4.1 Article

Shell Hardness and Compressive Strength of the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, and the Asian Oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis

期刊

BIOLOGICAL BULLETIN
卷 225, 期 3, 页码 175-183

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/BBLv225n3p175

关键词

-

资金

  1. Oyster Recovery Partnership
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Undergraduate Science Education Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The valves of oysters act as a physical barrier between tissues and the external environment, thereby protecting the oyster from environmental stress and predation. To better understand differences in shell properties and predation susceptibilities of two physiologically and morphologically similar oysters, Crassostrea virginica and Crassostrea ariakensis, we quantified and compared two mechanical properties of shells: hardness (resistance to irreversible deformation; GPa) and compressive strength (force necessary to produce a crack; N). We found no differences in the hardness values between foliated layers (innermost and outermost foliated layers), age class (C. virginica: 1, 4, 6, 9 years; C. ariakensis: 4, 6 years), or species. This suggests that the foliated layers have similar properties and are likely composed of the same material. The compressive force required to break wet and dry shells was also not different. However, the shells of both six-and nine-year-old C. virginica withstood higher compressive force than C. virginica shells aged either one or four, and the shells of C. ariakensis at both ages studied (4- and 6-years-old). Differences in ability to withstand compressive force are likely explained by differences in thickness and density between age classes and species. Further, we compared the compressive strength of differing ages of these two species to the crushing force of common oyster predators in the Chesapeake Bay. By studying the physical properties of shells, this work may contribute to a better understanding of the mechanical defenses of oysters as well as of their predation vulnerabilities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据