A coral, a worm and some clams walk into a bar…

The tree of life is often portrayed as a neatly branching structure, with each division point cleanly delineated and separated from its neighbors. The truth is that the various twigs of the tree of life often overlap and become tangled in a process we call symbiosis. I’ve talked about symbiosis before on this blog, which falls along a spectrum of wholesomeness. At one end we have mutualism, a partnership where both organisms benefit and achieve more than the sum of their parts. The other extreme is parasitism, when one organism benefits at the expense of the other. Between the two, there is a broad gray area including commensalism, when one organism’s presence doesn’t necessarily cost or benefit the other in any way. The tree of life is crowded and unpruned, and so sometimes the twigs might wrap around each other quietly and without much fuss. We live on a small planet, and have had to get used to living in uncomfortable intimacy with all sorts of creatures, such as the mites that are living on your eyelashes right now.

But things start to get really weird and tangled when the tree of life loops over on itself twice, or three times, or more. “Three-way” symbioses are surprisingly common, and the more you look for them, the more you realize that the tree of life is more of a knot than anything else.

A worm burrow in a coral, with clams included! Note the little “lateral pores” that serve as windows!

A recent paper from researchers in Bremen (Germany) and Saudi Arabia looked at such a three-way symbiosis between a coral, a worm and bivalves found off of Tanzania in East Africa. The relationship between solitary corals (Heteropsammia cochlea and Heterocyathus aequicostatus), a sipunculan worm (Aspidosiphon muelleri muelleri) and the clam Jousseaumiella, is a complex triangle of dependencies that had previously been noticed by other researchers, but never investigated at great depth. The worm lives with multiple tiny clams attached, all inside of a small solitary coral the size of a dime (1 cm long). Is the coral a willing host for this crowded boarding house, or has it been parasitized? Does the worm gain anything from the clams? The researchers sought to find out.

Part of the reason I enjoyed reading this study so much was that it had to take a narrative structure to describe the evolutionary ménage à trois of its focus. So much of modern science has moved away from anecdote to hard data, and while there is plenty of that to find in the study, it turns out that a lot of the study of symbiosis is storytelling. We need to know the setting and the characters.

The corals are small and would be easy to mistake for small bits of reef rubble if you weren’t looking for them!

In this case, the main characters are small solitary corals living in the tropical reefs of the Indo-Pacific. We denote them as solitary to distinguish them from their giant colony-forming compatriots that construct the coral reefs currently threatened by climate change and pollution. But like those giant reef-builders, these solitary corals get much of their food from sunlight through a mutualistic partnership with algae called Symbiodinium. The algae provide the host with sugars and other photosynthetic products, and the hosts give them nutrients and a safe cozy home in their tissue.

You might be thinking, “Wait! Dan just said this was a three-way partnership between a coral, a worm and some clams. So this is actually a four-way partnership between corals, worms, clams and algae?” You’d be exactly right. And I’m happy to say that the plot of this sordid story is about to thicken even further.

The side of the coral. See the little pores?

The Aspidosiphon worm is found in a spiral-shaped burrow inside of the skeleton of the coral. It is a pretty cozy home, with walls made of calcium carbonate by the coral, with breathing holes in the sides to allow the worm to breathe and release waste. The researchers wanted to know more about the structure of the burrow. Was it dug out by the worm using acid or an abrasive motion, like some clams use to dig into coral? So the researchers essentially gave the coral a CT scan to see its 3D internal structure. Inside they found growth features suggesting the coral grew around the worm, as if intentionally providing it a home.

Cross-sectional CT scans of the coral skeleton. In figure D, you can see the silouette of the chambers of the snail shell where the worm made its first home!

Even more crazily, they found evidence that the worm had first settled inside an empty snail shell, like a hermit crab! The coral probably settled on a snail shell as a larva, and grew to engulf the whole snail shell, leaving growing space for the worm inside, with windows and all! So to review, this is now a five-way symbiosis between a dead snail, a worm that moved into its empty shell, the coral (powered by algae) that grew around it and encased the snail shell within its skeleton, and we haven’t even gotten to the clams. How many creatures are hiding stacked in this trench coat? Please bear with me as I explain!

An SEM image of Jousseaumiella. These are less than 1 mm long! Pinhead sized!

What are the clams doing in this picture? Jousseaumiella is part of a family of clams called Galeommatidae, which we previously mentioned on this blog in the context of some bivalves found growing in the gills of unfortunate sand crabs. Many members of the Galeommatidae family are parasitic or commensal with other marine organisms. In this case, Jousseaumiella are tiny flat-bodied clams less than 1 mm long, found attached to the body of the worm, squeezed inside the burrow in the coral’s skeleton. It feeds on the worm’s waste and potentially food particles coming through the pores in the sides of the burrow. Not the most dignified existence, but a more mobile home means more opportunities to eat a varied diet similar to that that the worm and coral are seeking out, and the clam also gets protection from predation tucked inside the coral. It is unclear if it benefits the worm directly to have clams attached to it.

A time lapse of the coral+worm moving from the paper’s supplement! It would be handy to navigate to greener pastures, if it became too muddy in a certain place!

It is, however, clear how living inside a coral would be a pretty good deal for the worm, which gets a stable, protective suit of carbonate armor to protect it from predators, and grows to fit it as it gets larger. They are normally found inside of rocks, shells and other hard inanimate objects, but having a living home is a cool upgrade. What is the coral getting out of the deal? The researchers note that the corals are often found in the crevices between other large reef-building corals, in areas of the reef that receive high supplies of nutrients and turbidity (dirt that blocks out light). These sorts of environments aren’t necessarily friendly places for a coral to be, since they reduce the light and therefore the food that the coral can receive from photosynthesis. These crevices also have a lot of variability in other conditions like temperature and water flow. But because the coral has hitched a ride on the back of a worm, it can actually move in the sediment to react to changing conditions and avoid being buried by piles of sediment floating by! The worm can also act as a sort of anchor preventing the worm from sinking in the sediment underneath, which would be a big hazard for the small, stubby coral on its own. The coral seems to go to great pains to make its partner comfortable, not growing its skeleton to cover the pore windows to the outside. The researchers note that as coral reefs worldwide are subject to increasing human-made pollution and climate change, it would be interesting to research whether this complex three-(five?) way symbiosis provides the various participants with an advantage compared to other corals.

So like any good story, this symbiosis features complex, growing characters, a dynamic setting, and still plenty of mystery demanding a sequel! To that end, there are lots of other great three-way symbioses to investigate. Snails which farm fungus that parasitizes plants. Bryozoans living on snail shells that have a hermit crab inside. Gobies serving as lookouts at the entrances of burrows built by shrimp, with a crab freeloader along for good measure. Algae and bacteria teaming up to attack mussels. The list keeps going! I could see this becoming quite a franchise!

Research Explainer: How I learned to stop worrying and trust the clams

Two giant clams off the coast of Israel. Left: Tridacna maxima, the small giant clam. Right: Tridacna squamosina

Another year, another new paper is out, another clamsplainer to write! The fourth chapter from my PhD thesis was just published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This study represents five years of work, so it feels great to finally have it leave the nest. In this study, we investigated the comparative growth of fossil and modern giant clams in the Gulf of Aqaba, Northern Red Sea. Back in 2016 during my PhD, I knew I wanted to study giant clams because they are unique “hypercalcifying” bivalves that grow to huge sizes with the help of symbiotic algae living in their bodies. The clams are essentially solar-powered, and use the same type of algae that reef-building corals depend on! Unlike corals, which are the subject of a ton of research related to how they are threatened by climate change, habitat destruction and pollution, comparatively little is known of how giant clams will fare in the face of these environmental changes. Are they more resistant than corals, or more vulnerable?

