Bacteriology & bivalves: Assessing diagnostic tools for geographically remote bivalve populations

Two sampling approaches for the growth of common or dominant bacteria from bivalve haemolymph were compared: (1) samples processed in the field immediately after collection (field samples), and (2) samples processed in the laboratory at least 24 h after collection (laboratory samples). The sampling approaches were compared on 210 marine bivalve molluscs Paphies subtriangulata and P. australis from two shallow intertidal sites in North Island New Zealand. The approaches were evaluated for the amount of bacterial growth, type of growth, and diversity of growth. Differences in amount and type of growth between the two sampling approaches were observed. Samples processed in the field from P. subtriangulata had significantly more bacterial growth, and a higher diversity of bacteria, including more common or dominant bacterial species. Laboratory samples had a higher proportion of samples with no growth, however common or dominant bacteria were still isolated from these samples. For P. australis, field samples more often had no bacterial growth and laboratory samples had a significantly higher number of common or dominant growth present. Field samples did however contain a higher diversity of bacteria. By conducting bacteriology on bivalves in either the field or the laboratory only, there may be limitations to determining the significance of a bacterial agent isolated. Sampling of both field and laboratory samples should be carried out where possible to optimise detection of important bacteria.