Marine Biology

, Volume 144, Issue 6, pp 1165–1172 | Cite as

Intra-specific variability in the temporal organisation of foraging activity in the limpet Patella vulgata

  • G. Santini
  • R. C. Thompson
  • C. Tendi
  • S. J. Hawkins
  • R. G. Hartnoll
  • G. Chelazzi
Research Article


Patella vulgata is one of the most common limpet species on rocky shores throughout the north-eastern Atlantic. Foraging activity of this species has been described during various different diel and tidal phases and several factors have been suggested that might influence the timing of its activity. Among these, inclination of rock surfaces seems to have a clear role, with limpets on horizontal rocks being active during daylight at high water, while limpets on vertical rocks were active during night-time low water. However, by comparing the results of previous investigations it is difficult to separate clearly the effect of any single factor from the effects of their interactions. In the present paper we investigated the simultaneous influence of height on the shore, slope of rock surface and date of sampling (August–September and March–April) on the behaviour of a population of P. vulgata on the Isle of Man (UK). The study was carried out using modern telemetric methods, allowing the activity patterns of limpets to be recorded for long periods of time. The results showed that limpets concentrated their activity during two distinct temporal windows—daytime tide-in and night-time tide-out—while no significant activity was observed during daytime tide-out or night-time tide-in. The observed behaviour appeared to be driven by complex interactions among the three factors examined, and the influence of rock slope alone was not so strong as to override the effect of other factors completely. In addition, a key finding of this study was the conspicuous variability in the individual behaviour of P. vulgata. The greatest level of variability was observed in limpets on vertical surfaces on the upper shore, which showed an extreme switch in behavioural patterns, according to date of sampling (daylight/tide-in foraging during the spring and night-time/tide-out foraging during late summer). In addition, individuals apparently sharing the same set of conditions (inclination, height on the shore and sampling date) differed in their behaviour, and a given behavioural pattern was not always shared by all individuals from a given group. Finally, variability was also observed at the ‘intra-individual’ level since the same individual could be active during different tidal and diel phases. In conclusion, although the existence of endogenous rhythms has previously been demonstrated in this species, our data clearly show that P. vulgata was able to modulate its behavioural patterns in relation to a variety of exogenous determinants.


Behavioural Pattern Vertical Surface Endogenous Rhythm Individual Time Series Shore Level 
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.



Field work was funded by the European Union [Eurorock project (contract MAS3-CT95-0012)]. R.C.T., S.J.H. and R.G.M. were also supported by a Leverhulme Grant (F/180/AO) on limpet foraging behaviour. Many thanks are due to N. Righini for her help and encouragement during field work.