T. squamosa on the reef off the coast of Eilat.

I had strong reason to suspect that the clams are struggling in the face of human changes to the environment. They can bleach like corals do when exposed to warm water, and have been observed to be harmed when waters are less clear since they are so reliant on bright sunlight to make their food. But I need a way to prove whether that was the case for the Red Sea. I needed to travel to a place where fossil and modern giant clams could be found side by side, so their growth could be compared using sclerochronology. We would count growth lines in their shells to figure out how fast the grandaddy clams grew before humans were around, and compare that ancient baseline to the growth rate of the clams in the present. Giant clams make growth lines every day in their shells, giving us the page numbers in their diary so we can figure out exactly how fast they grew! We can also measure the chemistry of their shells to figure out the temperatures they experienced from the oxygen isotopes, and even what they were eating from the nitrogen isotopes.

A map of the Gulf of Aqaba, where our study took place. My talented marine scientist partner Dana Shultz made this map!

It just so happened that UCSC’s Dr. Adina Paytan was leading an NSF-funded expedition to the Red Sea in summer 2016, which represented a perfect place to do this work. There are many age dated fossil reefs uplifted onto land around the Gulf of Aqaba on the coasts of Israel and Jordan, and there are three species of giant clam living in the Red Sea today: Tridacna maxima (the small giant clam), Tridacna squamosa (the fluted giant clam), and Tridacna squamosina. Tridacna squamosina is particularly special because it is only found in the Red Sea, making it an endemic species. It is extremely rare in the modern day, with likely only dozens of individuals left, making it potentially endangered.

So I set off with Adina and two other students to live for two months in in the blazing hot desert resort town of Eilat, Israel, working at the famous Interuniversity Institute. Getting a permit from the Israeli National Parks Authority, I collected dozens of empty giant clam shells (no clams were harmed in the course of this study!) from the surf zone and from ancient reefs ranging from a few thousand years to almost 180,000 years old. I also spent a week over the border in Aqaba, Jordan where I worked with Dr. Tariq Al-Najjar, my coauthor and director of the University of Jordan Marine Science Station. Tariq is a specialist in algal productivity in the Gulf and was an excellent resource in trying to understand how water quality has changed in the area through time. He pointed out that over the years, the Gulf of Aqaba has had an increased nutrient supply far above what it received in historic times. For nearly 20 years the Gulf was subjected to excess nutrients from Israeli fish farms, which caused tremendous damage to the reefs of the area with their releases of fish waste. The farms were finally forced to close after a long lobbying campaign from Israeli and Jordanian scientists and environmentalists. But even after the farm pollution stopped, there was still increased nutrient supply from runoff and even carried into the Red Sea by dust in the form of nitrate aerosols. These aerosols are produced when our cars and power plants release nitrogen oxide gases, which react in the atmosphere to form nitrate and fall during periodic dust storms that hit the Red Sea a few times per year.

All of these sources of nitrogen are fertilizer for plankton, causing what scientists call “eutrophication.” When plankton blooms, it literally causes the water to be less transparent, which could reduce the clams’ ability to gather light and lead to them growing more slowly. At least that was my hypothesis, but I had to prove if it was true or not. So during that summer and over the next few months, I cut dozens of clam shells into cross-sections, used a special blue dye called Mutvei solution to make their growth lines visible, and took pictures of those lines with a microscope. Then I counted those lines to figure out how many micrometers the clam was growing per day.

A picture showing some of the fine daily lines visible in a blue-stained shell

Here I hit my first challenge: it turned out some clams were putting down one line per day as expected, but some were putting down twice as many! But the way I was using to discern between the two was to measure the oxygen isotopes of the clams’ shells, which forms a record of temperature. By counting how many lines appear between each annual peak of temperature, we confirmed some were daily and some were twice daily. But the oxygen isotope approach is expensive would not be scalable across the dozens of shells I had collected.

Annual growth lines in the shell of a Tridacna maxima clam

Then I remembered that I could measure the lines in the inner part of the clams’ shells, which are formed annually. By counting those lines and then measuring the length of the clam, I could get an approximate measure of how much it grew per year on average. This would allow me to calibrate my band-counting and discern which records represented daily lines and which were twice daily! What a relief.

So I went through all of the shells, counting lines and gathering growth info for as many shells as I could muster. It meant many hours staring at a microscope, taking pictures and stitching the pictures together, then squinting at my computer screen highlighting and measuring the distance between each growth line. I had hoped to come up with an automated way to measure it, but the lines turned out to be faint and difficult for the computer to distinguish in a numerical way. So instead I just powered through manually. When I had the raw growth data, I then transformed them to a pair of growth constants commonly used in the fisheries literature to compare growth across populations. When I put the data together across all 55 shells, I was surprised to discover that my hypothesis was totally incorrect. The clams were growing faster!

Growth constants for all three species, comparing fossils and modern shells. We used two growth constants (phi prime and k) to help control for the fact that our clams were at different sizes from each other. You wouldn’t compare the growth rate of babies and teenagers and try to make any broader assumptions of their relative nutrition without some additional attempts to normalize the data!

Science rarely goes according to plan. The natural world is too complex for us to follow our hunches in understanding it, which is the main reason the scientific method came about! But at a human level, it can still be shocking to realize your data says you were totally wrong. So after a few days sitting and ruminating on these results and what they meant, I remembered what Tariq and other scientists had said about nitrates. The clams are essentially part plant. They use photosynthetic symbionts to gain most of their energy. And much as nitrate pollution can fertilize plankton algae growth, maybe it could do the same for the algae within the clams! It had previously been observed that captive giant clams grew faster when “fertilized” with nitrates or ammonia. But such an effect had never before been observed in the wild. We needed a way to demonstrate whether the Red Sea clams were experiencing this.

Fortunately, the clams also keep a chemical record of what they’re eating within the organic content of their shells. Shells are a biological mineral, made of crystals of a mineral called calcium carbonate. But within and between those crystals, there’s a network of proteins the clam uses like a scaffold to build its shell. Those proteins are made of amino acids that contain nitrogen. That nitrogen comes in different “flavors” called isotopes that can tell us a lot about what an animal eats and how it lives. The ratio of heavier nitrogen-13 and lighter nitrogen-12 increases as you go up the food chain. Plants and other autotrophs have the lowest nitrogen isotope values because they use nitrate directly from the environment. For every level of the animal food chain, nitrogen isotope values increase. Herbivores are lower than carnivores. If you live on only steak, your nitrogen isotope values will be higher than a vegetarian. The same will be true for clams. If the clams were taking in more nitrogen from sources like sewage or fish farms, they would show higher nitrogen isotope values in the modern day.

We found that nitrogen isotope values were lower in the modern day!

