in temperature [Show more]Decrease in temperature
For intertidal species or communities, the range of temperatures includes the air temperature regime for that species or community. Further details EvidenceThe geographical distribution of Limecola balthica suggests that it is very tolerant of low temperature. The species occurs in the Gulfs of Finland and Bothnia where the sea freezes for several months of the year (Green, 1968). It must therefore tolerate much lower temperatures than it experiences in Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, Limecola balthica was apparently unaffected by the severe winter of 1962/3 which decimated populations of many other bivalve species (Crisp, 1964), and De Wilde (1975) noted that Limecola balthica kept at 0°C maintained a high level of feeding activity. It is unlikely therefore that UK populations of Limecola balthica would be intolerant of decreases in temperature. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | High |
Increase in turbidity [Show more]Increase in turbidity
EvidenceLimecola balthica does not require light and therefore is not directly affected by an increase in turbidity for the purposes of light attenuation. An increase in turbidity may affect primary production in the water column and therefore reduce the availability of phytoplankton food in suspension and deposited at the sediment surface. However, phytoplankton will also immigrate from distant areas and so the effect may be decreased. As the benchmark turbidity increase only persists for a year, decreased food availability would probably only affect growth and fecundity and an intolerance of low is recorded. As soon as light levels return to normal, primary production will increase and hence recoverability is recorded as very high. The effect of increased siltation is detailed in 'increase in suspended sediment' above. | Low | Very high | Very Low | Low |
Decrease in turbidity [Show more]Decrease in turbidity
EvidenceLimecola balthica does not require light and therefore would not be affected by a decrease in turbidity for light attenuation purposes. It is possible that decreased turbidity would increase primary production in the water column and by micro-phyto benthos. The resultant increase in food availability may enhance growth and reproduction in Limecola balthica but only if food was previously limiting. The effect of decreased siltation is detailed in 'decrease in suspended sediment' above. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Not relevant |
Increase in wave exposure [Show more]Increase in wave exposureA change of two ranks on the wave exposure scale (view glossary) e.g., from Exposed to Extremely exposed for a period of one year. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica characteristically inhabits fine sediments in low energy environments (Tebble, 1976). This suggests that it would, in some way, be intolerant of an increase in wave exposure. An increase in wave exposure by two categories for one year would be likely to affect the species in several ways. Fine sediments would be eroded (Hiscock, 1983) resulting in the likely reduction of the habitat of Limecola balthica. Strong wave action may cause damage or withdrawal of the siphons, resulting in loss of feeding opportunities and compromised growth. Furthermore, individuals may be dislodged by scouring from sand and gravel mobilized by increased wave action. For example, Ratcliffe et al. (1981) reported that juvenile Limecola balthica are susceptible to displacement by water currents due to their small mass and inability to bury deeply. For the above reasons, some mortality would be likely to occur and intolerance is recorded as intermediate. Recoverability is recorded as high (see additional information below). | Intermediate | High | Low | Low |
Decrease in wave exposure [Show more]Decrease in wave exposureA change of two ranks on the wave exposure scale (view glossary) e.g., from Exposed to Extremely exposed for a period of one year. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica characteristically inhabits muddy sand in low energy environments (Tebble, 1976). It is capable of maintaining a feeding and respiration current by ciliary action. It is therefore unlikely to be affected by a decrease in wave exposure. However, it should be noted that decreased wave exposure will lead to changes in oxygenation and increased risk of smothering due to siltation. These factors are discussed in their relevant sections. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low |
Noise [Show more]Noise
EvidenceLimecola balthica is intolerant of shear-wave vibrations that propagate along the sediment surface in the frequency range 50-200 Hz (Franzen, 1995). When placed on the surface of the substratum and exposed to a shear-wave of typical velocity for unconsolidated muddy sand (15 meters per second), the response of Limecola balthica consisted of frequent and intense digging attempts (Franzen, 1995). It is likely that Limecola balthica will be not sensitive to the benchmark for underwater noise as it will either remain buried or take immediate avoidance reaction by burying without a detectable effect upon the species viability. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low |
