Tag: scallops

Research Explainer: Comparing the daily shell diaries of giant clams and scallops

On By Dan KillamIn clams1 Comment
Figure 1 from our paper, showing a comparison of a scallop, its growth increments and where it came from in France, to a giant clam shell section (dyed blue to show its growth lines), and where it came from in the Northern Red Sea

In 2020, I got an interesting email in my inbox from another mollusk researcher! Niels de Winter had emailed me, who I was familiar with from his past work on big Cretaceous rudist bivalves and giant snails. Niels had seen my paper published that year on giant clam shell isotopes from the Gulf of Aqaba in the Northern Red Sea, and was interested in teaming up on a new study to compare the daily growth of giant clams with another bivalve that has daily growth: scallops! I was intrigued because I had similar work underway to study the shells of clams I was growing at Biosphere 2, but I didn’t have any plans to measure my collected wild clam shells that way. So this sounded like a win-win opportunity to work together on a study that neither of us could do alone! Plus, I liked his work and had cited it in the past.

The shells of bivalves are very useful as each produces a shell diary consisting of growth lines, similar to the rings of a tree. Giant clams keep a very detailed diary, with a new growth line forming every night, which previous research has suggested was due to the control that the symbiotic algae inside giant clams have on their host. When the algae conduct photosynthesis, they use CO₂ in the fluid the clam makes its shell from, which increases the pH and accelerates the formation of the shell mineral crystals! The symbionts also directly assist by pumping calcium and other raw materials for the clam to use! Niels had found such daily lines in an ancient rudist bivalve from over 66 million years ago, and proposed it as a sign that the rudists might have had similar algae! I used the daily lines to compare giant clam growth before and after humans arrived in the Red Sea, finding that the clams are growing faster!

But it turns out that giant clams aren’t the only bivalves that make daily lines. Some species of scallops do it too, but that’s a bit confusing, since scallops have no symbionts that could be producing this daily growth period! One way we could investigate this is by bombarding the shells with very tiny laser beams only 20 µm across: the width of a hair is a flawed unit of measurement but 20 microns is as narrow as the narrowest type of hair you can think of! The laser would carry across the cross sections of the shell in a line, literally burning away tiny bits of shell, with the resulting gases captured by a machine called a mass spectrometer, which can figure out the concentrations of elements in the gas.

So we’d basically create a very detailed wiggly graph, where the wiggles represent years, months, days and even tides, depending on how fast the clams and scallops grew! I’m happy to report the paper was published earlier this year, so I thought I’d switch it up a bit and have a conversation with Niels through this blog post. Let me open it up to Niels, who I decided to bring in for this post in a kind of conversation!


Niels, what did you expect to find heading into this experiment? For me, I figured the giant clams would have greater amplitude of variation on a daily basis than the scallops, due to the influence of the symbionts. Is this what you expected?
More or less. To be honest, that is what I was hoping to find, because if the daily lines were so much stronger in photosymbiotic shells than in the non-photosymbiotic scallops, it would make it easier to recognize photosymbiosis by studying modern and fossil shells. Also, a finding like that would obviously support the hypothesis we had about the ancient rudist bivalve. However, I was a bit skeptical as to whether the reality would be so clear-cut.

I mailed samples from six juvenile giant clams to Niels for analysis. We went with juveniles for a couple reasons: they grow faster at this life stage than they do as adults: 2-5 centimeters per year for the species we were studying, which meant the greatest opportunity to record a very detailed record from their shells! Scallops also grow extremely quickly, up to 5 cm/year, and so we would be able to get a similar resolution for both types of bivalves, since each page in their diaries would be a similar width.

Niels brought in our collauthors Lukas Fröhlich, a scallop expert, as well as other geochemists like Lennart de Nooijer, Wim Boer, Bernd Schöne, Julien Thébault, and Gert-Jan Reichart. Could you tell us about the other members of the team and how you brought them in?

When I start a new study like this, I always like to “outsource” the expertise about the topic a bit. Our work in sclerochronology often involves bringing together several fields of research and interpreting the results of complex measurements like these requires input from several people who look at them from different viewpoints. I had just finished a research stay at the University of Mainz in 2019, where I worked with Bernd Schöne and Lukas Fröhlich. I know Lukas was working on scallops together with Julien Thébault, whose team collects them alive in the Bay of Brest and keeps a very detailed record of the circumstances the scallops grow at. To carry out the laser measurements, I needed geochemistry experts, and Lennart de Nooijer, Wim Boer and Gert-Jan Reichart came to mind because I was already working with them on other topics and they run a very good lab for these analyses at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ). This is how the team came together.

