Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T22:24:27.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Variations in eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) sex-ratios from three Virginia estuaries: protandry, growth and demographics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2012

Juliana M. Harding*
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, USA 23062
Eric N. Powell
Affiliation:
Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Rutgers University, 6959 Miller Avenue, Port Norris, NJ, USA 08349
Roger Mann
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, USA 23062
Melissa J. Southworth
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, USA 23062
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: J.M. Harding, Department of Marine Science, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, USA29528, email: jharding@coastal.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Oyster population reproductive capacity and dynamics are controlled at the most basic level by the observed sex-ratios. Since oysters are sequential, protandric hermaphrodites the population sex-ratio is related to the demographics (shell length, age, and biomass). Oysters were collected from June through to August 2008 at twelve bars in the James, Rappahannock and Great Wicomico Rivers, Virginia, USA. Bars were aggregated into five groups on the basis of similar age–length relationships. Sex-ratios (fraction female), age–length, and biomass–length relationships were determined for each group. The fraction female increased within increasing shell length, age, and biomass at all sites. Simultaneous hermaphrodites were rarely observed. Group specific differences in shell length (SL, mm) and age (yr) for the timing of the protandric shift were observed with the earliest shift from male to female occurring at ~60 mm SL and ~1.6 yr. The proportion of females observed in the larger or older individuals was at least 70–80%. Sex-ratios from summer 2008 were used to develop sex–length, sex–age, and sex–biomass keys that were applied to autumn-survey data from 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In these years, sex-ratios by shell length and age were strongly biased towards males while the sex-ratio by biomass was strongly biased towards females. Disease mortality compounds natural and fishing mortality resulting in age/size specific cropping yielding truncated population demographics and an earlier protandric shift in populations on the extremes of the range examined. Regardless of location, market (>76 mm SL) oysters are predominantly female.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2012
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of the twelve oyster bars in the James, Rappahannock, and Great Wicomico Rivers sampled (Table 1) including: Deep Water Shoal (A); Middle Horsehead (B); Point of Shoals (C); V Rock (D); Wreck Shoal (E); Brown Shoal (F); Thomas Rock (G); Nansemond Ridge (H); Drumming Ground (I); Parrot Rock (J); Broad Creek (K); and Shell Bar (L). Hydrographic monitoring stations were located at Gloucester Point (M), Middle Ground (N), Drumming Ground, Broad Creek, and Shell Bar.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of oyster bars and age–length relationships with group classifications from the James, Rappahannock (Rap) and Great Wicomico (GW) Rivers sampled during 2008. Bar abbreviations correspond to labels on Figure 1. Groups 1–5 reflect river specific groups with age–length relationships that are statistically distinct from each other (analysis of covariance, P < 0.05). n is the number of oysters from a bar that contributed to the linear regression (age = m * (SL) + b) of shell length (SL, mm) with age (yr) where m is the slope and b is the y-intercept. Coefficients of determination (R2) are provided for the bar-specific length–age regressions. The regression for Wreck Shoal, Thomas Rock, Brown Shoal, and Nansemond Ridge is from Harding et al. (2008).

Figure 2

Fig. 2. The fraction female for the oyster population in each bar group from collections made in June–August 2008 based on length (A) and age (B). Bar-groups within the James River are based on similarities in length–age relationships: Group 1 (Deep Water Shoal); Group 2 (Point of Shoals, V-Rock and Middle Horsehead); and Group 3 (Wreck Shoal, Thomas Rock, Brown Shoal and Nansemond Ridge). Data from bars within the Rappahannock and Great Wicomico Rivers were combined into river-specific groups (Groups 4 and 5, respectively). The fraction female ratios are corrected for the size–frequency upon collection for each individual bed and the bed sample values summed to provide group estimates uncorrected for variation in total oyster abundance between beds. The P values obtained from binomial tests with an expected fraction of 0.5 (a 1:1 female:male ratio) are presented above each bar. Asterisks indicate values that are significantly different from a 1:1 female:male ratio.

Figure 3

Table 2. The fraction of female oysters by bar group for length (A) and age-classes (B). Groups are identified in Table 1. Column headings are the midpoint of the length or age-classes. ‘nan’ indicates not enough oysters to calculate; * indicates length or age-classes with <10 oysters.

Figure 4

Table 3. Binomial test results examining the divergence of sex-ratios in Table 2 from 1:1 or equal probability of male and female with regard to length (A) and age (B). ‘nan’ indicates not enough oysters in the length or age-class to calculate; ‘ns’ indicates that the binomial test results were not significant at alpha = 0.05.

Figure 5

Table 4. Binomial test results examining the divergence of sex-ratios in Table 2 from 0% or all male expected for smaller/younger oysters with regard to length (A) and age (B). ‘nan’ indicates not enough oysters in the length or age-class to calculate; ‘ns’ indicates that the binomial test results were not significant at alpha = 0.05.

Figure 6

Table 5. Binomial test results examining the divergence of sex-ratios in Table 2 from 3:1, the 75% female condition expected for larger/older oysters with regard to length (A) and age (B). ‘nan’ indicates not enough oysters in the length or age-class to calculate; ‘ns’ indicates that the binomial test results were not significant at alpha = 0.05.

Figure 7

Fig. 3. Sex-at-length (A) and sex-at-age (B) keys for oyster groups from Gompertz curves describing the fraction female by group for length and age. Equation parameters are given in Table 7.

Figure 8

Fig. 4. Population demographics (shell length, mm) from fishery independent stock assessment surveys during November 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 for Groups 1 through to 5 (A–E).

Figure 9

Fig. 5. The fraction female for Groups 1 through to 5 by year normalized for the population using survey data from November of each year based on shell length (A) and biomass (B).

Figure 10

Table 6. Summary of bar-specific shell length–biomass power regression models. n is the number of oysters from a bar that contributed to the power regression (biomass = a[SL]b) of shell length (SL, mm) with biomass (g) where a and b are regression coefficients. Coefficients of determination (R2) are provided for the bar-specific length–age regressions.

Figure 11

Table 7. Parameters for the Gompertz equation fits for each group describing the relationship between fraction female and length or age. The equation is: $\hbox{Fraction female} = Alpha\,{\ast}\, e^{Beta^{\ast} e^{Gamma^{\ast} Length\lpar mm\rpar }}$

Figure 12

Fig. 6. The fraction of market oysters (>75 mm shell length) on the bars examined that were female estimated from 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 stock assessment surveys using the sex-at-length key described above and the survey values obtained in November of the respective years.

Supplementary material: File

Harding supplementary 1

Harding supplementary 1

Download Harding supplementary 1(File)
File 61.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Harding supplementary 2

Harding supplementary 2

Download Harding supplementary 2(File)
File 227.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Harding supplementary 3

Harding supplementary 3

Download Harding supplementary 3(File)
File 68.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Harding supplementary 4

Harding supplementary 4

Download Harding supplementary 4(File)
File 68.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Harding supplementary 5

Harding supplementary 5

Download Harding supplementary 5(File)
File 68.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Harding supplementary 6

Harding supplementary 6

Download Harding supplementary 6(File)
File 32.3 KB