Taking bits of powder from several dozen of the shells, we worked with technician Colin Carney at the UCSC Stable Isotope Lab to measure the nitrogen isotopes of the shell material. A machine called an Elemental Analyzer literally burns the shell material to release it in a gas form. A carbon dioxide scrubber absorbs the CO2 and carbon monoxide gas, leaving only the nitrogen gas behind. That gas is measured by a mass spectrometer, which essentially separates out the different isotopes of nitrogen and tells us what fraction is nitrogen-13 or nitrogen-12. Plotting all the shell data together, I discovered that my hypothesis was…totally wrong. The nitrogen isotope values of the modern shells were lower than the fossils. The clams had moved down in the food chain, but how?

https://www.israelscienceinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/timna-park.jpg
A dust storm rolling over the Israeli Negev Desert. Source

After ruling out a bunch of other explanations including the preservation of the shells, we propose that this represents a human-related change in the environment that the clams are recording. As I mentioned before, the Red Sea these days is regularly hit by huge dust storms which are conduits for nitrate aerosols. Our cars emit nitrogen-containing gases which, through a complex web of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, end up in the form of nitrate particles called aerosols. These nitrate aerosols bind to the dust delivered by strong windstorms called haboobs, which carry the dust long distances, with some of it being deposited several times of year. This deposition of nitrate has been found to form up to a third of the nitrate supply hitting the Red Sea, and was a source of nitrogen that wasn’t available to the clams in historic times. These nitrate aerosols are extremely low in nitrogen isotope value, and would be very likely to explain the lower nitrogen isotope value in our clams! If the clams ate the nitrate, their symbionts would grow more quickly, providing them with more sugars through photosynthesis and accelerating clam growth!

Some additional factors probably also have influenced giant clam growth in the region. The Red Sea historically had regular monsoon rains which likely slowed growth in fossil clams, as storms are known to do for giant clams in other areas, but such monsoons no longer reach the area. The Red Sea also had much higher seasonal range of temperatures in the past, with colder winters and warmer summers. Both factors (storms and extremes of temperature) have been previously shown to depress giant clam growth, and so the modern Red Sea may be a goldilocks environment for the clams: a consistent year-round not too cold or hot temperature.

However, as we discuss in the paper, these factors don’t necessarily mean that the clams are healthier. Faster giant clam growth has been found in other research to lead to more disordered microstructure in their shells, which would have uncertain effects on their survival against predators like fish, lobsters and humans. Additionally, a higher nutrient supply to reefs often causes the corals that build the reefs to lose out to competition from algae that block sunlight and crowd out coral colonies. If the reefs are harmed by the climatic changes that have potentially helped the clams, the clams will still lose. Giant clams are adapted to live only where coral reefs are found, and nowhere else. So more research will be needed in the Red Sea to determine if the health of clams and corals is hurt or harmed by these nitrate aerosols, and what that will mean for their long-term survival in the area.

Over the course of working on this research, the giant clams taught me a lot about life. They taught me that my hypotheses are often wrong, but that’s alright, because my hypotheses can still be wrong in a way that is interesting. I learned to go with the flow and trust the clams to tell me their story through the diaries they keep in their shells. I have followed their lessons wherever they led. Now I am doing follow-up work growing giant clams in a giant coral reef tank at Biosphere 2 in Arizona, to directly observe how the clams’ symbiosis develops and create new forms of chemical records of their symbiosis! The work described in my paper here has led to a suite of different ongoing projects. The clams have many more lessons to teach me. Thank you clams!

Biosphere 2 Update!

A view from my parking spot at work

I am now several months into my postdoctoral fellowship at Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona! I am working with Professor Diane Thompson on a project measuring the shell and body chemistry of giant clams in Biosphere 2’s huge reef tank. Our goal is to find better proxies (indirect ways of measuring) the symbiosis of these clams with the algae they farm within their bodies. The controlled, closely monitored conditions of the Biosphere 2 ocean tank represent the perfect balance between the real ocean and the more controlled environment of a lab. Using trace metals and isotopes in their shells and tissue, we can trace back the ways that clams record their own internal biology. Wild giant clams make chemical records via the growth lines in their shells, similar to tree rings. These have been the subject of many cool past studies, but there are aspects of the “language” they use to write their shell “diaries” that are poorly understood. Much like researchers used the Rosetta Stone to decode heiroglyphics, we are observing clams as they grow in order to better translate the shell diaries of their prehistoric ancestors. Doing so, we can better understand how their ancestors reacted during past periods of climate change, and identify similar bivalves in the fossil record which may have harbored symbionts.

A view of the ocean tank at Biosphere 2

I started my postdoc remotely in May. The following months were spent sheltering at home in Southern California with my mom, supervising the installation of a cohort of giant clams into the 700,000 gallon ocean tank over Zoom. It felt like a science fiction movie, watching technicians Katie Morgan and Franklin Lane from hundreds of miles away on my computer screen as they nurtured and installed the little clams in their new home. I felt like Mission Control back on earth, watching a group of space colonists work with strange alien creatures.

Some of the T. derasas in the Biosphere tank

But in August I was able to finally move to Tucson to meet these clams in person! We had three species in the first batch: Tridacna derasa, T. squamosa and T. maxima. Of the three, T. derasa (the smooth giant clam) has proven to be the most successful in the Biosphere 2 ocean tank. All of the derasa clams from May have survived and thrived, attaching themselves to the bottom with byssal threads and growing their shells, both very positive signs of clam health!

Some of our newer batch of T. derasa in the quarantine tank

So we have doubled down on T. derasa and installed 11 more individuals last week, sourced from Palauan clam farms via a reef supply company in Florida called ORA. They are currently in a shallow quarantine tank where we will monitor them for disease and unwanted hitchhikers before introducing them to the broader Biosphere tank.

The workers at Biosphere 2 are very creative problem solvers. Giant clams need intense amounts of light to sustain their symbiotic algae and create food for themselves, a quantity of light higher than is available in the current Biosphere tank. To provide a light supplement, the engineering team at Biosphere 2 constructed a floating lighting rig with hanging LED lighting, right over the lagoon where we have the clams!

The lighting rig glows with a blue light as the sun goes down outside the Biosphere

To make sure the clams have enough light, we installed a Li-Cor light sensor to measure the exact amount of photons (light particles) hitting the clams over the course of a day. The light is measured in units of micromoles of photons per meters squared per second. A mole is 6.02 * 1023 particles, and other clam experts like James Fatheree have suggested that the clams need light levels of at least 200 micromoles/m2s to make enough food for themselves. That’s 120,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 light particles we need to hit every square meter of their habitat every second. The clam channels as many of those photons as it can to its algae residing within tubes in its tissue. The symbionts use it in photosynthesis to make sugars, which they share with their host. A well lit giant clam is a happy, well-fed giant clam! But because the glass dome of Biosphere eats up some of the light, and plankton and floating particles in the seawater eat up another portion, we use the lights to make sure the clams have the boost they need to maintain their symbiosis like they would in the clear, shallow waters of a tropical coral reef.

The Li-Cor sensor floats above the clams, telling us how much light they’re getting

Much like a new dad might read parenting books to get ideas for baby care, I am always poring through the literature trying to figure out how to maximize the growth of these clams. Dr. Fatheree is kind of like Dr. Lipschitz from Rugrats, except unlike the suspect childcare advice in the show, this real-life giant clam advice is very valuable. Like human babies, these clams can be a challenge! The clams sometimes decide to move around and get themselves into trouble, requiring us to rescue them if they get trapped behind a rock or under a pile of sand. So I have had to do a fair amount of clam-herding during my time here.

We are growing the clams for science, and there will be data to collect. We will be monitoring data like the trace metal chemistry of the clams’ tissue and shells, the color of their mantles, and the pH, temperature and oxygen levels of their environment, all to relate together to make the best clam record of their environment possible. So far, I have been snorkeling in the tank every couple days maintaining their setup. Next week, I will dive in the Biosphere tank for the first time to collect data on their shell chemistry! I have other projects in the works to measure their valves opening and closing using magnetic sensors, and to measure their color changes through time through computational photography.