Niels conducted a series of laser transects across the clam shells. He used some sophisticated time series analysis approaches to try to quantify the different periodic cycles that appeared in the clam and scallop growth. This was a different approach to how other workers have gone about finding daily growth cycles in giant clams and scallops, where they have often started by zooming in to find the wiggles, and work backwards from there. Niels instead tried to agnostically dissemble the growth records across each clam shell using mathematical approaches, based on the idea that this would be how future workers have to go about identifying daily growth patterns in fossil clams, where we often don’t have a real “growth model” up front to work with. By growth model, I mean the way that we convert the geochemical observations, which are arranged by distance along the shell, into units of time, which requires us to know how fast the clams grew. For the scallops, the age model was made by counting daily “striae” they form on the outside of their shells. For the giant clams, I helped with this by counting tiny growth lines inside the shell made visible by applying a dye called Mutvei’s solution. Because the growth lines weren’t visible all the way through the shell, I used a von Bertalanffy model to bridge across and create a continuous estimate of how old the clams were at each point along their shells.

Niels found some interesting results! I personally expected that the daily variation in giant clams would dwarf what was seen in the scallops, because of the impact of the daily activity of the symbionts. But it turned out that while the clams had a more regular pattern of daily shell growth than the scallops, likely controlled by the symbionts, that was still a minority of the variance across the clams’ records. Yet again, these clams destroyed my hypothesis, but in an interesting way!

Niels, what were your expectations going into this, and how did the results confirm or go against your hypotheses? What challenges did you run into in the course of your analysis, and how did you end up addressing those challenges?

This was honestly one of the most difficult shell-datasets I have worked with so far. The laser technique we used measures the elemental composition of the shells in very high detail, but while this is ideal for funding daily rhythms, it is both a blessing and a curse! In a dataset like this it becomes quite hard to separate the signal we are interested in from the noise that occurs due to measurement uncertainty. I ended up using a technique called spectral analysis, which is often used to detect rhythmic changes in successions of rocks. I guess this is where my geology background was helpful. With this technique, we were able to “filter out” the variability in the records of shell composition that happened at the scale of days and tides and remove the noise and the longer timescale variations. It turns out that, when you do this, you have to remove a surprisingly large fraction of the data, which shows us that the influence of the daily cycle on the composition of both the scallops and the clams is not very large (at most 20%). We did find a larger contribution in the giant clams, as expected, but the difference was much smaller than anticipated. I also find it interesting that most of the variability was not rhythmic. This shows that there are likely processes at play that control the composition of shells on a daily basis which we do not understand yet.

We were measuring a suite of different elements across both bivalve species, including strontium, magnesium, manganese and barium. All of these were reported relative to calcium, the dominant metal ion in the shell material (they’re made of calcium carbonate). This is why we call them “trace” elements; each is integrated into the material of the shell due to a variety of causes, including the temperature, the composition of the seawater, the growth rate of the clams, and also simply due to chance.

Examples of the time series of trace elements from a scallop shell (to the left) and giant clam (to the right), showing the very intricate wiggles in trace element values on a on a tidal and daily basis in each bivalve

In the giant clams, the elements that varied most on a daily basis were strontium and barium. Prior workers had found strontium was the strongest in terms of daily variation, but barium was more unexpected! Normally, barium is thought of as a record of the activity of plankton in the environment, and since there is very little plankton to be found in the Red Sea, it was not expected to see that element vary on a daily basis. It could be that barium gets included in the shell more as a function of the growth rate of the animals. Meanwhile, the scallops (from the Bay of Brest in France) were measuring strong tidal variability in barium and strontium, which makes sense because that location has huge tides compared to the Red Sea. Tides happen on periods of ~12.4 and 24.8 hours. The scallops showed swings lining up with both, and the tidal variability might be the main explanation for how scallops form daily lines. Because the lunar day is so close to a solar day, they would be hard to tell apart from each other! Interestingly, the giant clams also showed some sign of a ~12 hour cycle. While the Red Sea has pretty tiny tides, I had noticed that some of the clams make 2 growth lines a day, and if some clams in the shallowest waters were exposed on a tidal basis, that could explain why they’d make 2 lines: one at low tide, and one at night! Even in places without tides, like the Biosphere 2 ocean, I’d noticed evidence of 12-hour patterns of activity in the clams. It’s so nice (and rare!) when one of my hypotheses is confirmed!

