Content uploaded by Gerald L. Mackie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gerald L. Mackie on Jan 10, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER 10
Colonization of Different Construction
Materials by the Zebra Mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha)
Bruce W. Kilgour and Gerald L. Mackie
To determine if zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorphay
have a preference for different con-
struction materials, we examined the abundance on 16 materials that had been placed in Lake
St. Clair for over 3 months. The materials were either 7.7 x l2.7-cm plates or 15 cm long x
<7-cm diameter tubes. The abundance of mussels on plates ranged from
O/m'
on copper to over
21,GOO/m'
on asbestos and stainless steel; on tubes the abundance ranged from
221m
2
on copper
to
1467/m
2
on ABS. The following preference was exhibited by zebra mussels on the plates:
copper < galvanized iron < aluminum < acrylic < PVS < Teflon®* < vinyl < pressure treated
wood < black steel < pine < polypropylene < absestos < stainless steel. For tubes the preference
was copper < brass < galvanized iron < aluminum < acrylic < black steel < polyethylene <
5.G-cm i.d. PVC < ABS < 4.0-cm i.d. PVC. Tubes that had a vertical orientation had signif-
icantly fewer mussels (mean =
3821m
2)
than tubes with horizontal orientation (mean =
8711
rn
2).
The results suggest that the abundance of zebra mussels on structures can be reduced by
selection of appropriate construction materials and design.
*Registered trademark of E. 1. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Wilmington, DE.
0-87371-696-5193150.00
+
S.50
©
1993 by Lewis Publishers 167
11U
Li!,15J(fi
MU.).)1!,W:
151ULUlJI,
uarns.s
»,
fiIVU
L-UIVl.fiUL
Table 1. ANOVATables to Test for Significant Differences in
lLunJance
01
AreJssena po)ymofPha
on ~lNerent
Racks and Plates Made of 13 Different Materials
Source df SS MS F P
r"
Rack
Error
2
56 0.325 0.163 0.209 0.812
43.648 0.779
39.759 3.313 36.169 0.000
4.214 0.009
0.007
Material
Error
12
46 0.904
Table 2. Results of Tukey's Multiple Comparisons Test
Material MeanNumber Number of Complete
(per m") Plates
Copper
Galvanized iron
Aluminum
Acrylic
PVC
Teflon@>
Vinyl
Pressure-treated wood
Black steel
Pine
Polypropylene
Asbestos
Stainless steel
o
1
,5481 2
2.324 2
6,896 3
7,471
3
8,593 3
12,068
1
15,255
3
15,420 2
16,117 2
17,554 2
21,333 3
21,812 2
Note: Means scored with the same line are not significantly different at
the
0.05
level.
variance (ANOVA)was used to determine differences. For the plates, sources
of variation included the rack and the material; while for the tubes sources
of variation included the rack, orientation (i.e., whether the tube was hori-
zontal or vertical), inside/outside surface, materials, and interaction terms.
For both the plates and tubes, Tukey's multiple comparison test was used to
determine significant differences between the different materials.
RESULTS
There was a significant difference in the abundance of mussels settling
on the 13 different plate materials but there were no differences in abundance
among the three racks (Table 1). The multiple comparisons test (Table 2)
showed that plates made of copper, galvanized iron, and aluminum had sig-
nificantly fewer mussels than the majority of the remaining materials.
For mussels on the tubes, significant differences in abundance were found
for orientation (horizontal vs vertical), for inside vs outside, and for the
different materials (Table 3). Mean density on the vertical tubes was
380fm
2
-....~~o~~-~
-_._p. _._--_ ... -
Table 3. ANOVA Tables
to
Test for Significant Differences in Abundance of Dreissena
polymorpha on Different Racks and Tubes Ma<ieof
10
Different Materials
Source df SS MS FP
r2
Material 997.24 10.81 16.25 0.000 0.806
Rack 22.69 1.32 1.97 0.144
Inside/outside
1
14.33 14.33 21.55 0.000
Orientation 113.13 13.13 19.75 0.000
Error 104 69.16 0.665
Material 940.115 4.457 8.156 0.000 0.756
Inside/outside
1
13.365 13.365· 24.156 0.000
Orientation
1
12.23 12.23 22.102 0.000
Material
x
inside/outside 92.75 0.305 0.552 0.832
Material
x
orientation 919.16 2.129 3.848 0.000
Orientation
x
inside/outside 1 1.87 1.87 3.385 0.069
Error 87 48.14 0.553
Table
4.
Results of Tukey's Multiple Comparisons Test
Mean Number of Mussels
(per m2)
Material
221
59
403
420
544
806
829
889
916
1467
Copper
Brass
Aluminum
Galvanized iron
Acrylic
Teflon@
PVC (5.0 cm i.d.)