  1. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  2. Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115–155Google Scholar
  3. Branch GM (1981) The biology of limpets: physical factors, energy flow and ecological interactions. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 19:235–380Google Scholar
  4. Burrows MT, Hawkins SJ (1998) Modelling patch dynamics on rocky shores using deterministic cellular automata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 167:1–13Google Scholar
  5. Burrows MT, Santini G, Chelazzi G (2000) A state-dependent model of activity patterns in homing limpets: balancing energy returns and mortality risks under constraints on digestion. J Anim Ecol 69:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brockmann JH (2001) The evolution of alternative strategies and tactics. Adv Stud Behav 30:1–51Google Scholar
  7. Carroll SP, Corneli PS (1995) Divergence in male mating tactics between two populations of the soapberry bug. II. Genetic change and the evolution of a plastic reaction norm in a variable social environment. Behav Ecol 6:46–56Google Scholar
  8. Chapman MG (2000) Poor design of behavioural experiments gets poor results: examples from intertidal habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250:77–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman MG, Underwood AJ (1992) Foraging behaviour of marine benthic grazers. In: John DM, Hawkins SJ, Price JH (eds) Plant-animal interactions in the marine benthos, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 289317Google Scholar
  10. Chelazzi G, Santini G, Parpagnoli D, Della Santina P (1994) Coupling motographic and sonographic recording to assess foraging behaviour of Patella vulgata. J Moll Stud 60:27–32Google Scholar
  11. Coleman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Durell SEAL, Hawkins SJ (1999) Limpet Patella spp. consumption by oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus: a preference for solitary prey items. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 183:253–261Google Scholar
  12. Della Santina P, Naylor E (1993) Endogenous rhythms in the homing behaviour of the limpet Patella vulgata Linnaeus. J Moll Stud: 59:87–91Google Scholar
  13. Della Santina P, Naylor E, Chelazzi G (1994) Long term field actography to assess the timing of foraging excursions in the limpet Patella vulgata L. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 178:193203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Della Santina P, Santini G, Chelazzi G (1995) Factors affecting variability of foraging excursions in a population of Patella vulgata (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Mar Biol 122:265–270Google Scholar
  15. Evans MR, Williams GA (1991) Time partitioning of foraging in the limpet Patella vulgata. J Anim Ecol 60:563–575Google Scholar
  16. Gray DR, Hodgson AN (1999) Endogenous rhythms of locomotor activity in the high-shore limpet, Helcion pectunculus (Patellogastropoda). Anim Behav 57:387–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray DR, Naylor E (1996) Foraging and homing behaviour of the limpet, Patella vulgata: a geographical comparison. J Moll Stud 62:121124Google Scholar
  18. Hartnoll RG, Wright JR (1977) Foraging movements and homing in the limpet Patella vulgata. Anim Behav 25:806–810Google Scholar
  19. Hawkins SJ, Hartnoll RG (1982) The influence of barnacle cover on the numbers, growth and behaviour of Patella vulgata on a vertical pier. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 62:855–867Google Scholar
  20. Hawkins SJ, Hartnoll RG (1983) Grazing of intertidal algae by marine invertebrates. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 21:195–282Google Scholar
  21. Hawkins SJ, Hartnoll RG, Kain JM, Norton TA (1992) Plant-animal interactions on hard substrata in the north-east Atlantic. In: John DM, Hawkins SJ, Price JH (eds) Plant-animal interactions in the marine benthos, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 132Google Scholar
  22. Hill AS, Hawkins SJ (1991) Seasonal and spatial variation of epilithic microalgal distribution and abundance and its ingestion by Patella vulgata on a moderately exposed rocky shore. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 71:403–423Google Scholar
  23. Johnson MP, Burrows, MT, Hawkins SJ (1998) Individual based simulations of the direct and indirect effects of limpets on a rocky shore Fucus mosaic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 169:179–188Google Scholar
  24. Komers PE (1997) Behavioural plasticity in variable environments. Can J Zool 75:161–169Google Scholar
  25. Little C (1989) Factors governing patterns of foraging activity in littoral marine herbivorous molluscs. J Moll Stud 55:273–284Google Scholar
  26. Little C, Stirling P (1985) Patterns of foraging activity in the limpet Patella vulgata L.—a preliminary study. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 89:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Little C, Morritt D, Paterson DM, Stirling P, Williams G (1990) Preliminary observations on factors affecting foraging activity in the limpet Patella vulgata. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 70:181–195Google Scholar
  28. Norberg J, Swaney DP, Dushoff J, Lin J, Casagrandi R, Levin SA (2001) Phenotypic diversity and ecosystem functioning in changing environments: a theoretical framework. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11376–11381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Raffaelli D, Hawkins SJ (1996) Intertidal ecology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Santini G, Righini N, Chelazzi G (2001) Automatic telemetry to monitor the activity of limpets and sea level oscillations. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 81:699–700Google Scholar
  31. Southward AJ (1964). Limpet grazing and the control of vegetation on rocky shores. In: Crisp DJ (ed) Grazing in terrestrial and marine environments. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 265–273Google Scholar
  32. Tendi C (2000) Determinanti del bilancio temporale dell’attività in una popolazione di Patella vulgata L (Gasteropodi Patellidi) dell’Isola di Man (UK). Thesis, University of Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  33. Thompson RC, Roberts MF, Norton TA, Hawkins SJ (2000) Feast for famine for intertidal grazing molluscs: a mis-match between seasonal variations in grazing intensity and the abundance of microbial resources. Hydrobiology 440:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Wells R (1980) Activity patterns and mechanism of predator avoidance in two species of Acmaeid limpet. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 48:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams GA, Little C, Morritt D, Stirling P, Teagle L, Miles A, Pilling G, Consalvey M (1999) Foraging in the limpet Patella vulgata: the influence of rock slope on the timing of activity. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 79:881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Santini
    • 1
  • R. C. Thompson
    • 2
  • C. Tendi
    • 1
  • S. J. Hawkins
    • 3
    • 4
  • R. G. Hartnoll
    • 5
  • G. Chelazzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento Biologia Animale e GeneticaUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  3. 3.Marine Biological Association of the UKPlymouthUK
  4. 4.Biodiversity and Ecology Division, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  5. 5.Port Erin Marine LaboratoryPort ErinUK

Personalised recommendations