A nice schematic Niels put together showing all the environmental factors that influence the shells of scallops and giant clams, and how much different elements vary as a function of sunlight, tides and other more irregular events like storms. Mn stands for manganese, Ba for barium, Sr for strontium and Mg for magnesium.

Both the giant clams and scallops recorded large irregular swings in all of the studied elements, likely due to non-periodic disturbances. In the case of the scallops, these included storms and the floods of sediment from rivers. For the giant clams, these probably included algae blooms that affect the Red Sea, as well as potentially dust storms that also come every 1-2 years. Both giant clams and scallops have a lot of potential to measure paleo-weather, which is something that other researchers have observed as well!


Niels, where do you see this work heading next?

The recent work looking at very short-term changes in shells is very promising, I think. I agree that there might be a possibility to detect weather patterns in these shells, but that would require some more work into understanding how these animals respond to changes in their environment on an hourly scale and what that response does to their shell composition.

In the meantime, I was intrigued to find that we were not the only people looking for daily cycles in the chemistry of giant clam shells. I had the pleasure of reviewing this paper by Iris Arndt and her colleagues from the university of Frankfurt (Germany). Iris took a similar approach to detecting these daily cycles by using spectral analysis, but she a smart tool called a “wavelet analysis” to visualize the presence of daily rhythms in the shell, which I think was more successful than my approach. She even wrote a small piece of software which can be used to (almost) automatically detect the days and “date” the clam shell based on them. This is quite a step forward, and if I were to do a project like this again, I would certainly try our Iris’ method.

Interesting, too, is that the fossil giant clams studied by Iris showed the daily cycles in magnesium concentration instead of strontium and barium. This shows that the incorporation of trace metals into clam shells is still not fully understood. So one of the things to do, in my opinion, would be to try to see if we can use shells grown under controlled conditions to link the shell composition to short-term changes in the environment. This would require a complex experimental setup in which we simulate an artificial day and night rhythm or an artificial “storm”, but I think it can be done using the culture experiments we do at the NIOZ.

This study represented a unique opportunity to collaborate with my colleague Niels on a topic that interested both of us, which we wouldn’t have been able to pursue on our own. I enjoyed collaborating with him on this work and we have some ideas for further studies down the road, so stay tuned for the next co-clam-boration!

Thoughts of a clam

On By Dan KillamIn Biology, clams, Uncategorized14 Comments

To us active, dynamic mammals, the humble clam can appear positively…inanimate. Their nervous system is decentralized relative to ours, lacking any sort of brain, and to the untrained eye, it can appear that their only discernible reaction to the outside world is opening or closing. Open = happy, closed = not happy; end of story, right? Some vegans even argue that the clams are so nonsentient that it is okay to eat them and think of them as having no more agency than a vegetable!

You might already have predicted I intend to tell you about just how animate and sentient clams can be. But let’s start out by describing the nuts and bolts of their nervous system. As with many invertebrates, their nervous system is distributed throughout their body as a system of ganglia. Ganglia are clumps of nerve cells which may have local specialization, and transmit messages within neurons using electrical potentials. At the connection between cells (called a synapse), neurotransmitters are used to pass signals to the next cell. Researchers have found that bivalves use “histamine‐, octopamine‐, gamma‐aminobutyric acid‐ (GABA)…like immunoreactivity” in their central and peripheral nervous systems, much like us vertebrates do, and other studies have even found that the response to serotonin and dopamine is localized in nervous tissue linked to different organ systems.

veligernerve.PNG
Nerve cells (bright green) highlighted in a larval oyster with fluorescent dye (from Yurchenko et al 2018)

These systems of chemical nerve transmission are truly ancient, likely dating back to the formation of complex animal body plans in the earliest Cambrian. Researchers have great interest in studying these nervous and hormonal signaling systems in mollusks because they can shed light on the relative flexibility and limitations of these systems throughout the animal tree of life. Characterizing these systems can also allow us to understand the mechanisms that bivalves and other animals use to react to environmental stimuli.

poly-gill-detailsem
Electron microscope view of gill cilia, zoomed in 1000x (from Dan Hornbach)

Like humans, bivalves spend a lot of time and effort eating. Most bivalves eat by filtering food from passing water with tiny cilia on their gills. These cilia work to capture food particles and also act as a miniature rowing team moving water along the gill surface. The bivalve needs a way to control this ciliar activity, and researchers found they could directly control the speed at which oysters move their cilia by dosing them with serotonin and dopamine, which respectively increased and decreased activity.

