, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 157–163 | Cite as

Interspecific facilitation in a guild of benthic marine herbivores

  • David O. Duggins


Interspecific relationships and trophic function within the urchin guild are considered in light of experiments and observations performed in situ. Two conclusions are reached: 1) interactions between members of the guild contribute to its persistence, and 2) the plant-herbivore interactions so important in structuring this community can best be evaluated when guild members are treated as a unit. As with other mixed species trophic units, the mechanisms of interspecies facilitation operate to reduce the effects of predation and increase foraging efficiency.


Mixed Species Interspecific Relationship Trophic Function Marine Herbivore Guild Member 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1954) The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard FR (1977) Fishery and reproductive cycle of the red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, in British Columbia. J Fish Res Bd Can 34:604–610Google Scholar
  3. Brock VE, Riffenburgh RH (1960) Fish schooling: a possible factor reducing predation. J Cons perm intern Explor is Mer 25:307–317Google Scholar
  4. Cody ML (1971) Finch flocks in the Mojave Desert. Theor Popl Biol 2:142–158Google Scholar
  5. Connell JH (1975) Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities: a model and evidence from field experiments. In: Cody ML and Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Crook JH (1960) Studies in the social behavior of Quelea q. quelea (Linn) in French West Africa. Behavior 16:1–55Google Scholar
  7. Croxall JP (1976) The composition and behavior of some mixed-species bird flocks in Sarawak. Ibis 118:333–346Google Scholar
  8. Diver C (1936) The problem of closely related species and the distribution of their populations. Proc Roy Soc B 121:62–65Google Scholar
  9. Duggins DO (1980) Kelp beds and sea otters: an experimental approach. Ecol 61:447–453Google Scholar
  10. Ebert TA (1977) An experimental analysis of sea urchin dynamics and community interactions on a rock jetty. J exp mar Biol Ecol 27:1–22Google Scholar
  11. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1978) Coevolution: heterotypic schooling in Caribbean reef fishes. Amer Naturalist 107:157–160Google Scholar
  12. Estes JA, Palmisano JF (1974) Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communities. Science 185:1058–1060Google Scholar
  13. Estes JA, Smith NS, Palmisano JF (1978) Sea otter predation and community organization in the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Ecol 59:822–833Google Scholar
  14. Goss-Custard JD (1970) Feeding dispersion in some overwintering wading birds. In: Crook JH (ed) Social behavior in some birds and mammals. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry of the selfish herd. J theor Biol 31:295–311Google Scholar
  16. Hallam TG (1980) Effects of cooperation on competitive systems. J theor Biol 82:415–523Google Scholar
  17. Harper JL, Clatworthy JN, McNaughton JH, Sagar GR (1961) The evolution and ecology of closely related species in the same area. Evol 15:209–227Google Scholar
  18. Hutchinson GE (1975) Variations on a theme by Robert MacArthur. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Irvine GV (1973) The effect of selective feeding by two species of sea urchins on the structure of algal communities. Masters Thesis, Univ of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Krebs JR, MacRoberts MB, Cullen JM (1972) Flocking and feeding in the Great Tit Parus major- an experimental study. Ibis 114:507–530Google Scholar
  21. Lack D (1954) The natural regulation of animal numbers. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methen Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawrence JM (1975) On the relationship between marine plants and sea urchins. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 13:213–286Google Scholar
  24. Lees DC (1970) Masters Thesis, San Diego State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  25. Leighton DL (1966a) Ecology of urchin populations along Palos Verdes. In: North WJ (ed) Kelp Habitat Imp Proj Annu Report 1965–1966. Inst of Technology, Pasadena, Calif, pp 72–78Google Scholar
  26. Leighton DL (1966b) Studies of food preference in algivorous invertebrates of southern California kelp beds. Pac Sci 20:104–113Google Scholar
  27. Leighton DL (1971) Grazing activities of benthic invertebrates in southern California kelp beds. In: North WJ (ed) The biology of giant kelp beds (Macrocystis) in California. Nova Hedwigia 32:421–453Google Scholar
  28. Mann KH (1972a) Ecological energetics of the seaweed zone in a marine bay on the Atlantic coast of Canada. I. Zonation and biomass of seaweeds. Mar Biol 12:1–10Google Scholar
  29. Mann KH (1972b) Ecological energetics of the seaweed zone in a marine bay on the Atlantic coast of Canada. II. Productivity of the seaweeds. Mar Biol 14:199–209Google Scholar
  30. Mann KH (1973) Seaweeds: their productivity and strategy for growth. Science 182:975–981Google Scholar
  31. May RM (1973) Qualitative stability in model ecosystems. Ecol 54:638–641Google Scholar
  32. May RM (1976) Models for two interacting populations. In: May RM (ed) Theoretical ecology, principles and applications. EB Saunders Co, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  33. Menge BA (1979) Coexistence between the seastars Asteria vulgaris and A. forbesi in a heterogeneous environment: a non-equilibrium explanation. Oecologia (Berl) 41:245–272Google Scholar
  34. Morse DH (1967) Foraging relationships of brown-headed nuthatches and pine warblers. Ecol 48:94–103Google Scholar
  35. Morse DH (1970) Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecol Monogr 40:119–168Google Scholar
  36. Moynihan M (1962) The organization and probable evolution of some mixed-species flocks of neotropical birds. Smithson misc Colls 143:1–140Google Scholar
  37. North WJ (1971) The biology of giant kelp beds (Macrocystis) in California. Nova Hedwigia 32Google Scholar
  38. Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. Amer Naturalist 100:65–75Google Scholar
  39. Paine RT (1977) Controlled manipulations in the marine intertidal zone, and their contributions to ecological theory. In: The changing scenes in natural science 1776–1976. Academy of Natural Sciences, special publication 12:245–270Google Scholar
  40. Paine RT, Vadas RL (1969) The effects of grazing by sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus spp., on benthic algal populations. Limnol Oceanogr 14:710–719Google Scholar
  41. Pianka ER (1976) Competition and niche theory. In: May RM (ed) Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Saunders Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  42. Root RB (1967) The niche exploitation pattern of the Bluegray Gnatcatcher. Ecol Monogr 37:317–350Google Scholar
  43. Simenstad CA, Estes JA, Kenyon KW (1978) Aleuts, sea otters, and alternate stable-state communities. Science 200:403–411Google Scholar
  44. Travis CC, Post WM (1979) Dynamics and comparative statics of mutualistic communities. J theor Biol 78:553–571Google Scholar
  45. Vadas RL (1968) The ecology of Agarum and the kelp bed community. PhD Thesis, Univ of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. Vadas RL (1977) Preferential feeding: an optimization strategy in sea urchins. Ecol Monogr 47:337–371Google Scholar
  47. Vance RR (1978) A mutualistic interaction between a sessile marine clam and its epibionts. Ecol 59:679–685Google Scholar
  48. Vandermeer J (1980) Indirect mutualism: variations on a theme by Stephen Levine. Amer Naturalist 116:441–448Google Scholar
  49. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology, the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • David O. Duggins
    • 1
  1. 1.Friday Harbor LaboratoriesUniversity of WashingtonFriday HarborUSA

Personalised recommendations