Impacts of invasive oyster drills on olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida carpenter 1864) recovery in Willapa Bay, Washington, United States

Journal of Shellfish Research

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 87-96

  Buhle, Eric R ^a,b   Ruesink, Jennifer L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b NORTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Crassostrea gigas; Indirect effect; Invasion; Ocinebrina inornata; Olympia oyster; Ostrea lurida; Predator prey; Urosalpinx cinerea

Indexed keywords

CRASSOSTREA GIGAS; GASTROPODA; OCINEBRINA INORNATA; OSTREA CONCHAPHILA; OSTREA LURIDA; OSTREIDAE; STRAMONITA HAEMASTOMA; UROSALPINX CINEREA;

EID: 77649257886     PISSN: 07308000     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2983/035.028.0115     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abrams, P. A. & H. Matsuda. 1996. Positive indirect effects between prey species that share predators. Ecology 77:610-616.
2. Baker, P. 1995. Review of ecology and fishery of the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida with annotated bibliography. J. Shellfish Res. 14:501-518.
3. Buhle, E. R., M. Margolis & J. L. Ruesink. 2005. Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive species with different life histories. Ecol. Econ. 52:355-366.
4. Burnham, K. P. & D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer-Verlag. 488 pp.
5. Byers, J. E., S. Reichard, J. M. Randall, I. M. Parker, C. S. Smith, W. M. Lonsdale, I. A. E. Atkinson, T. R. Seastedt, M. Williamson, E. Chornesky & D. Hayes. 2002. Directing research to reduce the impacts of nonindigenous species. Conserv. Biol. 16:630-640.
6. Carlton, J.T. 1979. History, biogeography, and ecology of the introduced marine and estuarine invertebrates of the Pacific coast of North America. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis. 904 pp.
7. Carlton, J. T. 1989. Man's role in changing the face of the ocean: biological invasions and implications for conservation of near-shore environments. Conserv. Biol. 3:265-273.
8. Chapman, W. M. & A. H. Banner. 1949. Contributions to the life history of the Japanese oyster drill, Tritonalia japonica, with notes on other enemies of the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida. Washington Dep. Fish. Biol. Rep. 49A:168-200.
9. Chesson, J. 1983. The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64:1297-1304.
10. Chew, K. K. 1960. Study of food preference and rate of feeding of Japanese oyster drill, Ocinebra japonica (Dunker). Special Scientific Report Fisheries 365. Washington, DC: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 pp.
11. Coan, E. V., P. V. Scott & F. R. Bernard. 2000. Bivalve seashells of western North America: marine bivalve mollusks from Arctic Alaska to Baja California. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 764 pp.
12. Connell, J. H. 1970. A predator-prey system in the marine intertidal region. I. Balanus glandula and several predatory species of Thais. Ecol. Monogr. 40:49-78.
13. Cook, A.E., J.A. Shaffer, B. R. Dumbauld & B.E. Kauffman. 2000. A plan for rebuilding stocks of Olympia oysters (Ostreola concha-phila, Carpenter 1857) in Washington State. J. Shellfish Res. 19:409-412.
14. Crooks, J. A. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: The role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153-166.
15. Gascoigne, J. C. & R. N. Lipcius. 2004. Allee effects driven by predation. J. Appl. Ecol. 41:801-810.
16. Grosholz, E. 2002. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of coastal invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:22-27.
17. Hilborn, R. & M. Mangel. 1997. The ecological detective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 315 pp.
18. Holling, C. S. 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Memoirs of the Canadian Entomological Society 45:1-60.
19. Holt, R. D. & J. H. Lawton. 1994. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25:495-520.
20. Hughes, R. N. & S. D. Dunkin. 1984. Behavioural components of prey selection by dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L.) feeding on mussels, Mytilus edulis (L.), in the laboratory. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 77: 45-68.
21. Katz, C. H. 1985. A nonequilibrium marine predator-prey interaction. Ecology 66:1426-1438.
22. Krebs, C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. 620 pp.
23. Levine, J. M., P. B. Adler & S. G. Yelenik. 2004. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 7:975-989.
24. MathWorks. 1999. MATLAB: the language of technical computing. Natick, MA: MathWorks.
25. Murdoch, W. W. 1969. Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol. Monogr. 39:335-354.
26. Murdoch, W. W. & A. Oaten. 1975. Predation and population stability. Adv. Ecol. Res. 9:1-131.
27. Navarrete, S. A. & B. A. Menge. 1996. Keystone predation and interaction strength: Interactive effects of predators on their main prey. Ecol. Monogr. 66:409-429.
28. Noonburg, E. G. & J. E. Byers. 2005. More harm than good: when invader vulnerability to predators enhances impact on native species. Ecology 86:2555-2560.
29. Parker, I. M., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, K. Goodell, M. Wonham, P. M. Kareiva, M. H. Williamson, B. V. Holle, P. B. Moyle, J. E. Byers & L. Goldwasser. 1999. Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol. Invasions 1:3-19.
30. Sayce, C. S. 1976. The oyster industry of Willapa Bay. In: R. D. Andrews, III, editor. Proceedings of the symposium on terrestrial and aquatic ecological studies of the Northwest. Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington State College Press. pp. 347-356.
31. Seitz, R. D., R. N. Lipcius, A. H. Hines & D. B. Eggleston. 2001. Density-dependent predation, habitat variation, and the persistence of marine bivalve prey. Ecology 82:2435-2451.
32. Sinclair, A. R. E., R. P. Pech, C. R. Dickman, D. Hik, P. Mahon & A. E. Newsome. 1998. Predicting effects of predation on conservation of endangered prey. Conserv. Biol. 12:564-575.
33. Trimble, A. C., J. L. Ruesink & B. R. Dumbauld. 2009. Factors preventing the recovery of a historically overexploited shellfish species. J. Shellfish Res. 28:97-106.
34. West, L. 1986. Interindividual variation in prey selection by the snail Nucella emarginata. Ecology 67:798-809.
35. Wieters, E. A. & S. A. Navarrete. 1998. Spatial variability in prey preferences of the intertidal whelks Nucella canaliculata and Nucella emarginata. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 222:133-148.
36. Wood, L. 1968. Physiological and ecological aspects of prey selection by the marine gastropod Urosalpinx cinerea (Prosobranchia: Murici-dae). Malacologia 6:267-320.
37. Wootton, J. T. 2002. Indirect effects in complex ecosystems: Recent progress and future challenges. J. Sea Res. 48:157-172.