Black steel
ABS
PVC (4.0 cm Ld.)
Note: Means scored with the same line are not significantly
different at the 0.05 level.
while mean density on the horizontal tubes was 870/m2; inside surfaces had
an average mussel density of 3501w, whereas outside surfaces had an average
mussel density of 11
O/m
2•
Tubes made of copper and brass had significantly
fewer mussels attached than did the majority of the other materials (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
Results from this study suggest that materials containing toxic metals are
the most suitable for reducing the settlement of zebra mussels. Plates made
of copper, galvanized iron, and aluminum; and tubes made of copper, brass,
galvanized iron, and aluminum had significantly fewer mussels colonized on
their surfaces than the majority of other materials. This finding is similar to
the findings ofWalz (1973, 1975)
who showed that materials such as copper
and brass were successful at reducing the number of settled mussels. Reduced
.i.,
on~esemaie~jsmayle reUJ to1e ., propJ~es
J.,
metals. Galvanized iron contains zinc, while brass contains zinc and copper.
Zinc, copper, and aluminum are known to have toxic effects on mollusks
(Havlick and Marking, 1987). However, these materials may also be causing
an avoidance response in the mussels, or bonding properties at their surfaces
may make it difficult for mussels to attach.
Although these data suggest that materials containing copper, aluminum,
and zinc will have reduced numbers of zebra mussels, there are other con-
siderations. First, although settlement of zebra mussels is reduced on these
materials, there is still settlement. These materials will be of little use if the
objective is to have no settlement. Second, although settlement is reduced,
there is some concern that these materials may lose their ability to reduce
settlement in the long term. Data from Van Diepen and Davids (1986) suggest
that materials initially good at limiting settlement (such as polystyrene) can
lose their effectiveness over time. Information on rate of settlement, or the
rate of changes in settlement over a full year or more, would be useful to
help answer these questions.
Zebra mussels were more abundant on the inside surfaces of the tubes
than on the outside. This could have occurred by two mechanisms: (1) zebra
mussels may actually prefer sheltered environments and use criteria for se-
lection of such locations andlor (2) predation by fish and ducks, etc. may
have reduced the number of mussels on the outside surfaces of the tubes. The
effects of predators on the abundance of zebra mussels is probably minimal.
There were no ducks in the immediate vicinity when visits were made to the
same locations during incubation (every 2 weeks). Also, these racks were
placed in a location where the water depth was less than 1 m and predation
by large fish was very unlikely. Predation by invertebrates probably would
be the same on both the inside and outside surfaces. As such, these data
support the hypothesis that zebra mussels preferentially settle on more shel-
tered substrates. Understanding the selection criteria that zebra mussels em-
ploy before attaching to surfaces would help in the design of structures for
minimizing colonization.
In summary, the results from this study indicate that colonization of
Dreissena polymorpha, over a short term, can be reduced using materials
containing aluminum, copper, and zinc. Colonization is also higher on the
inside surfaces of tubes than on the outside. The results suggest that the
appropriate selection of building materials and design will help reduce set-
tlement of zebra mussels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Mr. Wade Gibbons for contributing comments toward the design
of this study; Ms. Dianne Pathey, Mr. Dean Plummer, Mr. Kevin Wingerden,
and Mr. Joe Brador for assistance in the field; and Mr. Desmond Lorente for
assistance in sorting the mussels. Two anonymous reviewers provided com-
ments that improved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Griffiths, R. W., W. P. Kovalak, andD. W. Schloesser. "The Zebra Mussel, Dreissena
polymorpha (Pallas 1771), in North America: Impacts on Raw Water Users," in
Symposium: Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment
(Palo Alto, CA: Nuclear Power Division, Electric Research Power Institute, 1989)
Il-27.
Havlick, M. E., and L. L. Marking. "Effects of Contaminants on Naiad Mollusks
(Unionidae): A Review," United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceJResource Pub-
lication No. 164.
Mackie, G. L., W. N. Gibbons, B. W. Muncaster, and I. M. Gray. "The Zebra
Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha: A Synthesis of European Experiences and a Pre-
view for North America," Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources
Branch, Great Lakes Section. Queen's Printer, Toronto, Ontario (1989).
Van Diepen,
J.,
and C. Davids. "Zebra Mussels and Polystyrene," Hydrobiol. Bull.
19:179-181 (1986).
Walz,
R
"Studies on the Biology of Dreissena polymorpha in Lake Constance,"
Arch. Hydrobiol., Suppl. 42:452--482 (1973).
Walz, N. "The Settlement of Larvae of Dreissena polymorpha on Artificial Sub-
strates," Arch. Hydrobiol., Suppl. 47:423-431 (1975).
