No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)

The Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) was introduced in Europe in the 1970's and in the following years it became naturalized. Interactions with the native species include hybridization with the grooved carpet-shell (GCS) clam (R. decussatus), which may have both useful and undesirable cons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Markaide, Pablo, Gairín, Ignasi, Cordero, David, Ibarrola, Irrintzi, Saavedra, Carlos
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2021
País:España
Institución:Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA)
Repositorio:IRTA Pubpro. Open Digital Archive
OAI Identifier:oai:repositori.irta.cat:20.500.12327/1257
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12327/1257
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736824
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:639
id ES_ea0dd0cd5dbf3dd2ca767a212587e481
oai_identifier_str oai:repositori.irta.cat:20.500.12327/1257
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)Markaide, PabloGairín, IgnasiCordero, DavidIbarrola, IrrintziSaavedra, Carlos639The Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) was introduced in Europe in the 1970's and in the following years it became naturalized. Interactions with the native species include hybridization with the grooved carpet-shell (GCS) clam (R. decussatus), which may have both useful and undesirable consequences. Here we report an attempt to produce hybrids in captivity by crossing 3 females and 4–5 males of each species in a two-step protocol that favored hybrid fertilizations. One-hundred animals were sampled at 15 months after fertilization, and scored for one morphological diagnostic trait (siphon fusion) and two diagnostic genetic DNA markers (ITS-2 and Fas-i1). No hybrids were detected, although the 0% hybridization rate has an associated 95% confidence interval of 3.3%. This result suggests that successful hybrid fertilization may be infrequent and/or the hybrid offspring may have very low survival rate. Abundant offspring of the two parental species were obtained and provided an unprecedented opportunity to study the innate differences in biological traits between the two species without the confounding influence of environmental variability. Individuals with ripe gonads were significantly less frequent in the Manila clam, suggesting an innate trend to earlier summer spawning in this species. Manila clam grew 20% faster than GCS clam and showed 80% heavier shells. However GCS clam showed almost twice as much variability in size as Manila clam, and some individuals of this species were as large as the largest Manila clams. The observed difference in growth variability may reflect a general loss of genetic variability in Manila clam during the introduction in Europe, although a random effect from using a small number of parents in the mixed cross cannot be discarded. Discrimination between these explanations, as well as determining more precisely the occurrence of hybridization in hatcheries by studying larger numbers of parents and offspring, may help improving clam aquaculture in Europe while preserving the genetic resources of the GCS clam.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionElsevierProducció AnimalAqüicultura202120212021info:eu-repo/semantics/article10application/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12327/1257https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736824reponame:IRTA Pubpro. Open Digital Archiveinstname:Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA)InglésAquacultureAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repositori.irta.cat:20.500.12327/12572026-06-16T08:51:17Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
title No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
spellingShingle No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
Markaide, Pablo
639
title_short No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
title_full No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
title_fullStr No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
title_full_unstemmed No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
title_sort No hybridization and marked interspecific differences in individual growth rate in mixed cultures of Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) and grooved carpet-shell clam (R. decussatus)
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Markaide, Pablo
Gairín, Ignasi
Cordero, David
Ibarrola, Irrintzi
Saavedra, Carlos
author Markaide, Pablo
author_facet Markaide, Pablo
Gairín, Ignasi
Cordero, David
Ibarrola, Irrintzi
Saavedra, Carlos
author_role author
author2 Gairín, Ignasi
Cordero, David
Ibarrola, Irrintzi
Saavedra, Carlos
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Producció Animal
Aqüicultura
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv 639
topic 639
description The Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) was introduced in Europe in the 1970's and in the following years it became naturalized. Interactions with the native species include hybridization with the grooved carpet-shell (GCS) clam (R. decussatus), which may have both useful and undesirable consequences. Here we report an attempt to produce hybrids in captivity by crossing 3 females and 4–5 males of each species in a two-step protocol that favored hybrid fertilizations. One-hundred animals were sampled at 15 months after fertilization, and scored for one morphological diagnostic trait (siphon fusion) and two diagnostic genetic DNA markers (ITS-2 and Fas-i1). No hybrids were detected, although the 0% hybridization rate has an associated 95% confidence interval of 3.3%. This result suggests that successful hybrid fertilization may be infrequent and/or the hybrid offspring may have very low survival rate. Abundant offspring of the two parental species were obtained and provided an unprecedented opportunity to study the innate differences in biological traits between the two species without the confounding influence of environmental variability. Individuals with ripe gonads were significantly less frequent in the Manila clam, suggesting an innate trend to earlier summer spawning in this species. Manila clam grew 20% faster than GCS clam and showed 80% heavier shells. However GCS clam showed almost twice as much variability in size as Manila clam, and some individuals of this species were as large as the largest Manila clams. The observed difference in growth variability may reflect a general loss of genetic variability in Manila clam during the introduction in Europe, although a random effect from using a small number of parents in the mixed cross cannot be discarded. Discrimination between these explanations, as well as determining more precisely the occurrence of hybridization in hatcheries by studying larger numbers of parents and offspring, may help improving clam aquaculture in Europe while preserving the genetic resources of the GCS clam.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021
2021
2021
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12327/1257
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736824
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12327/1257
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736824
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Aquaculture
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 10
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:IRTA Pubpro. Open Digital Archive
instname:Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA)
instname_str Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA)
reponame_str IRTA Pubpro. Open Digital Archive
collection IRTA Pubpro. Open Digital Archive
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869423105882980352
score 15.300719

Similares en LA Referencia