Visual presence [Show more]Visual presenceBenchmark. The continuous presence for one month of moving objects not naturally found in the marine environment (e.g., boats, machinery, and humans) within the visual envelope of the species or community under consideration. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica does not have the visual acuity to detect objects and is unlikely to be sensitive to visual disturbance. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Low |
Abrasion & physical disturbance [Show more]Abrasion & physical disturbanceBenchmark. Force equivalent to a standard scallop dredge landing on or being dragged across the organism. A single event is assumed for assessment. This factor includes mechanical interference, crushing, physical blows against, or rubbing and erosion of the organism or habitat of interest. Where trampling is relevant, the evidence and trampling intensity will be reported in the rationale. Further details. EvidenceNo evidence was found concerning the effect of physical abrasion on Limecola balthica. However, the species is not mobile enough to be able to avoid an object such as a dragging anchor or a scallop dredge and the shell is relatively thin and would probably be damaged by such an impact. It is expected that some mortality would result and therefore intolerance is assessed as intermediate. Recoverability is recorded as high (see additional information below). | Intermediate | High | Low | Very low |
Displacement [Show more]DisplacementBenchmark. Removal of the organism from the substratum and displacement from its original position onto a suitable substratum. A single event is assumed for assessment. Further details EvidenceLimecola balthica is likely to be tolerant of displacement as it is able to rebury itself within 17 minutes when placed on the surface of the substratum (McGreer, 1979). However, Limecola balthica individuals displaced to the sediment surface are likely to suffer an increased risk of predation and some mortality may result. Intolerance is therefore recorded as intermediate. Recoverability is recorded as high (see additional information below). | Intermediate | High | Low | Moderate |
Chemical pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence / Confidence | |
Synthetic compound contamination [Show more]Synthetic compound contaminationSensitivity is assessed against the available evidence for the effects of contaminants on the species (or closely related species at low confidence) or community of interest. For example:
The evidence used is stated in the rationale. Where the assessment can be based on a known activity then this is stated. The tolerance to contaminants of species of interest will be included in the rationale when available; together with relevant supporting material. Further details. EvidenceBeaumont et al. (1989) concluded that bivalves are particularly sensitive to tri-butyl tin (TBT), a toxic component of antifouling paints. For example, when exposed to 1-3 µg TBT/l, Cerastoderma edule and Scobicularia plana suffered 100% mortality after 2 weeks and 10 weeks respectively. There is also evidence that TBT causes recruitment failure in bivalves, either due to reproductive failure or larval mortality (Bryan & Gibbs, 1991). However, little evidence was found concerning the effects of synthetic chemicals specifically on Limecola balthica. Bryan & Gibbs (1991) recorded bioaccumulation of TBT by Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica) to be similar to Cerastoderma edule and Scobicularia plana. Langston (1978) recorded bioaccumulation of a polychlorinated biphenyl in Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica), levels of Aroclor 1242 reached 60 ppm in 40 days. Duinker et al. (1983) also reported bioaccumulation of PCBs by Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica) but made no comment on toxicity to the species. In light of the intolerance of other bivalve species, the intolerance of Limecola balthica to synthetic chemicals is recorded as high but with very low confidence. Recoverability is recorded as high (see additional information below). | High | High | Moderate | Very low |
Heavy metal contamination [Show more]Heavy metal contaminationEvidence
| High | High | Moderate | High |
Hydrocarbon contamination [Show more]Hydrocarbon contaminationEvidenceStekoll et al. (1980) exposed Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica) to Prudhoe Bay crude oil in flowing seawater for six months at three concentrations; low 0.03 mg/l, medium 0.3 mg/l and high 3.0 mg/l. Limecola balthica exhibited a range of behavioural, physical, physiological and biochemical changes prior to death at the highest concentration of oil.Mortality:
| High | High | Moderate | High |
Radionuclide contamination [Show more]Radionuclide contaminationEvidenceHutchins et al. (1998) described the effect of temperature on bioaccumulation by Limecola balthica of radioactive americium, caesium and cobalt, but made no comment on the intolerance of the species. Insufficientinformation was available to assess the intolerance of Limecola balthica to radionuclide contamination. | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Changes in nutrient levels [Show more]Changes in nutrient levelsEvidenceIt has been suggested that Limecola balthica has the potential to be used as an indicator organism of organic pollution (Pearson & Rosenberg, 1978; Pekkarinen, 1983; Mölsa, 1986), as the species was reported to increase in abundance towards the sources of nutrient enrichment and to disappear when the organic loading became heavier (Anger, 1975 (a) & (b); Landner et al., 1977). Madsen & Jensen (1987) reported the population of Limecola balthica to increase in abundance and biomass at two localities in the Danish Wadden Sea experiencing nutrient enrichment caused by a waste water discharge. The increase in shell growth, productivity / biomass ratio and improvement in 'condition' index of Limecola balthica in the organically enriched areas was presumably due to the increased food supply (Madsen & Jensen, 1987). Owing to this evidence and that Limecola balthica is relatively tolerant to deoxygenation (an indirect effect of nutrient enrichment) it is likely that Limecola balthica will benefit from nutrient enrichment. | Tolerant* | Not relevant | Not sensitive* | Moderate |
Increase in salinity [Show more]Increase in salinity
EvidenceMcLusky & Allan (1976) conducted salinity survival experiments with Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica) over a period of 150 days. No deaths were reported in specimens of Limecola balthica maintained at 30.5 psu for the duration of the experiment. Limecola balthica is found in brackish and fully saline waters (although it is more common in brackish waters) (Clay, 1967(b)) so may tolerate a state of flux. McLusky & Allan (1976) reported that Limecola balthica failed to grow at 41 psu, but it is likely that Limecola balthica would be tolerant of increased salinity and intolerance to a change in this factor is likely to be low. Growth should quickly return to normal when salinity returns to original levels and so recoverability is recorded as very high. | Low | Very high | Very Low | High |
Decrease in salinity [Show more]Decrease in salinity
EvidenceMcLusky & Allan (1976) conducted salinity survival experiments with Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica) over a period of 150 days. Survival times declined with decreased salinity. At 12 psu specimens survived 78 days, whilst specimens at 8.5 psu survived 40 days. Some specimens of Limecola balthica survived 2.5 days at 0.8 psu, which was apparently due to the animals ability to clamp its valves shut in adverse conditions. McLusky & Allan (1976) also reported that Limecola balthica failed to grow (increase shell length) at 15 psu. Limecola balthica is found in brackish and fully saline waters (Clay, 1967(b)) so may tolerate a state of flux. Its distribution in combination with the experimental evidence of McLusky & Allan (1976) suggests that Limecola balthica is likely to be very tolerant to a decreased salinity over a short period. A decline in salinity in the long term may have implications for the species viability in terms of growth, and the distribution of the species may alter as specimens at the extremes retreat to more favourable conditions. Intolerance is therefore assessed as low. Metabolic function should quickly return to normal when salinity returns to original levels and so recoverability is recorded as very high. Decreased salinity may also affect the ability of Limecola balthica to tolerate contaminants such as heavy metals (see Bryant et al., 1985 & 1985a). Usually, contaminants become more toxic at low salinity (Langston, W.J. pers comm.). | Low | Very high | Very Low | High |
Changes in oxygenation [Show more]Changes in oxygenationBenchmark. Exposure to a dissolved oxygen concentration of 2 mg/l for one week. Further details. EvidenceLimecola balthica appears to be relatively tolerant of deoxygenation. Brafield & Newell (1961) frequently observed that in conditions of oxygen deficiency (e.g. less than 1 mg O2/l) Limecola balthica moved upwards to fully expose itself on the surface of the sand. Specimens lay on their side with the foot and siphons retracted but with valves gaping slightly allowing the mantle edge to be brought into full contact with the more oxygenated surface water lying between sand ripples. In addition, Limecola balthica was observed under laboratory conditions to extend its siphons upwards out of the sand in to the overlying water when water was slowly deoxygenated with a stream of nitrogen. The lower the oxygen concentration became the further the siphons extended. This behaviour, an initial increase in activity stimulated by oxygen deficiency, is of interest because the activity of lamellibranchs is generally inhibited by oxygen deficient conditions (Brafield & Newell, 1961). Dries & Theede (1974) reported the following LT50 values for Limecola balthicaa maintained in anoxic conditions : 50 - 70 days at 5°C, 30 days at 10°C, 25 days at 15°C and 11 days at 20°C. Theede (1984) reported that the ability of Limecola balthica to resist extreme oxygen deficiency was mainly due to cellular mechanisms. Of considerable importance are sufficient accumulations of reserve compounds e.g. glycogen and the ability to reduce energy requirements for maintenance of life by reducing overall activity (Theede, 1984). Limecola balthica is therefore very tolerant of hypoxia, although it may react by reducing metabolic activity. Intolerance is therefore assessed as low. Metabolic function should quickly return to normal when normoxic levels are resumed and so recoverability is recorded as very high. | Low | Very high | Very Low | High |
