, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 337–346 | Cite as

Analysis of inter- and intra-specific competition amongst intertidal limpets with different methods of feeding

  • R. G. Creese
  • A. J. Underwood


The prosobranch limpet Cellana tramoserica grazes on microalgae, including the spores of macroalgae, and coexists with the pulmonate limpets Siphonaria denticulata and S. virgulata at mid-tidal levels on sandstone shores in New South Wales. These siphonarians graze on macroalgae, leaving the basal parts of the thalli intact. Where Cellana graze, they are capable of removing all algae; where Siphonaria graze, they leave at least a thin film of alga on the rocks, which is available to Cellana.

S. denticulata normally show invariant homing behaviour, whereas S. virgulata tend to move around at random when Cellana are present, but apparently home when Cellana are absent. Both siphonarians have been observed to show opportunistic behavioural responses by moving towards patches of macroalgal foods when they become available.

Experimental ecclosures of limpets at different densities and in different combinations revealed that Cellana tramoserica suffered increased mortality and reduced growth due to intraspecific competition when at increased densities. There was no effect on Cellana of increased densities of either species of Siphonaria. Nor was there any interspecific interaction between the siphonarians. Both species of Siphonaria showed some reduction of growth at increased intraspecific density. More importantly, both showed increased mortality when enclosed with low densities of Cellana. Larger densities of Cellana had no effect; the numbers of Cellana could not be maintained because of the reductions caused by intraspecific competition. Even after 27 weeks in enclosures with Cellana, the numbers of Siphonaria never declined to zero in any experimental enclosure. Thus, Cellana has a competitive effect on the survival of siphonarian limpets, but is unable to exclude them from an area of the shore. Siphonaria spp., in contrast, have no effect on Cellana.

The nature of the competitive interactions between these types of limpets is explaied in terms of their methods of feeding; Cellana can exploit the food-resource before it reaches a suitable size for Siphonaria. The coexistence of Siphonaria spp. with Cellana is discussed with respect to the behaviour of the pulmonates. Intraspecific competition leading to reduced densitities of Cellana, however, will ensure that Cellana cannot exploit all the food resources, and some will be available to Siphonaria. The consequences of inter- and intra-specific competition among grazing gastropods are discussed with reference to the structure of intertidal communities, and it appears that competition for food is fundamentally different from competitive interactions for space in the organization of such communities.