That brings me to what I’ve found to be the coolest part about Biosphere 2: the people. Something about this place attracts creative, brilliant, can-do people who solve problems on the fly and are always jumping into the next project. It has been a privilege to learn and pick up technical skills from them in the brief time I’ve been here. This place is really like a space colony out of The Expanse or Silent Running. There are endless valves, pipes, tanks, exchangers and other hardware needed to keep Biosphere 2 running. Getting to witness the technical competence behind the whimsical solutions the staff comes up with, like the floating light rig, has been the most exciting part of this job for me. Everyone has a deeply ingrained curiosity and passion for science that is inspiring to see; they are as interested in my clams as I am in their corals, tropical plants, and geochemical experiments. I would argue that the human team behind Biosphere 2 is a bigger treasure than the unique metal-and-glass structure they work under, and I look forward to seeing the results all of the collaborations we have in the works!

The Mystery of the Giant Clams of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean

I have always been fascinated by scientific discoveries that are hanging right in front of our noses. Cryptic species are one such surprise. Sometimes, researchers using genetic sequencing are surprised to discover that a group of animals that all look the same from the outside are actually reproductively isolated from each other; separate twigs on the tree of life. This surprise has happened over and over in the history of natural science.

It turns out such puzzles are frequent among the giant clams. These unusual bivalves are specialists in coral reef environments, growing to large size with the help of symbiotic algae that create sugars through photosynthesis. Within the genus Tridacna there are ~10 accepted species which vary in size, shape, color and mode of life.

Tridacna squamosina (right) sitting next to the small giant clam T. maxima (left) on the Israeli Red Sea coast

I specialize in the three species known (so far) from the Red Sea, including the small giant clam Tridacna maxima and the fluted giant clam T. squamosa, which are both found worldwide, all the way from the Red Sea to down past the equator along the Great Barrier Reef. The third local species, T. squamosina is more unusual, so far being only known from the Red Sea (an endemic species). T. squamosina is an example of a cryptic species, having previously been assumed to be a local variant of T. squamosa. It looks pretty similar, with long scutes (flap-like appendages) protruding from its shell, thought to help stabilize it on the flat bottom of loose coral rubble. But unlike T. squamosa, T. squamosina lives exclusively at the top of the reef in the shallowest waters closest to the sun. It has a very angular, zig-zag pattern in its plications (the wavy shapes at the edge of the shell) and a characteristic pair of green stripes where the soft tissue meets the edges of the shell. The soft tissue is covered with warty protuberances.

Pictures of details of T. squamosina from Richter et al. 2008

It was only first described in detail in the early 2000s, when an international team of researchers figured out using genetic sequencing that it was a distinct species and named it T. costata. They noted that in their surveys all around the shores of the Red Sea, they only found 13 live specimens, making it an extremely rare and possibly endangered species. Fossil specimens on local reefs appeared to be much more common, suggesting it had a much larger population in the past. Then in 2011, another team at the Natural History Museum in Vienna discovered a shell of one had been forgotten in its collection for over 100 years. Rudolf Sturany, the researcher on the 1895 research cruise who had originally collected the clam, had called it T. squamosina.

The T. squamosina shell in the collection of the Museum of Natural History in Vienna (from Huber and Eschner, 2011)

In taxonomy (the science of naming and classifying organisms), the first team to name the species wins, so the name T. costata was synonymized (retired) in favor of the earlier name T. squamosina, which became the name of record. It must be annoying to spend so much time working to name a species and then discover you had been scooped over a century before! But such is science.

A mystery clam thought to be T. squamosina, later identified as T. elongatissima found off of Mozambique by iNaturalist user bewambay

The strange part was that there were some murmurs over the last few years that T. squamosina was not only found in the Red Sea, but also had been seen along the coast of Africa as far south as Kenya, Mozambique and Madagascar. Divers and snorkelers had taken pictures of a giant clam that did indeed look strangely like T. squamosina, with a zigzag shell opening and green stripes at the edge of its tissue. But some aspects of these individuals seemed off. In the Red Sea, T. squamosina lives freely, not embedded in the coral as these pictures showed, and the geometry of the angles of the shell seemed a bit different. It also would be difficult for T. squamosina to be connected in population from the Red Sea all the way South to Mozambique, as there are natural barriers which would prevent its planktonic larvae from riding currents to intermix between the two regions. When populations are separated by a barrier, the flow of genes between them is cut off and evolution begins to separate the populations from each other until they are separate species, a process called allopatric speciation.

A large specimen of T. elongatissima observed by iNaturalist user dawngoebbels off of Kenya

I figured that someday, researchers would collect tissue samples from these mystery clams to settle whether they were actually T. squamosina or something else. And this year, a team did just that, traveling along the coast of Mozambique, Madagascar, Kenya and other places, collecting samples of tissue to compare how all the different clams they saw were related in a family tree. They genetically sequenced these “clamples” and in the process, found that the mystery clams were a new cryptic species, which they called T. elongatissima!

Shells of T. elongatissima from the Fauvelot et al. 2020 paper
For comparison, a shell of T. squamosina collected off of Sinai, Egypt. You can see why they’re easy to mix up!

T. elongatissima closely resembles T. squamosina, and they are sister species on the bivalve family tree. It’s hard to tell them apart without training. Even a professional would probably mix some of them up if they were all placed sitting next to each other. The major differences appear to relate to shell shape, with T. elongatissima having a less symmetrical shell than T. squamosina, and a bigger opening at the rear hinge for a foot to poke through. The symmetrical shell and closing of the foot opening may represent changes that T. squamosina took on to adapt to be able to sit freely on the bottom, rather than embedding in the coral like T. elongatissima seems to prefer. If you’ve read this far, you may be thinking “Who cares? A clam’s a clam and these look practically the same. Aren’t you just splitting clams at this point?” At the end of the day, a species is a man-made concept; an organizing tool for use by us humans. Species are the characters in our reconstruction of the history of the world. What can we learn about the world by having identified this species T. elongatissima?

A giant clam family tree! Notice T. squamosina and T. elongatissima right next to each other.

The researchers behind the new paper discuss that based on statistical analyses of the genetic differences between the species, the most recent common ancestor for T. elongatissima and T. squamosina probably lived more than 1.4 million years ago! Some researchers have previously suggested that T. squamosina probably began its development as a separate species due to geographic isolation by low sea level, caused by repeated glaciations. With so much water trapped as ice on land during this period, the narrow Strait of Bab al Mandab, currently the gateway to the Red Sea, became a land barrier as sea level fell (kind of like opposite of the Bering Sea land bridge that formed allowing humans to migrate to the Americas). Ancestral clams trapped on the Northern end of this barrier were proposed to have evolved to become the rare T. squamosina.

This has occurred with a variety of species that became Red Sea endemics (meaning they are unique species that evolved in the Red Sea and are found nowhere else), including a unique crown of thorns starfish. The issue is that during this time of low sea level, the Red Sea went through periods where it was a rather unfriendly place for clams to live. All sorts of creatures went extinct in the period when the sea was repeatedly cut off, because the water became extremely salty, along with other unfriendly changes. So it’s unlikely T. squamosina would be present for us to see today if it only lived in the Red Sea throughout the entire length of time.

A map from Fauvelot et al. 2020 showing the distributions of different giant clams the researchers identified along the coasts of Africa and the Red Sea. Notice the bright red dots representing T. squamosina, only found in the Red Sea, while green dots represent T. elongatissima. Notice how the currents (arrows) seem to meet and then go offshore from Kenya. More on that in the next paragraph.

The researchers of this new paper propose that T. squamosina was more likely to have initially branched off due to the barrier of the Horn of Africa. The seas off of Kenya and Somalia harbor a meeting of southward and northward currents which then group and head offshore, away from the reefs that giant clam larvae are trying to get to. So any tiny floating planktonic clam larvae would experience a strong “headwind” preventing them from crossing that point. It would also mean that during times that the Red Sea was not a happy place to be a clam, T. squamosina may have found refuge on the coasts of places like Eritrea, Oman and possibly even as far as Pakistan. During times when sea levels rose and Red Sea conditions became friendlier, it recolonized the area.

As far as we know, the Red Sea is the only place T. squamosina is now found, but it may well be present elsewhere like Yemen or Oman. If T. squamosina was found in other regions, it would be tremendously important for its conservation. Right now, the species is thought to be extremely rare, with a very small native range. If it inhabited a broader area, that would mean more reservoirs of genetic diversity. This would reduce the odds that it will go extinct as reefs are put under stress from climate change, pollution and overharvesting. To survive as a species, it helps to not put all your eggs in one basket. If you’re only found in one small place, it increases the chances that a disaster (like climate change) will wipe you out.

The only way we will know for sure is to visit reefs in understudied places like Yemen, Oman, Pakistan, Eritrea and Somalia, to understand the richness of the giant clams present. These areas are understudied for various reasons: lack of research funding for non-Western researchers, lack of interest from the scientific community too focused on familiar places, and geopolitical situations that make it difficult to conduct research. But I hope someday to collaborate with people in these countries to better understand the giant clams present in such understudied regions of the globe. It is virtually certain that there are more species of giant clams, both alive and as fossils, waiting to be discovered.

A Make-Up Presentation!

Hi colleagues! Several weeks ago, I was supposed to present a talk at GSA’s annual meeting in Phoenix at the session “Advances in Ocean and Climate Reconstructions from Environmental Proxies”, but I shattered my wrist in a scooter accident the night before and was in emergency surgery during my talk time. So instead I’ve uploaded my talk with voice-over to Youtube! The whole video is about 15 minutes. You can view it above. Feel free to comment on this post or email me if you have questions!

This work is currently in the last stretch of drafting before submission, but I also discuss some ongoing research and am always open if you have your own ideas for collaborations!

Correction: we are working with geophysicists to understand the shell transport mechanism.

These are the references mentioned at the end:

Crnčević, Marija, Melita Peharda, Daria Ezgeta-Balić, and Marijana Pećarević. “Reproductive cycle of Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus, 1758)(Mollusca: Bivalvia) from Mali Ston Bay, Adriatic Sea, Croatia.” Scientia Marina 77, no. 2 (2013): 293.

Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus, 1758).” 2019. World Register of Marine Species. 2019. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=504509#distributions.

Grossman, Ethan L., and Teh-Lung Ku. 1986. “Oxygen and Carbon Isotope Fractionation in Biogenic Aragonite: Temperature Effects.” Chemical Geology: Isotope Geoscience Section 59: 59–74.

Gutierrez-Mas, J. M. 2011. “Glycymeris Shell Accumulations as Indicators of Recent Sea-Level Changes and High-Energy Events in Cadiz Bay (SW Spain).” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92 (4): 546–54.

Jones, Douglas S., and Irvy R. Quitmyer. 1996. “Marking Time with Bivalve Shells: Oxygen Isotopes and Season of Annual Increment Formation.” PALAIOS 11 (4): 340–46.

Mienis, Henk, R. Zaslow, and D.E. Mayer. 2006. “Glycymeris in the Levant Sea. 1. Finds of Recent Glycymeris insubrica in the South East Corner of the Mediterranean.” Triton 13 (March): 5–9.

Najdek, Mirjana, Daria Ezgeta-Balić, Maria Blažina, Marija Crnčević, and Melita Peharda. 2016. “Potential Food Sources of Glycymeris nummaria (Mollusca: Bivalvia) during the Annual Cycle Indicated by Fatty Acid Analysis.” Scientia Marina 80 (1): 123–29.

Peharda, Melita, Marija Crnčević, Ivana Bušelić, Chris A. Richardson, and Daria Ezgeta-Balić. 2012. “Growth and Longevity of Glycymeris nummaria (Linnaeus, 1758) from the Eastern Adriatic, Croatia.” Journal of Shellfish Research 31 (4): 947–51.

Reinhardt, Eduard G, Beverly N Goodman, Joe I Boyce, Gloria Lopez, Peter van Hengstum, W Jack Rink, Yossi Mart, and Avner Raban. 2006. “The Tsunami of 13 December AD 115 and the Destruction of Herod the Great’s Harbor at Caesarea Maritima, Israel.” Geology 34 (12): 1061–64.

Royer, Clémence, Julien Thébault, Laurent Chauvaud, and Frédéric Olivier. 2013. “Structural Analysis and Paleoenvironmental Potential of Dog Cockle Shells (Glycymeris glycymeris) in Brittany, Northwest France.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 373: 123–32.

Sivan, D., M. Potasman, A. Almogi-Labin, D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, E. Spanier, and E. Boaretto. 2006. “The Glycymeris Query along the Coast and Shallow Shelf of Israel, Southeast Mediterranean.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 233 (1): 134–48.

How does a scallop swim?

uelx7yhbixf01
Scallops spooked by divers’ lights and fleeing en masse to filter somewhere else

The ocean is a place of constant dynamic movement. Fish use their fins to push water away from themselves, and because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, they therefore move forward. Some cephalopods use jet propulsion, constricting their mantle cavity to push water out through siphons, allowing them to jet forward like a deflating balloon. And other life forms sail the seas on constantly moving currents , indirectly harnessing the power of the sun and earth.

Bivalves are a fairly sedentary bunch by comparison. While most bivalves have a planktonic larval form, when they settle they are constrained to a fairly small area within which they can burrow or scramble around with their muscular feet.

graybountifulgopher-size_restricted

But some bivalves have evolved to move at a quicker rate. The most famous swimming bivalves are the scallops, which have evolved to use jet propulsion, similar to their very distantly related cephalopod relatives. But unlike the cephalopods, scallops evolved to use their hinged shells to aid this process!

wyjgzzw
Notice the expelled water disturbing the sediment below the scallop as it “claps” its way forward!

Many filter-feeding bivalves use their shell valves as a biological bellows to pull in water for the purposes of sucking in food, or even to aid in digging, but scallops have developed another use for this activity, to enable propulsion. Scallops draw in water by opening their valves to create a vacuum which draws in water to their sealed mantle cavity. They then rapidly close their valves using their strong adductor muscles to pull them together, which pushes the water back through vents in the rear hinge area, propelling the scallop forward.

esn6uyb
Don’t panic if a scallop swims toward you. They can see, but not super well. This one is just confused.

Using this strategy, scallops can evade predators and distribute themselves to new feeding sites. It’s a surprisingly effective swimming technique, with the queen scallop able to move 37 cm/second, or over five body lengths per second! Michael Phelps would have to swim at nearly 35 km/h to match that relative speed (his actual highest speed is around 1/3 of that). I’m sure sustaining that speed would be tiring for Mr. Phelps, though, and it’s the same for scallops, only using their swimming for short-distance swims.

(video from Supplemental Materials of Robertson et al. 2019)

A recent paper from a team in Switzerland just came out describing an effort to engineer a robot which imitates the scallop’s elegant and simple swimming method. The resulting totally adorable “RoboScallop” closely imitates the design of a scallop, using a pair of hinged valves with rear openings to allow the movement of water backward. The internal cavity is sealed by a rubber membrane draped across the front so that all water is forced through these rear vents when the Roboscallop snaps shut.

roboscallop.PNG
Diagram from the Roboscallop paper (from Robertson et al. 2019)

As seen in the diagram above, the rhythm and relative velocity of opening vs closing is important to make sure the RoboScallop actually moves forward. If the scallop opened as quickly as it closed, it would just rock back in forth. It instead opens slowly so that it does not draw itself backward at the same rate that it can push itself forward. The researchers had to do quite a bit of calibration to get these rates right (equating to about 1.4 “claps” per second), but once they did, they ended up with a RoboScallop that can generate about the same force of forward movement (1 Newton) as a real scallop (1.15 Newtons), and similar rates of speed.

This paper really fascinated me because it is merely the latest in a long line of successful engineering projects imitating the ingenuity of evolution. Other marine robots have been made which emulate the locomotion of fish, manta rays, sea snakes and other forms of swimming. And now we have a clam! Let me know when I can buy one to play with in my pool.

The clams that sail the seas on rafts of kelp

 

gtrap.jpg
The streamlined shells of Gaimardia trapesina. Source: New Zealand Mollusca
Bivalves are not known as champion migrators. While scallops can swim and many types of bivalves can burrow, most bivalves are primarily sessile (non-moving on the ocean bottom). So for many bivalves, the primary method they use to colonize new territories is to release planktotrophic (“plankton-eating”) larvae, which can be carried to new places by currents and feed on other plankton surrounding them. Many bivalves have broad distributions because of their ability to hitchhike on ocean currents when they are microscopic. They don’t even pack a lunch, instead eating whatever other plankton is around them. But once they settle to grow, they are typically fixed in place.

Not all bivalves have a planktotrophic larval stage, though. Larvae of lecithotrophic bivalve species (“yolk-eaters”) have yolk-filled eggs which provide them with a package of nutrition to help them along to adulthood. Others are brooders, meaning that rather than releasing eggs and sperm into the water column to fertilize externally, they instead internally develop the embryos of their young to release to the local area when they are more fully developed. This strategy has some benefits. Brooders invest more energy into the success of their offspring and therefore may exhibit a higher survival rate than other bivalves that release their young as plankton to be carried by the sea-winds. This is analogous to the benefits that K-strategist vertebrate animals like elephants have compared to r-strategist mice: each baby is more work, and more risky, but is more likely to survive to carry your genes to the next generation.

Brooding is particularly useful at high latitudes, where the supply of phytoplankton that is the staple food of most planktrophic bivalve larvae is seasonal and may limit their ability to survive in large numbers. But most of these brooding bivalves stay comparatively local compared to their planktonic brethren. Their gene flow is lower on average as a result, with greater diversity in genetic makeup between populations of different regions. And generally, their species ranges are more constricted as a result of their limited ability to distribute themselves.

gtrap2
A bunch of G. trapesina attached to kelp. Notice the hitchhiking clams have in turn had hitchhiking barnacles attach to them. Freeloaders on freeloaders! Source: Eleonora Puccinelli

But some brooding bivalves have developed a tool to have it all: they nurture their young and colonize new territories by sailing the seas using kelp rafts. The clam Gaimardia trapesina has evolved to attach itself to giant kelp using long, stringy, elastic byssal threads and a sticky foot which helps it hold on for dear life. The kelp floats with the help of gas-filled pneumatocysts, and grows in the surge zone where it often is ripped apart or dislodged by the waves to be carried away by the tides and currents. This means that if the clam can persist through that wave-tossed interval to make it into the current, it can be carried far away. Though they are brooders, they are distributed across a broad circumpolar swathe of the Southern Ocean through the help of their their rafting ability. They nurture their embryos on specialized filaments in their bodies and release them to coat the surfaces of their small floating kelp worlds. The Southern Ocean is continuously swirling around the pole due to the dominance of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which serves as a constant conveyor belt transporting G. trapesina across the southern seas. So while G. trapesina live packed in on small rafts, they can travel to faraway coastlines using this skill.

pic_w-msc-197185
The broad circumpolar distribution of G. trapesina. Source: Sealifebase

The biology of G. trapesina was described in greater detail in a recent paper from a team of South African researchers led by Dr. Eleonora Puccinelli, who found that the clams have evolved to not bite the hands (kelp blades?) that feed them. Tests of the isotopic composition of the clams’ tissue shows that most of their diet is made up of detritus (loose suspended particles of organic matter) rather than kelp. If the clams ate the kelp, they would be destroying their rafts, but they are gifted with a continuous supply of new food floating by as they sail from coast to coast across the Antarctic and South American shores. But they can’t be picky when they’re floating in the open sea, and instead eat whatever decaying matter they encounter.

shell-gaimardia-trapesina
Falkland Islands stamp featuring G. trapesina. Source.

The clams are small, around 1 cm in size, to reduce drag and allow for greater populations to share the same limited space of kelp. Their long, thin byssal threads regrow quickly if they are torn, which is a useful skill when their home is constantly being torn by waves and scavengers. Unlike other bivalves, their shells are thin and fragile and they do not really “clam up” their shells when handled. They prioritize most of their energy into reproduction and staying stuck to their rafts, and surrender to the predators that may eat them. There are many species that rely on G. trapesina as a food source at sea, particularly traveling seabirds, which descend to pick them off of kelp floating far from land. In that way, these sailing clams serve as an important piece of the food chain in the southernmost seas of our planet, providing an energy source for birds during their migrations to and from the shores of the Southern continents.

 

The boring giant clam is anything but.

crocea2
Tridacna crocea, bored into a coral head on a reef in Palau

There are many types of giant clam. Not all of them are giant; the boring giant clam, Tridacna crocea, only grows to 10 cm long or so. The boring giant clam is not so named because it’s dull; its main skill is its ability to bore into the coral of its coral reef home and live with its entire shell and body embedded in the living coral. They sit there with their colorful mantle edge exposed from a thin opening in the coral, harvesting energy from sunlight like the other giant clams. When disturbed by the shadow of a human or other such predator, they retract their mantle and close their shell, encased by an additional wall of coral skeleton. It’s a clever defensive strategy, and they are some of the most numerous giant clams in many reefs in the Eastern and Southern Equatorial Pacific.

But it’s always been a mystery of how they bore away at the coral so efficiently, and how they continue to enlarge their home as they grow their shell. There are other bivalves that are efficient borers, including the pholad clams (“piddocks”) which use sharp teeth on their hinge to carve their way into solid rock, and the shipworms, which have abandoned their protective shell and instead use their two valves as teeth to burrow into wood. Both of these methods of boring are pretty straightforward.

bivalve_pholas_dactylus_common_piddock_24-08-10_shells_1

Piddocks in next to holes that they made in solid rock. Source: Aphotomarine

medium

Shipworm embedded in wood. Source: Michigan Science Art via Animal Diversity Web

But the boring giant clam has no such adaptation. It does not have large teeth on its hinge to carve at the coral. Such abrasion of the coral would also not explain how they widen the opening of their cubby-holes to allow their shell to grow wider. This mystery has long confounded giant clam researchers. I myself have wondered about it, and was surprised to find there was no good answer in the literature about it. But now, a team of scientists may have cracked the problem once and for all.

At the back of T. crocea‘s shell at the hinge, there is a large “byssal opening” with a fleshy foot which they can extend out of the opening to attach themselves to surfaces. Giant clams that don’t embed in coral (“epifaunal,” resting on the surface of the coral rather than “infaunal,” buried in the coral) lack this opening. The researchers suspected that the foot was the drilling instrument the clam used to create its home.

dscn0083

Byssal opening of T. crocea with the foot retracted. Source: NickB on Southwest Florida Marine Aquarium Society

How could a soft fleshy foot drill into the solid calcium carbonate (CaCO3) skeleton of corals? I can confirm from experience that my own foot makes for a very ineffective drilling instrument in such a setting. But T. crocea has a secret weapon: the power of acid-base chemistry. CaCO3 can be dissolved by acids. You may well have taken advantage of this chemistry to settle your acid stomach by taking a Tums, which is made of CaCO3 and reacts with the excessive hydrochloric acid in your stomach, leaving your tummy with a more neutral pH. pH is a scale used to measure acidity, with low numbers indicating very acidic solutions like lemon juice, and high pH indicating a basic solution like bleach.

Scientists are well aware of the hazards corals face from decreasing pH (increasing acidity) in the oceans. All the CO2 we are emitting, in addition to being a greenhouse gas, dissolves in the ocean as carbonic acid and gets to work reacting and dissolving away the skeletons of corals and any other “calcifying” organisms that make shells. It makes it harder for corals to form their skeletons and is already worsening die-offs of corals in some areas. The researchers suspected that the clams use this phenomena to their advantage at a small scale, lowering the pH with their foot somehow to dissolve away the coral to make their borehole.

GOPR2264.JPG
Using a wedge to keep open a Tridacna shell in my Red Sea work. We took a small blood sample with permission of local authorities. This caused no lasting effects to the clams.

But they needed to prove it, and that was a challenge. Giant clams can be unwilling research participants. I myself have observed this in trying to take samples of their body fluid for my own research. When they sense the presence of a predator, they immediately clam up in their protective shell. I used a small wedge to keep their shells open to allow me to take a sample of their body fluid, but the researchers working on T. crocea needed to convince the clam to place its foot on a piece of pH-sensitive foil, keep it there and do whatever acid-secreting magic allows it to burrow into coral. They would then be able to measure whether it indeed is making the water around its foot more acidic, and by how much.

clam
Diagram from Hill et al., 2018 showing their experimental design.

In what I can only assume was an extended process of trial and error and negotiation with a somewhat unwilling research subject, the researchers found exactly the right angle needed to convince the clam that it was safe enough to try making a coral home. But it was not in coral, instead sitting in an aquarium, on top of a special type of foil that changes color when exposed to changing pH, like a piece of high-tech litmus paper. The researchers discovered that their suspicions were correct: the clams do make the area around their feet significantly more acidic than the surrounding seawater, as much as two to four pH units lower. Where seawater is around a pH of around 8, the clams were regularly reducing pH to as low as 6 (about the level of milk) and sometimes as low as 4.6 (about the pH of acid rain). Small differences in pH can make a big difference in the power of an acid because each pH unit corresponds to 10x more protons (hydrogen ions, H+) in the water. The protons are the agent that dissolves CaCO3. Each proton can take out one molecule of coral skeleton. The clams are dissolving away coral skeleton to make holes with only their feet!

clam2.PNG
Footage of the pH- sensitive foil, with darker areas corresponding to lower pH. The areas of low pH (high acidity) correspond exactly to the “footprint” of the clam!

But what in T. crocea‘s foot allows them to make acid? I know that my foot does not do this, though that would be a very entertaining and obscure superpower. The researchers found the enzymes called vacuolar-type H+-ATPase (VHA) present in great quantities in the outermost cells of the clam’s feet. These enzymes are found throughout the tree of life and are proton pumps that can quickly reduce pH through active effort. Other prior researchers like the influential Sir Maurice Yonge, a legendary British marine biologist who worked extensively with giant clams, had suspected that the clams had used acid but had never been able to detect a change in pH in the seawater around the clams’ feet through more conventional methods. It was only because of new technologies like the pH paper that this research team was able to finally solve this issue. And now, I suspect other groups will want to re-investigate the importance of VHA in their study organisms. Many branches of the tree of life may be utilizing acid-base chemistry to their advantage in ways we never had previously imagined.

Oh, the seasons they grow! [research blog]

My latest clamuscript is published in Palaios, coauthored with my advisor Matthew Clapham! It’s the first chapter of my PhD thesis, and it’s titled “Identifying the Ticks of Bivalve Shell Clocks: Seasonal Growth in Relation to Temperature and Food Supply.” I thought I’d write a quick post describing why I tackled this project, what I did, what I found out, and what I think it means! Raw unformatted PDF of it here on my publication page.

Why I did this project:

I study the growth bands of bivalve (“clam”) shells. Bivalves create light and dark shell growth bands as they grow their shells, much like the rings of a tree. The light bands form during happy times for the clam, when it is growing quickly and putting down lots of carbonate. The dark bands appear during times of cessation, when the bivalve ceases growth during a hibernation-like period. This can happen in the cold months, or the hot months, or both, or neither, depending on the clam and where it lives. It turns out that there are a lot of potential explanations for why these annual cessations of growth happen. Different researchers have suggested through the years that temperature (high or low) is the biggest control on the seasons that bivalves grow, but others have suggested that food supply is more important. Others say it’s mostly a function of the season they reproduce, when they’re putting most of their energy into making sperm/eggs and not growing their bodies. I wanted to try to see if I could find trends across all of bivalves which would shed light on which factors are important in determining their season of growth.

Capture.PNG
Annual growth lines in the shell of a giant clam. The transparent spots are the times that it was growing more slowly and not happy. Was this because of temperatures? Or was it getting less to eat? I wanted to know.

What I did:

I read a ton of papers in the historical literature about bivalves. These were written by people in many fields: aquaculture, marine ecology, paleoclimate researchers (using the clams shells as a chemical record of temperature), and more. All of the papers were united by describing the seasons that the bivalves grew, and the seasons that they stopped growing. I ended up with nearly 300 observations of marine (saltwater) bivalve growth for dozens of species from all around the world. I had papers as old as the earliest 1910s, and some as new as last year.

map.PNG
A map of all the places the observation of bivalve growth came from. Blue means they shut down in the winter, while red means they do not.

We have mussels, oysters, scallops, clams, cockles, geoducks, giant clams, razor clams, quahogs, and more in the database. Bivalves that burrow. Bivalves that sit on the surface of the sediment. Bivalves that stick onto rocks. Bivalves that can swim. With each, I noted data that the researchers recorded. If they grew during a season, I coded it as a 1. If they didn’t, I coded it as a 0. So a bivalve growing in summer but not winter would be recorded as 1,0. I also recorded environmental data including temperature of the location in winter and summer in the location, as well as seasonal supply of chlorophyll (a measure of phytoplankton, which is the main source of food for most clams). It turned out that not enough of the studies recorded temperature or chlorophyll for their sites, so I wanted to back these up with an additional data source. I downloaded satellite-based temperature and chlorophyll data for each location, as well as additional studies which directly measured chlorophyll at each site. I wanted lots of redundant environmental data to ensure that any trend or lack of trend I observed in my analysis was not due to a weakness of the data.