Biological pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence / Confidence | |
Introduction of microbial pathogens/parasites [Show more]Introduction of microbial pathogens/parasitesBenchmark. Sensitivity can only be assessed relative to a known, named disease, likely to cause partial loss of a species population or community. Further details. EvidenceLimecola balthica is host to at least three gymnophallid trematodes; Lacunovermis macomae (Lebour), Gymnophallus gibberosus (Loos-Franc) and Parvatrema affinis which is known to cause sexual castration (Swennen & Ching, 1974). Specimens tend to be more infested at higher levels of the intertidal (1.0 m above mean low water) than at mean low water, and larger specimens tend to be more infested than smaller ones (Lim & Green, 1991). Lim & Green (1991) also suggest that increased exposure of Limecola balthica at the higher intertidal level to shore birds (the final host of the trematodes) is the reason for the differences in parasite load between the tidal levels. They found that the most parasitised specimens grew faster and larger than the less parasitised. Enhanced stomatic growth as a result of parasitic castration was proposed as a logical explanation to account for the faster growth rate of parasitised specimens. Recoverability is recorded as high (see additional information below). | Intermediate | High | Low | High |
Introduction of non-native species [Show more]Introduction of non-native speciesSensitivity assessed against the likely effect of the introduction of alien or non-native species in Britain or Ireland. Further details. EvidenceThere is no evidence to suggest that Limecola balthica is likely to be susceptible to displacement by invasive species. | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Extraction of this species [Show more]Extraction of this speciesBenchmark. Extraction removes 50% of the species or community from the area under consideration. Sensitivity will be assessed as 'intermediate'. The habitat remains intact or recovers rapidly. Any effects of the extraction process on the habitat itself are addressed under other factors, e.g. displacement, abrasion and physical disturbance, and substratum loss. Further details. EvidenceLimecola balthica is not extracted commercially. | Not relevant | Not relevant | Not relevant | Not relevant |
Extraction of other species [Show more]Extraction of other speciesBenchmark. A species that is a required host or prey for the species under consideration (and assuming that no alternative host exists) or a keystone species in a biotope is removed. Any effects of the extraction process on the habitat itself are addressed under other factors, e.g. displacement, abrasion and physical disturbance, and substratum loss. Further details. EvidenceCommercial extraction of other infaunal species is likely to have an effect on Limecola balthica where their distributions overlap. Hall & Harding (1997) demonstrated that commercial cockle harvesting by suction dredging had significant effects on soft-sediment infaunal communities. Following dredging, species numbers were reduced by up to 30% and abundances by up to 50%. Bait harvesting has also been shown to impact infaunal bivalves. For example, mechanical harvesting for Arenicola marina resulted in drastic reduction in the population of Mya arenaria in the Wadden Sea (Beukema, 1995), and commercial digging of mudflats in Maine, USA, reduced total number of infaunal taxa (Brown & Wilson, 1997). Some mortality of Limecola balthica may occur therefore due to harvesting of other species so an intolerance of intermediate is recorded. Recoverability is recorded as high (see additional information below). | Intermediate | High | Low | Low |
Additional information
The life history characteristics of Limecola balthica give the species strong powers of recoverability. Adults spawn at least once a year and are highly fecund (Caddy, 1967). There is a planktotrophic larval phase which lasts up to 2 months (Fish & Fish, 1996) and so dispersal over long distances is potentially possible given a suitable hydrographic regime. Following settlement, development is rapid and sexual maturity is attained within 2 years (Gilbert, 1978; Harvey & Vincent, 1989). In addition to larval dispersal, dispersal of juveniles and adults occurs via burrowing (Bonsdorff, 1984; Guenther, 1991), floating (Sörlin, 1988) and probably via bedload transport (Emerson & Grant, 1991). It is expected therefore that recruitment can occur from both local and distant populations.
