Predation and Growth of Manila Clams

in Geoduck Aquaculture Areas

By Julia Eggers and Hans Hurn

 http://www.canadianfamily.ca

• Demand for food grows by 2.5%

yearly.

• Average growth rate of Aquaculture

8.8% per year since 1970.

http://www.alwaysthetwain.com/ http://trendsupdates.com/
 http://www.californiafish.org/

• Currently aquaculture accounts

for nearly 50% of the world’s
fish.

• Aquaculture of bivalves makes up

1/3 of world seafood production.

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/aquaculture.htm http://agriculture.csi.edu/aquaculture/index.asp
Washington State Aquaculture
• Washington State produces 69% of U.S. bivalve shellfish

• Geoducks value between $5 to $10 per pound 

• Some Asian markets pay as much as $100 per pound

http://www.billcasselman.com/canadian_food_words/cfw_four.htm
What is a geoduck?
Phylum: Mollusca
Class: Bivalvia
Subclass: Heterodonta
Order: Myoida
Family: Hiatellidae
Genus: Panopea
Species: generosa

http://animals.howstuffworks.com
• Suspension feeder
• Typically sub-tidal
• Adults deeply buried
• Juveniles shallow and
susceptible to predation
• Large
• Edible
http://www.thekitchn.com/
Overview of Geoduck Aquaculture 
• Hatchery
• Out-planting
• Growth
• Harvest
Project Questions

• Are there differences is the density of potential non-

target clam (Manila clam) predators between farmed
and reference beaches?
• How do the farms and/or predator abundance affect
survival rates of the clams?
• Are there differences in growth rates of non-target
clams between farmed and reference beaches?
Study Sites

Three study sites

1. Fisher
2. Rogers
3. Stratford
Fisher

• Coarse sand with some

gravel
• Smallest plot at 2500m2
Rogers
• Sand, gravel with some cobble

• Diverse

• Sand dollars

• Plot size 5100m2

Stratford

• Coarse sand
• Flat

• Plot size 5100m2

Macrofauna Survey
• Two transects on reference and planted areas
• Transects done using MUTT. (Bradbury et al, 2000)
• Included species identification, number, size.
• Focused on crabs, starfish and moon snails 
 Photo by Kevin Lee

Photo by Peter J. Bryant

Photo by Todd Warshaw

Experiment
Two plots per site

Farmed Reference
Experiment
• Hatchery Stock
• 40 Bowls total per site
• Reference and treatment areas  
• 20 clams per bowl- measured and recorded
Experiment
• Randomly generated locations
• Placed in tandem
• Sediment used at sites
• PVC pipes
• Clams planted
Experiment

• Removed after one month

• Sifted and collected/measured
• Empty shells and missing clams=
"not surviving"
Predator Density

Graceful Crab
Sea Stars

Flatfish
www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/finfish/images/species/sandsole.jpg
 Predator Density

Predator Density (Pred m )

-2
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Fisher Rogers Straford

Farmed
Reference
Clam Survival
 Sig.
Manila Clam Survival site<0.001
plot<0.001
enclosure<0.001
80
70
Treatment
Control
Clam Survival (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Farmed Reference Farmed Reference Farmed Reference

Fisher Rogers Stratford

 Manila Clam Survival (Treatment)
Clam Survival (%) 20

15

10

0
Fisher Rogers Stratford

Farmed
Reference
 Clam Survival vs. Predator Density
Fisher
18.0%
Rogers
16.0% Stratford
14.0% Farmed
Survival (%)

12.0% Reference
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Predator Density (Pred m -2)

 Clam Survival vs. Predator Density
Fisher
18.0%
Rogers
16.0% Stratford
14.0% Farmed
Survival (%)

12.0% Reference
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Predator Density (Pred m -2)

 Clam Survival vs. Predator Density
Fisher
18.0%
Rogers
16.0% Stratford
14.0% Farmed
Survival (%)

12.0% Reference
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Predator Density (Pred m -2)

 Clam Survival vs. Predator Density
Fisher
18.0%
Rogers
16.0% Stratford
14.0% Farmed
Survival (%)

12.0% Reference
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Predator Density (Pred m -2)

Other factors affecting clam survival

• Site substrate

• Wave energy

• Upland development
Clam Growth
 Sig.
Manila Clam Growth (Control) site=0.844
plot=0.118
Clam Growth Rate (mm d-1) 0.16

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08

0.06
0.04

0.02
0
Fisher Rogers Stratford
Farmed
Reference
 Clam Growth vs. Total July Predator Density

0.14
Clam Growth Rate (mm d-1)

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06 Fisher
Rogers
0.04 Stratford
y = -0.0247x + 0.1141 Farmed
0.02 Reference
R2 = 0.0498
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Predator Density (Pred m -2)

Other factors affecting clam growth

• Geoducks depleting phytoplankton from

water
• Nets covered with algae reducing flow and
altering food delivery
• Small predators not observed during
surveys that may harass the clams
Conclusions
• Predator density greater at
geoduck farms

• Survival of non-target Manila

clams lower at farmed plots

• Survival of clams linked to

predator density within each site

• Trends suggest growth of non-

target Manila clams slower at
farmed plots
• NS at alpha=0.05

• Growth not related to predator

density
Implications
• Replication needed to support results
found in study

• Results to be incorporated with Sea Grant

project to assess the impact of geoduck
farms

• Predator/prey dynamics are affected by

farms
• Habitat creation increases predator
density and predation on non-target
bivalves

• Need to define best-practices for geoduck

aquaculture while expanding in Puget
Sound

• Ecological effects need to be addressed

during world-wide aquaculture
expansion.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Sean McDonald for his
help designing and carrying out this
project, Glenn VanBlaricom,
Taylor Shellfish for the clams, the
geoduck farmers and all the
volunteers that made our work
possible!
Questions?