Bivalves also work very hard to make babies. Most bivalves reproduce by releasing sperm and eggs to fertilize externally in the water column. To maximize their chances to find a mate, they typically save up their reproductive cells in gonads for multiple months and release them in a coordinated mass spawning event. It appears that this process is controlled by hormonal releases of dopamine and serotonin. Researchers have determined that serotonin concentrations vary through the year, with mussels in New England using it to regulate a seasonal cycle of feeding in summer, followed storing of that energy for winter. During the winter when food is less available, they use that stored energy to bulk up their gonads in time for reproductive release in spring months, when their larvae have plentiful access to food and oxygen, ensuring them the best chance of survival. In recent decades, aquaculturists have learned to use serotonin injections to induce spawning in cultured clams, to ensure they will have a harvest ready at a certain time of year.

So bivalves are very sensitive to the seasons. How about shorter term sources of excitement? You might have observed this yourself through the clam’s most iconic activity: opening and closing its shell. Clams close their shells with powerful adductor muscles which pull the two valves together. A springy ligament at the hinge pulls the shell open when the muscles relax. Just like us, the clam needs to use nerve cells to signal the muscle to do its thing. In addition, two different sets of ganglia act to control the foot that some bivalves can extend to dig into sand, with one ganglion acting to extend the foot and the other causing it to contract. While clams don’t have a centralized brain with specialized regions for different uses like we have, this represents a sort of specialization of neural systems with a similar result.

Clam licking salt - Imgur
This iconic gif is often shared along with the claim it shows a clam “licking” salt. It is actually using its foot to search for a place to dig. The salt was not needed.

When a certain neuron is used repeatedly, it can form a cellular memory allowing the organism to acclamate (ugh sorry) and moderate its response to a particular stimulus over time. Giant clams, for example, close their shells when their simple eyes detect a shadow overhead. This behavior can protect them from predation. When I conducted some of my PhD research, sampling body fluid of aquarium and wild giant clams with a syringe, I noticed that captive clams didn’t close up in response to my shadow overhead, while wild clams required me to sneak up and wedge their shells open with a wooden block to do my work. I suspected that after exposure to frequent feedings and water changes by aquarists, the clam had “learned” that there was no reason to expend energy closing its shell. Meanwhile, in the process of proving that our sampling technique was not harmful to the animal, I discovered that clams which detected my shadow would quickly reopen within seconds when I hid from them, while those that were stuck by a syringe would stay closed for minutes before opening and beginning to feed again. Makes sense!

Other researchers noticed this phenomenon as well. One group found that giant clams repeatedly exposed to shadows of different sizes, shell tapping and even directly touching its soft tissue began to habituate (become accustomed) to the stress, opening more quickly and staying open longer each time the stimulus occurred. Even more interestingly, they did not transfer that habituation between stress types; for example, the clams that saw a shadow again and again would still react strongly to a different stress like tapping its shell. This suggests the animal can distinguish between different threats along a spectrum of seriousness, with touching of tissue (similar to a fish pecking at its flesh) being the most serious threat with the most dramatic response.

Another study determined that larger giant clams stayed closed longer than smaller ones in response to the same threat. They proposed this was related to the greater risk large clams face as they have more tissue area vulnerable to attack. While the clams might not have made a “conscious” decision in the way we do as thinking creatures, they were able to place their individual risk in context and vary their response. This ability to tailor a response to different risk levels is a sign of surprisingly complex neurology at work.

Inside the Scallop
Close up of the eyes of a scallop. Each is a tiny crystalline parabolic mirror (photo by Matthew Krummins on Wikipedia)

Scallops show some of the most complex bivalve behaviors. This relates back to their unique adaptations, including simple eyes that can resolve shapes and the ability to swim away from danger. Scallops have been found to discern between predator types by sight alone, to the extent that they did not initially recognize an invasive new predatory seastar as a threat. When swimming, they are capable of using this vision to navigate to places where they can hide, such as seagrass beds. It would be very interesting to compare the behavior of scallops in marine protected areas to those that can be freely harvested. Do they vary their behavior in response?

I hope I’ve made clear that while clams are not exactly intellectual powerhouses, their behavior is much more complicated than simply sucking up water and opening or closing their shells. Like us, they inhabit a complex environment that requires a multitude of responses. Their nervous systems have evolved to allow them to survive and adopt nuanced behaviors which they can vary on the fly, and which us “higher” animals are only just beginning to comprehend.

How does a scallop swim?

On By Dan KillamIn clams5 Comments

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.