Bonsdorff (1984) studied the recovery of a Limecola balthica (as Macoma balthica) population in a shallow, brackish bay in SW Finland following removal of the substratum by dredging in the summer of 1976. Recolonization of the dredged area by Limecola balthica began immediately after the disturbance to the sediment and by November 1976 the Limecola balthica population had recovered to 51 individuals/m². One year later there was no detectable difference in the Limecola balthica population between the recently dredged area and a reference area elsewhere in the bay. In 1976, two generations could be detected in the newly established population indicating that active immigration of adults was occurring in parallel to larval settlement. In 1977, up to six generations were identified, giving further evidence of active immigration to the dredged area. In light of the life history characteristics of Limecola balthica and the evidence of recovery, recoverability of the species is assessed as high.
Importance review
Policy/legislation
- no data -
Status
National (GB) importance | - | Global red list (IUCN) category | - |
Non-native
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Native | - |
Origin | - |
Date Arrived | - |
Importance information
Macoma balthica is classed as a biodestabiliser. Widdows et al. (2000) found a significant relationship between sediment erodability (mass of sediment eroded and erosion rate) and the density of Macoma balthica.Bibliography
Anger, K., 1975a. Quantitative studies on indicator species and communities. Merentutkimuslaitoksen Julkaisau. Helsinki, 239, 116-122.
Anger, K., 1975b. On the influence of sewage pollution on inshore benthic communities in the south of Kiel Bay. Helgolander Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 27, 408-438.
Beaumont, A.R., Newman, P.B., Mills, D.K., Waldock, M.J., Miller, D. & Waite, M.E., 1989. Sandy-substrate microcosm studies on tributyl tin (TBT) toxicity to marine organisms. Scientia Marina, 53, 737-743.
Beukema, J.J., 1995. Long-term effects of mechanical harvesting of lugworms Arenicola marina on the zoobenthic community of a tidal flat in the Wadden Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 33, 219-227.
Boisson, F., Hartl, M.G.J., Fowler, S.W. & Amiard-Triquet, C., 1998. Influence of chronic exposure to silver and mercury in the field on the bioaccumulation potential of the bivalve Macoma balthica. Marine Environmental Research, 45 (4-5), 325-340. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-1136(97)00131-1
Bonsdorff, E., 1984. Establishment, growth and dynamics of a Macoma balthica (L.) population. Limnologica (Berlin), 15, 403-405.
Bonsdorff, E., Norrko, A. & Boström, C., 1995. Recruitment and population maintenance of the bivalve Macoma balthica (L.) - factors affecting settling success and early survival on shallow sandy bottoms. In Proceedings of the 28th European Marine Biology Symposium. Biology and ecology of shallow coastal waters (ed. A. Eleftheriou, A.D. Ansell and C.J. Smith). Olsen and Olsen.
Brafield, A.E. & Newell, G.E., 1961. The behaviour of Macoma balthica (L.). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 41, 81-87.
Brafield, A.E., 1963. The effects of oxygen deficiency on the behaviour of Macoma balthica. Animal Behaviour, 11, 245-346.
Brown, B. & Wilson, W.H., 1997. The role of commercial digging of mudflats as an agent for change of infaunal intertidal populations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 218, 39-51.
Bruce, J.R., Colman, J.S. & Jones, N.S., 1963. Marine fauna of the Isle of Man. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Bryan, G.W. & Gibbs, P.E., 1983. Heavy metals from the Fal estuary, Cornwall: a study of long-term contamination by mining waste and its effects on estuarine organisms. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [Occasional Publication, no. 2.]
Bryan, G.W. & Gibbs, P.E., 1991. Impact of low concentrations of tributyltin (TBT) on marine organisms: a review. In: Metal ecotoxicology: concepts and applications (ed. M.C. Newman & A.W. McIntosh), pp. 323-361. Boston: Lewis Publishers Inc.
Bryant, V., Newbery, D.M., McLusky, D.S. & Campbell, R., 1985. Effect of temperature and salinity on the toxicity of arsenic to three estuarine invertebrates (Corophium volutator, Macoma balthica, Tubifex costatus). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 24, 129-137.
