QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online May 1, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 1996-2003 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02234

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Moeser, G. M. Articles by Carrington, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Moeser, G. M. Articles by Carrington, E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Seasonal variation in mussel byssal thread mechanics

Gretchen M. Moeser^*, and Emily Carrington^*

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA

View larger version (9K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Force–extension behavior of representative spring and fall threads. (A) The thread produced in spring extended beyond the yield point and stiffened again before failing at the plaque (Fb=0.21 N). (B) The thread produced in fall broke at the plaque during the first tensile test (solid line, Fb=0.05 N). When retested without the plaque (broken line), the thread extended beyond the yield point and stiffened before failing in the proximal region (Fb=0.14 N). Threads produced in both summer and winter were similar to fall threads, breaking before reaching the second (yield) phase of the force–extension curve (data not shown).

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Breaking force for threads over time of exposure in four seasons. Symbols represent means ± s.e.m. values (N=11–29). Tests were performed in 15°C seawater at an extension rate of 10 mm min–1. Note that no testable threads persisted beyond four weeks during the summer; the value for six weeks exposure was conservatively estimated from the four-week value (broken line).

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Breaking strain for threads over time of exposure in four seasons. Symbols represent means ± s.e.m. values (N=11–29). Tests were performed in a 15°C seawater bath at an extension rate of 10 mm min–1. Note that no testable threads persisted beyond four weeks during the summer; the value for six weeks exposure was conservatively estimated from the four-week values (broken line).

View larger version (79K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Biofouling of byssal threads exposed to field conditions for three weeks during the summer decay experiment. (A) Compound microscope photograph of distal region and adhesive plaque of a byssal thread (at 16x magnification). Note the extensive biofouling by chain-forming diatoms. (B) SEM image of distal portion of a byssal thread in which a diatom is partially embedded. Image provided by Shanna Brazee.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. A modified version of the scheme proposed by Carrington (Carrington, 2002) to explain the seasonal variation observed in tenacity, or attachment strength. While the originally proposed energetic trade-off between gamete production and tenacity is maintained, it is now proposed that an annual cycle of tenacity is due to variation in thread quality, not quantity.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter