The Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864 along the west coast of North America.(Report)

The Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida, ([dagger]) is the only native oyster species on the west coast of the United States and Canada. Once an abundant estuarine organism, its historic range (Fig. 1) was from Baja, California, Mexico, to Sitka, Alaska (Dall, 1914); however, significant declines and, in some areas, near extirpation of the Olympia oyster have occurred throughout its range within the past two centuries. Overharvesting, pollution, sedimentation, urbanization of estuarine areas, predation by nonnative species, and lack of sufficient attachment substrate (cultch material) have all led to the declines (Fig. 2).

In recent years, scientists and restoration practitioners have sought to know more about the Olympia oyster and to restore it in areas where it previously existed, or where only remnant populations are now found. To date, more than $1million has been invested in restoration efforts of O. lurida in west coast states (NOAA Restoration Center data). Because of the increase in restoration activities and the relative paucity of information and lack of research conducted on this species (including knowledge about genetic variation), the NOAA Restoration Center, in conjunction with other sponsors, convened two West Coast Native Oyster Restoration Workshops. The first, in 2006, was held in San Rafael, California, and the second in 2007 in Shelton, WA (NOAA Restoration Center 2007, 2008). The workshops brought together scientists from academia and resource agencies, restoration practitioners, resource managers, oyster growers, and representatives of nonprofit organizations to exchange information about restoration efforts, monitoring, and research in an effort to improve restoration of the species. Attendees also discussed short- and long-term goals; priorities for future research, restoration, and monitoring; and addressing administrative procedures in their states (e.g., permitting processes for restoration activities).

As planning for the second workshop progressed, it became apparent that, in addition to the workshop proceedings (NOAA Restoration Center 2007, 2008), there was an unprecedented opportunity to create a dedicated volume summarizing current information regarding the Olympia oyster. The current volume includes some of the papers presented during the workshops and additional papers from researchers and restoration scientists unable to attend the workshops. A call for manuscripts resulted in submission of over a dozen papers. In addition to personal reviews, each manuscript was reviewed by at least two experts in the field. I thank the referees and the authors for their contributions to this special volume, which substantially increases the number of refereed articles concerning Ostrea lurida and advances considerably our knowledge of the species.

Many of the papers in this volume contain recurring themes (e.g., history and status of the Olympia oyster in different localities), results of restoration projects, and studies on ecological factors; others contain unique and interesting approaches to certain aspects of life history such as larval identification, oyster genetics, and larval dispersal (e.g., Wight et al. Polson et al. and Zacherl et al. 2009). Several deal with the potential negative effects of well-intended restoration efforts, and include cautionary notes about repeating mistakes made in restoration efforts with the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, along the Gulf and east coasts of the United States (e.g., Brumbaugh & Coen, Camara & Vadopalas, 2009). The authors also offer suggestions for improving techniques or avoiding adverse impacts of restoration activities.

The taxonomic status of the Olympia oyster has been in doubt for several years since Harry (1985) synonymized Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864 with Ostrea conchaphila Carpenter 1857. The latter taxon has since been adopted by the American Fisheries Society and subsequently applied to the Olympia oyster by some scientists. In addition, until recently there were few genetic studies to clearly delineate the two species. Polson et al. (2009) used a molecular approach to test the single versus two-species hypothesis. Their results provide very strong evidence that O. lurida and O. conchaphila are, in fact, two distinct species, with Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864 inhabiting the west coast from approximately central Baja California northward, and O. conchaphila from Sinaloa, Mexico southward to Panama. Thus I use Ostrea lurida and Olympia oyster as the scientific and common names in this introduction to reflect these new findings. I also agree with Baker (1995) that Ostrea lurida should be retained as the scientific name for the Olympia oyster for several other reasons, namely: (1) Harry's determination was based on shell and anatomical characteristics, not molecular evidence; (2) most of the scientific papers and fishery publications about the species refer to it as Ostrea lurida, and very few as Ostrea (Ostreola) conchaphila; and, following from this usage, (3) conformity with provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature regarding suppression of unused senior synonyms dictates that Ostrea lurida should be used.

Using several molecular markers, Polson et al. (2009) compared samples of Olympia oysters from Sinaloa, Mexico (near the type locality of Ostrea conchaphila Carpenter 1857), Willapa Bay, WA (the type locality of Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864), and from several other intermediate locations. The authors state that the Sinaloa oysters represent the true O. conchaphila and that the two taxa are distinct, separated by geography and climate. The researchers also used several potentially diagnostic shell and soft-tissue morphological characters (e.g., chomata, shell color and sculpture, mantle tentacles) to identify samples collected from Mexico, independent of molecular results, then performed a posthoc comparison against molecular outcomes. They found no shell or anatomical characters that could be used reliably to distinguish between O. conchaphila and O. lurida; however, the authors state that, "despite the present lack of any morphological diagnostic differences for separating these nominal species, the molecular data are not consistent with the synonymy of the species and support reinstatement of O. lurida from all the localities north of central Baja California" (Poison et al. 2009). In view of these results, other reasons stated above, and to avoid confusion, the nomer Ostrea lurida, as originally described by Carpenter in 1864 is used in the papers in this volume to refer to the Olympia (native) oyster from central Baja California to Sitka, Alaska.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]