Bryant, V., Newbery, D.M., McLusky, D.S. & Campbell, R., 1985b. Effect of temperature and salinity on the toxicity of nickel and zinc to two estuarine invertebrates (Corophium volutator, Macoma balthica). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 24, 139-153.
Bull, K.R., Every, W.J., Freestone, P., Hall, J.R. & Osborn, D., 1983. Alkyl lead pollution and bird mortalities on the Mersey Estuary, UK. Environmental Pollution (A), 31, 239-259.
Caddy, J.F., 1967. Maturation of gametes and spawning in Macoma balthica (L.). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 45, 955-965.
Clay, E., 1967b. Literature survey of the common fauna of estuaries, 10. Macoma balthica and Tellina tenuis. Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, Brixham Laboratory, BL/A/705.
Crisp, D.J. (ed.), 1964. The effects of the severe winter of 1962-63 on marine life in Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, 165-210.
De Wilde, P.A.W., 1975. Influence of temperature on behaviour, energy metabolism and growth of Macoma balthica (L.). In Ninth European Marine Biology Symposium (ed. H. Barnes), pp.239-256. Aberdeen University Press.
Dries, R.R. & Theede, H., 1974. Sauerstoffmangelresistenz mariner Bodenvertebraten aus der West-lichen Ostsee. Marine Biology, 25, 327-233.
Duinker, J.C., Hillebrand, M.T.J. & Boon, J.P., 1983. Organochlorines in benthic invertebrates and sediments from the Dutch Wadden Sea; identification of individual PCB components. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 17, 19-38.
Emerson, C.W. & Grant, J., 1991. The control of soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) recruitment on intertidal sandflats by bedload sediment transport. Limnology and Oceanography, 36, 1288-1300.
Fish, J.D. & Fish, S., 1996. A student's guide to the seashore. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Franzen, N.C.M., 1995. Shear wave detection by Macoma balthica.
Gilbert, M.A., 1973. Growth rate, longevity and maximum size of Macoma balthica (L.). Biological Bulletin of the Marine Laboratory, Woods Hole, 145, 119-126.
Gilbert, M.A., 1978. Aspects of the reproductive cycle in Macoma balthica (Bivalvia). The Nautilus, 29, 21-24.
Green, J., 1968. The biology of estuarine animals. Sidgwick and Jackson, London.
Guenther, C.P., 1991. Settlement of Macoma balthica on an intertidal sandflat in the Wadden Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 76, 73-79.
Hall, S.J. & Harding, M.J.C., 1997. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: the effects of mechanical harvesting of cockles on non-target benthic infauna. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 497-517.
Harvey, M. & Vincent, B., 1989. Spatial and temporal variations of the reproduction cycle and energy allocation of the bivalve Macoma balthica (L.) on a tidal flat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 129, 199-217.
Hayward, P., Nelson-Smith, T. & Shields, C. 1996. Collins pocket guide. Sea shore of Britain and northern Europe. London: HarperCollins.
Hayward, P.J. & Ryland, J.S. (ed.) 1995b. Handbook of the marine fauna of North-West Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hiddink, J.G., 2003. Effects of suction-dredging for cockles on non-target fauna in the Wadden Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 50, 315-323.
Hiscock, K., 1983. Water movement. In Sublittoral ecology. The ecology of shallow sublittoral benthos (ed. R. Earll & D.G. Erwin), pp. 58-96. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 1999. Marine Environment Resource Mapping And Information Database (MERMAID): Marine Nature Conservation Review Survey Database. [on-line] http://www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid
Lammens, J.J., 1967. Growth and reproduction in a tidal flat population of Macoma balthica. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 3, 315-382.
Landner, I., Nilsson, K. & Rossenburg, R., 1977. Assessment of industrial pollution by means of benthic macrofauna surveys along the Swedish Baltic coast. Vatten, 33, 324-379.
Langston, W.J., 1978. Accumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls in the cockle Cerastoderma edule and the tellin Macoma balthica. Marine Biology, 45, 265-272.
Lim, S.S.L. & Green, R.H., 1991. The relationship between parasite load, crawling behaviour, and growth rate of Macoma balthica (L.) (Mollusca, Pelecypoda) from Hudson Bay, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69, 2202-2208.
Lin, J. & Hines, A.H., 1994. Effects of suspended food availability on the feeding mode and burial depth of the Baltic clam, Macoma balthica. Oikos, 69, 28-36.