  1. Birch LC (1979) The effect of species of animals which share common resources on one another's distribution and abundance. Fortschr Zool 25:197–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Black R (1977) Population regulation in the intertidal limpet, Patelloida alticostata (Angas, 1865). Oecologia (Berl) 30:9–22Google Scholar
  3. Black R (1979) Competition between intertidal limpets: an intrusive niche on a steep resource gradient. J Anim Ecol 48:401–411Google Scholar
  4. Branch GM (1975) Mechanisms reducing intraspecific competition in Patella species. Migration, differentiation and territorial behaviour. J Anim Ecol 44:575–600Google Scholar
  5. Branch GM (1976) Interspecific competition experienced by South African Patella species. J Anim Ecol 45:507–530Google Scholar
  6. Choat JH (1977) The influence of sessile organisms on the population biology of three species of acmaeid limpet. J exp mar Biol Ecol 26:1–26Google Scholar
  7. Connell JH (1970) A predator-prey system in the marine intertidal region. I. Balanus glandula and several predatory species of Thais. Ecol Monogr 40:49–78Google Scholar
  8. Connell JH (1972) Community interactions on marine rocky intertidal shores. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 3:169–192Google Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1975) Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities: a model and evidence from field experiments. In: ML Cody and JM Diamond (eds), Ecology and evolution of communities, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.), pp 460–490Google Scholar
  10. Creese RG (1978) The ecology and reproductive biology of intertidal limpets. Ph. D. thesis, University of SydneyGoogle Scholar
  11. Creese RG (1980) An analysis of distribution and abundance of populations of the high-shore limpet, Notoacmea petterdi (Tenison-Woods). Oecologia (Berl) 45:252–260Google Scholar
  12. Creese RG (1981 a) Patterns of growth, longevity and recruitment of intertidal limpets in New South Wales. J exp mar Biol Ecol 51:145–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creese RG (1981 b) Distribution and abundance of the limpet Patelloida latistrigata, and its interaction with barnacles. Oecologia (Berl.) (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Dayton PK (1971) Competition, disturbance and community organisation: the provision and subsequent utilisation of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecol Monogr 41:351–389Google Scholar
  15. den Boer JJ (1980) Exclusion or coexistence, and the taxonomic or ecological relationship between species. Ned J Zool 30:278–306Google Scholar
  16. Harger JRE (1972) Competitive coexistence: maintenance of interacting associations of the sea mussels, Mytilus edulis and M. californianus. Veliger 14:387–410Google Scholar
  17. Haven SB (1973) Competition for food between the intertidal gastropods Acmaea scabra and A. digitalis. Ecology 54:143–151Google Scholar
  18. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22:415–427Google Scholar
  19. Lubchenco J (1980) Algal zonation in the New England rocky intertidal community: an experimental analysis. Ecology 61:333–344Google Scholar
  20. Luckens PA (1970) Predation and intertidal zonation at Asamushi. Bull Mar Biol Sta Asamushi Tohuku 14:33–52Google Scholar
  21. Mackay DA, Underwood AJ (1977) Experimental studies on homing in the intertidal patellid limpet Cellana tramoserica (Sowerby). Oecologia (Berl) 30:215–238Google Scholar
  22. Menge BA (1976) Organisation of New England rocky intertidal community: role of predation, competition and environmental heterogeneity. Ecol Monogr 46:355–394Google Scholar
  23. Menge BA, Sutherland JP (1976) Species diversity gradients: a synthesis of the roles of predation, competition and temporal heterogeneity. Am Nat 110:351–369Google Scholar
  24. Moran MJ (1980) The ecology, and effects on prey, of the intertidal gastropod, Morula marginalba. Ph.D. thesis, University of SydneyGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller RS (1967) Pattern and process in competition. Adv ecol Res 4:1–74Google Scholar
  26. Paine RT (1971) A short-term experimental investigation of resource partitioning in a New Zealand rocky intertidal habitat. Ecology 52:1096–1106Google Scholar
  27. Paine RT (1974) Intertidal community structure: experimental studies on the relationship between a dominant competitor and its principal predator. Oecologia (Berl.) 15:93–120Google Scholar
  28. Paine RT (1977) Controlled manipulations in the marine intertidal zone, and their contributions to ecological theory. Acad Nat Sci Special Publication 12:245–270Google Scholar
  29. Paine RT (1980) Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. J Anim Ecol 49:667–685Google Scholar
  30. Runham NH (1975) Alimentary canal. In: V Fretter and J Peake (eds) Pulmonates Vol 1, Functional anatomy and physiology, Academic Press, London, pp 53–104Google Scholar
  31. Stimson J (1970) Territorial behaviour of the owl limpet, Lottia gigantea. Ecology 51:113–118Google Scholar
  32. Stimson J (1973) The role of the territory in the ecology of the intertidal limpet, Lottia gigantea. Ecology 54:1020–1030Google Scholar
  33. Sutherland JP (1970) Ecology of high and low populations of the limpet Acmaea scabra (Gould). Ecol Monogr 40:169–187Google Scholar
  34. Underwood AJ (1976a) Food competition between age-classes in the intertidal neritacean, Nerita atramentosa Reeve (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia). J exp mar Biol Ecol 23:145–154Google Scholar
  35. Underwood AJ (1976 b) Analysis of patterns of dispersion of intertidal prosobranch gastropods in relation to macroalgae and rock pools. Oecologia (Berl.) 25:145–154Google Scholar
  36. Underwood AJ (1977) Movements of intertidal gastropods. J exp mar Biol Ecol 26:191–201Google Scholar
  37. Underwood AJ (1978) An experimental evaluation of competition between three species of intertidal gastropods. Oecologia (Berl.) 33:185–202Google Scholar
  38. Underwood AJ (1979) The ecology of intertidal gastropods. Adv mar Biol 16:111–201Google Scholar
  39. Underwood AJ (1980) The effects of grazing by gastropods and physical factors on the upper limits of distribution of intertidal macroalgae. Oecologia (Berl.) 46:201–213Google Scholar
  40. Underwood AJ, Jernakoff P (1981) Effects of interactions between algae and grazing gastropods on the structure of a low-shore intertidal algal community. Oecologia (Berl) 48:221–233Google Scholar
  41. Vandermeer JH (1972) Niche theory. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 3:107–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, TokyoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Creese
    • 1
  • A. J. Underwood
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations