Extreme longevity in freshwater mussels revisited: sources of bias in age estimates derived from mark–recapture experiments

Abstract

Summary1. There may be bias associated with mark–recapture experiments used to estimate age and growth of freshwater mussels. Using subsets of a mark–recapture dataset for Quadrula pustulosa, I examined how age and growth parameter estimates are affected by (i) the range and skew of the data and (ii) growth reduction due to handling. I compared predictions from von Bertalanffy growth models based on mark–recapture data with direct observation of mussel age and growth inferred from validated shell rings.2. Growth models based on a dataset that included observations from a wide range of length classes (spanning ≥ the upper 50% of the population length range) produced only slightly biased age estimates for small and medium‐sized individuals (overestimated by 1–2 years relative to estimates from validated shell rings) but estimates became increasingly biased for larger individuals. Growth models using data that included only observations of larger animals (< the upper 50% of length range) overestimated age for all length classes, and estimated maximum age was two to six times greater than the maximum age observed in the population (47 years). Similarly, growth models using a left‐skewed dataset overestimated age.3. Reductions of growth due to repeated handling also resulted in overestimates of age. The estimated age of mussels that were handled in two consecutive years was as much as twice that of mussels that were handled only once over the same period. Assuming a constant reduction in the annual rate of growth, handling an individual for five consecutive years could result in an estimated age that is five times too high.4. These findings show that mark–recapture methods have serious limitations for estimating mussel age and growth. A previous paper (Freshwater Biology, 46, 2001, 1349) presented longevity estimates for three mussel species that were an order of magnitude higher than estimates inferred from shell rings. Because those estimates of extreme longevity were based on mark–recapture methods and subject to multiple, additive sources of bias, they cannot be considered accurate representations of life span and cannot be used to conclude that traditional methods of bivalve ageing by interpretation of shell rings are flawed.