Luoma, S.N., Cain, D.J., Ho, K. & Hutchinson, A., 1983. Variable tolerance to copper in two species from San Francisco Bay. Marine Environmental Research, 10 (4), 209-222. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-1136(83)90002-8
Madsen, P.B. & Jensen, K., 1987. Population dynamics of Macoma balthica in the Danish Wadden Sea in an organically enriched area. Ophelia, 27, 197-208.
McGreer, E.R., 1979. Sublethal effects of heavy metal contaminated sediments on the bivalve Macoma balthica (L.). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 10 (9), 259-262. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326x(79)90482-x
McLusky, D.S.& Allan, D.G., 1976. Aspects of the biology of Macoma balthica (L.) from the estuarine Firth of Forth. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 42, 31-45.
Meehan, B.W. & Carlton, J.T., 1988. Unravelling a complex interoceanic dispersal history of the bivalve Macoma balthica. Journal of Shellfish Research, 7, 561.
Mölsa, H., Hakkila, S. & Puhakka, M., 1986. Reproductive success of Macoma balthica in relation to environmental stability. Ophelia, Supplement 4, 167-178.
Oertzen, J.A. Von., 1969. Erste Ergebrisse zur experimentellen ökologie von postglazialen Relikten (Bivalvia) der Ostsee. Limnologica (Berlin), 7, 129-137.
Olafsson, E.B., 1986. Density dependence in suspension feeding populations of the bivalve Macoma balthica. A field experiment. Journal of Animal Ecology, 55, 517-526.
Pearson, T.H. & Rosenberg, R., 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 16, 229-311.
Pekkarinen, M., 1983. Seasonal changes in condition and biochemical constituents in the soft parts of Macoma balthica (Lamellibranchiata) in the Trarminne brackish water area (Baltic Sea). Annales Zoologici Fennici, 20, 311-322.
Peterson, C.H. & Skilleter, G.A., 1994. Control of foraging behaviour of individuals within an ecosystem context: The clam Macoma balthica, flow environment and siphon-cropping fishes. Oecologia, 100, 256-267.
Picton, B.E. & Costello, M.J., 1998. BioMar biotope viewer: a guide to marine habitats, fauna and flora of Britain and Ireland. [CD-ROM] Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin.
Ratcliffe, P.J., Jones, N.V. & Walters, N.J., 1981. The survival of Macoma balthica (L.) in mobile sediments. In Feeding and survival strategies of estuarine organisms (ed. N.V. Jones and W.J. Wolff), pp. 91-108. Plenum Press.
Shaw, D.G., Paul, A.J., Cheek, L.M. & Feder, H.M., 1976. Macoma balthica: An indicator of oil pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 7, 29-31.
Sörlin, T., 1988. Floating behaviour in the tellinid bivalve Macoma balthica (L.). Oecologia, 77, 273-277.
Stekoll, M.S., Clement, L.E. & Shaw, D.G., 1980. Sublethal effects of chronic oil exposure on the intertidal clam Macoma balthica. Marine Biology, 57, 51-60.
Stephen, A.C., 1929. Studies on the Scottish marine fauna: the fauna of the sandy and muddy areas of the tidal zone. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 56, 291-306.
Swennen, C. & Ching, H.L., 1974. Observations on the trematode Parvatrema affininis, causative agent of crawling tracks of Macoma balthica. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 8, 108-115.
Tebble, N., 1976. British Bivalve Seashells. A Handbook for Identification, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: British Museum (Natural History), Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
Theede, H., 1984. Physiological approaches to environmental problems of the Baltic. Limnologica (Berlin), 15, 443-458.
Widdows, J., Brinsley, M.D., Salkeld, P.N. & Lucas, C.H., 2000. Influence of biota on spatial and temporal variation in sediment erodability and material flux on a tidal flat (Westerschelde, The Netherlands). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 194, 23-37.
Datasets
NBN (National Biodiversity Network) Atlas. Available from: https://www.nbnatlas.org.
OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System), 2024. Global map of species distribution using gridded data. Available from: Ocean Biogeographic Information System. www.iobis.org. Accessed: 2024-11-06
Citation
This review can be cited as:
Last Updated: 19/12/2001