Shell hash promotes growth in Pacific littleneck clams (Leukoma staminea) by altering pore water chemistry
Abstract. Bivalves that build calcium carbonate skeletons are at particular risk from ocean acidification, and mitigation strategies will be needed to keep coastal populations healthy. It can be energetically costly for organisms like clams and mussels to build their shells under low pH conditions, and acidification can lead to shell dissolution. Adding crushed shells (shell hash) to beach sediments, a practice used by some Indigenous communities and aquaculturists, may mitigate the negative effects of ocean acidification by altering the chemistry of the pore fluids they live in. We tested the hypothesis that mixing shell hash into the sediment improves the growth and physiology of infaunal Pacific littleneck clams (Leukoma staminea). Juvenile clams (pre-sexual maturity) were raised for 90 days under four conditions: control seawater with sediment, acidified seawater with sediment, control seawater with sediment plus shell hash, and acidified seawater with sediment plus shell hash. Pore water and overlying seawater were sampled three times a week for pH, alkalinity, salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Clam shell weight, soft tissue weight, and new shell growth were measured, and mantle tissue RNA was collected for gene sequencing after three months. Our results demonstrate that the addition of shell hash increased the pH of porewater relative to the control, and animals exposed to acidified water plus shell hash grew larger than animals exposed to acidified water alone. Gene expression profiling suggests that animals in acidified seawater with shell hash were largely indistinguishable from animals in non-acidified water. Our experimental results suggest that adding shell hash to sediments alters the chemistry of pore fluids, thus buffering against acidic conditions that can negatively affect the growth of economically and culturally important shellfish like littleneck clams.
Dear editor,
Â
after carefully reading the manuscript by Kempf and co-workers (egusphere-2026-1930) on the effect of shell hash in mitigating the effects of acidification on growth of a clam species, I recommend publication after moderate revisions. The paper is very well written and all methods are clearly explained. Presentation of the results is very adequate and I have a number of relatively small suggestions for improvement added to the enclosed pdf. Two additional, major issues stand out and need special attention.
First, it should be clear where in the artificial sediment the littleneck clams (L. staminea) live. Pore water chemistry was determined at a depth of 8 cm (Line 172) and compared in the results section with samples taken from the overlying water. Since (carbonate chemistry) parameters are different for these two samples, the sediment likely contains a gradient of conditions. It should be clear where the clams exactly lived (even if it varies between specimens, between conditions or in time) to indicate what conditions they experienced. Now it is implied that they all lived at a depth of 8 cm and that those pore water conditions were the ones experienced by the clams.
More importantly, the Discussion lacks the necessary depth. I suggest the authors extend the discussion by comparing their results with earlier experiments with bivalves under OA-conditions. Is reduced growth under acidified conditions reported before and were responses comparable? Or do they seem to vary between species? What does this mean for natural environments in which the sediment is rich/ poor in carbonates? Is the applied level of acidification representative for a near-future scenario? How fast does the shell hash dissolve? And how does this fit on the growing literature on alkalinity enhancement to mitigate acidification?
I am looking forward to reading a broader discussion on these topics and an evaluation of the results presented here with earlier reports.
Sincerely,
Â
Lennart de Nooijer