I then compared the occurrence of shutdown by season with these environmental variables using a statistical technique called regression. Regression basically involves trying to relate a predictor variable (in this case, latitude, temperature and chlorophyll during a certain season) to the response variable (did the clam grow in that season or not?). We wanted to see which environmental variable relates most closely to whether or not the clam grows or not. Because our dependent variable was binary (0 or 1), we used a technique called logistic regression, which tries to model the “log odds” of an event occurring in response to the predictor variable. That log odds can then be back-calculated to probability of the event occurring.

What we found:

shutdowns.PNG

In a clamshell, we found that latitude (distance from the equator) is a very good predictor of whether or not a bivalve shuts down for the winter. As you’d expect, bivalves in the far north and far south of our planet are more likely to take a winter nap. However, bivalves at the equator mostly grow year round and are not likely to take a summer nap. In relation to temperature, the lower the winter temperature, the more likely the bivalve is to stop shell growth. High summer temperature is not as good a predictor for the occurrence of a summer shutdown, but the majority of summer shutdowns seem to occur at the low temperate latitudes, where the difference between the annual range of temperature is largest. Unlike at the equator, where bivalves likely can adapt to the hottest temperatures and be happy clams, they have to adapt to a huge range of temperatures in places like the American Gulf and Atlantic coasts, the Adriatic and Gulf of California. And if they are restricted at the northward end of their range, they may have no choice but to shut down in summer as there is nowhere cooler to migrate to.

Picture1
GIF of the satellite data showing white as hotspots of phytoplankton ability. Notice that the food is more available in summer months for each hemisphere. We were trying to see if this relates back to when the bivalves grow in every place we had data for.

Food supply, on the other hand, is not a good predictor of when bivalves shut down. When we went into this project, we expected food to be a powerful control on seasonal growth because it is intuitive and well understood that the better fed a bivalve is, the larger it will grow overall. But the seasonal low amount of chlorophyll (and therefore the amount of photosynthesizing plankton) in the bivalves’ areas had no relationship to whether or not the bivalve shut down in a certain season. To double check that this wasn’t a weakness in my satellite data, I downloaded additional direct observations from the same places as many bivalve studies in the dataset, but I still couldn’t find the relationship. We propose that the seasonal supply of phytoplankton is not well related to seasonal growth of bivalves because: 1) phytoplankton supply isn’t very seasonal in nature in most of the sites we studied. There are peaks in multiple seasons rather than a clean up and down wave shape like temperature. 2) Bivalves are pretty flexible in what they eat. They also eat other types of plankton and suspended particles that are even less seasonal. It may be pretty difficult to find bivalves that are seasonally starving. One of the most probable places to find such starvation shutdowns might be the poles, where seasonal ranges of temperature are quite small but plankton does really have a seasonal pattern of availability. More research will be needed to describe the nature of polar bivalves and why they shut down growth.

What’s next?
This is the first chapter of my PhD. I have two more chapters I’m working on, both related to the geochemistry of bivalve shells. I am writing those manuscripts this summer and looking for postdoctoral fellowships in the fall related to geochemistry of marine organisms in the fossil record. I hope to pursue more projects looking at the season of growth in bivalves, switching to understanding the role that changing seasonal cycles in their environment and biology play in their evolution. Do bivalves that live closer together tend to reproduce at different times? Can we track season of reproduction in relation to temperature and food supply? There are a lot more clam stories to be told and I look forward to sharing them all with you. Until the next research blog,

Dan

 

The Snails that Farm

File:Marsh periwinkle 001.jpg
Littoraria grazing on Spartina marsh grass. (source)

Us humans really like to talk up our skills at farming. And while it’s true that we have domesticated animals and plants to a degree not seen in other life forms, the act of nurturing and harvesting food is actually not really that special, and is broadly observed throughout the animal kingdom. Perhaps the most iconic invertebrate farmers are insects. Leaf-cutter ants, termites, and some beetles have been observed to actively cultivate fungus by gathering plant material to feed it, growing the fungus, protecting the fungus from competition, and then harvesting the fungus to feed themselves and their young. Ants are also known to keep livestock in the form of aphids, which they lovingly protect and cultivate for the sweet nectar they excrete. Such practices are called “high-level food production” because, like human farmers with their seeds and fertilizer, insects have evolved a highly complex symbiosis with their fungus. The fungus has shaped their behavior as much as the ants cultivate the fungus. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Littoraria_irrorata.jpg
The marsh periwinkle Littoraria irrorata (source)

Less well understood is the “low-level food production” that may occur more broadly throughout the tree of life. There is less direct evidence of such behavior because it is more indirect and less specialized than high-level food production, but it may be equally advantageous for the cultivator and the cultivated. One study published in 2003 uncovered a simple but powerful relationship between marsh periwinkles of the genus Littoraria and fungus which they cultivate and harvest.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7346/9871468314_19017d6484_b.jpg
Close-up of a snail’s radula (source)

Marsh periwinkles are small and not particularly charismatic creatures. Like many snails, they are grazers with a shell, a fleshy foot and a rough, abrasive organ called a radula which they use like sandpaper to graze on pretty much whatever they can get into. Snails are not known as picky eaters. But researcher Brian Silliman of Brown University and Steven Newell of University of Georgia noticed that these innocuous snails regularly undertake the risky, low reward activity of grazing above the water on the blades of swamp grass, stripping off the surfaces of the blades of grass. The researchers were confused why the snails would expose themselves to predation and the harmful open air for such a low-nutrition food.

 

fungus
A typical snail farm, complete with liberally applied fertilizer. Yum.

They discovered that the snails were investing in the future. By stripping away the protective surface of the swamp grass blades and liberally fertilizing the surface of the grass with their droppings, the periwinkles are ensuring that the swamp grass will be infected with an active and very prolific fungal infection. The fungus, unlike the plant it lives on, is of high nutritional value. The researchers demonstrated the active partnership between the snails and fungus by conducting caged experiments where they showed that snails which grazed on grass but not the resulting fungus did not grow as large as snails which were allowed to return and chow down on the fungus. The fungus loves this deal as well. They grow much more vigorously on grass that is “radulated” (rubbed with the snail’s sandpapery radula) than uninjured grass. The fungus grows even faster if the snails are allowed to deposit their poop next to the wounds. The researchers found that this same relationship applies at 16 salt marshes along 2,000 km of the Eastern Seaboard.

The periwinkles don’t really know what they’re doing. They aren’t actively planting fungus and watching proudly like a human farmer as their crop matures. But over millions of years, the snails have been hard-wired to practice this behavior because it works. Snails that abrade a leaf of swamp grass, poop on the wound and come back later to eat the yummy fungus do a lot better than snails which just stick to the safe way of life below the surface of the water. The fungus loves this relationship too. The only loser is the swamp grass, which the researchers unsurprisingly found grows much more slowly when infected with fungus. But marsh grass is the largest source of biomass in swamp environments, and the snails that partner with fungus are able to more efficiently use this plentiful but low-nutrient food source, to the extent that it is now the dominant way of eating for swamp periwinkles on the East Coast of the US, and probably in a lot more places too. The researchers noted that there are likely far more examples of low-level food production that we simply haven’t noticed.

Since this work was published, other teams have discovered that some damselfish like to farm algae, fiddler crabs encourage the growth of mangrove trees, and even fungus get in on the action of farming bacteria. We love to talk up our “sophisticated” high-level food production techniques, but such relationships probably got started at a similarly low level. Our activities as hunter-gatherers encouraged the growth of certain organisms, we stumbled upon them, ate them, kept doing what we were doing and eventually our behavior developed into something more complex. Next time you see a snail munching its way up a blade of grass, consider to yourself whether it knows exactly what it’s doing. Come back later to see the fruits of its labor.