Marine Biology

, Volume 161, Issue 11, pp 2609–2619 | Cite as

Phenotypic variation in shell form in the intertidal acorn barnacle Chthamalus montagui: distribution, response to predators and life history trade-offs

  • Jefferson Murua
  • Michael T. Burrows
  • Roger N. Hughes
  • Stephen J. Hawkins
  • Richard C. Thompson
  • Stuart R. JenkinsEmail author
Original Paper


The acorn barnacle Chthamalus montagui can present strong variation in shell morphology, ranging from flat conic to a highly bent form, caused by a substantial overgrowth of the rostrum plate. Shell shape distribution was investigated between January and May 2004 from geographical to microhabitat spatial scales along the western coast of Britain. Populations studied in the north (Scotland and Isle of Man) showed a higher degree of shell variation compared to those in the south (Wales and south-west England). In the north, C. montagui living at lower tidal levels and in proximity to the predatory dogwhelk, Nucella lapillus, were more bent in profile. Laboratory experiments were conducted to examine behavioural responses, and vulnerability of bent and conic barnacles to predation by N. lapillus. Dogwhelks did not attack one morphotype more than the other, but only 15 % of attacks on bent forms were successful compared to 75 % in conic forms. Dogwhelk effluent reduced the time spent feeding by C. montagui (11 %), but there was no significant difference between conic and bent forms. Examination of barnacle morphology indicated a trade-off in investment in shell structure and feeding appendages associated with being bent, but none with egg or somatic tissue mass. These results are consistent with C. montagui showing an induced defence comparable to that found in its congeners Chthamalus anisopoma and Chthamalus fissus on the Pacific coast of North America, but further work to demonstrate inducibility is required.


Tidal Height Shell Shape Shell Deformation Lively 1986a Morph Type 
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.



This study was supported by a NERC New Investigator Award to S. R. Jenkins. Special thanks are due to Georgina Budd, Patricia Masterson and Thea De Kline for providing much appreciated assistance in the field, and Kevin Atkins, Peter Rendle and John Rundle for technical support. J.M. is grateful to Prof. R. D. Pingree and Prof. A. J. Southward for offering their comments and expertise on oceanography and rocky shore ecology, respectively, and also indebted to many people at SAMS in Scotland, who generously cooperated in fieldwork surveys. Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for assistance in substantially improving the manuscript.


  1. Agrawal AA (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science 294:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DT (1987) Cirral activity of barnacles. In: Southward AJ (ed) Barnacle biology. Crustacean Issues 5:135–174Google Scholar
  3. Appleton RD, Palmer AR (1988) Water-borne stimuli released by predatory crabs and damaged prey induce more predator-resistant shells in a marine gastropod. Proc Nat Acad Sci 85:4387–4391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arsenault DJ, Marchinko KB, Palmer AR (2001) Precise tuning of barnacle leg length to coastal wave action. Proc R Soc B 268:2149–2154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Yeh SM (1998) Making mountains out of barnacles: the dynamics of acorn barnacle hummocking. Ecology 79:1382–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourget E (1987) Barnacle shells: composition structure and growth. In: Southward AJ (ed) Barnacle biology. Crustacean Issues 5:267–285Google Scholar
  7. Burrows MT, Hughes RN (1991) Variation in foraging behaviour among individuals and populations of dogwhelks Nucella lapillus: natural constraints on energy intake. J Anim Ecol 60:497–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark CW, Harvell CD (1992) Inducible defences and the allocation of resources: a minimal model. Am Nat 139:521–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1961) Effects of competition predation by Thais lapillus and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecol Monogr 31:61–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crisp DJ, Maclean FJ (1990) The relation between the dimensions of the cirral net, the beat frequency and the size and age of the animal in Balanus balanoides and Elminius modestus. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 70:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crisp DJ, Southward AJ, Southward EC (1981) On the distribution of the intertidal barnacles Chthamalus stellatus, Chthamalus montagui and Euraphia depressa. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 61:359–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crothers JH (1985) Dog-whelks: an introduction to the biology of Nucella lapillus (L.). Field Stud 6:291–360Google Scholar
  13. Dunkin SD, Hughes RN (1984) Behavioral components of prey selection by dogwhelks Nucella lapillus (L.) feeding on barnacles Semibalanus balanoides (L.) in the laboratory. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 79:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebling FG, Kitching JA, Muntz L, Taylor CM (1964) The ecology of Lough Ine: experimental observations of the destruction of Mytilus edulis and Nucella lapillus by crabs. J Anim Ecol 33:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvell CD (1984) Predator-induced defence in a marine bryozoan. Science 224:1357–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvell CD (1990) The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. Q Rev Biol 65:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iyengar EV, Harvell CD (2002) Specificity of cues inducing defensive spines in the bryozoan Membranipora membranacea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 225:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarrett JN (2008) Inter-population variation in shell morphology of the barnacle Chthamalus fissus. J Crustacean Biol 28:16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jarrett JN (2009) Predator-induced defense in the barnacle Chthamalus fissus. J Crustacean Biol 29:329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson MP, Hughes RN, Burrows MT, Hawkins SJ (1998) Beyond the predation halo: small scale gradients in barnacle populations affected by the relative refuge value of crevices. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 231:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kishida O, Trussell GC, Mougi A, Nishimura K (2010) Evolutionary ecology of inducible morphological plasticity in predator-prey interaction: toward the practical links with population ecology. Popul Ecol 52:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitching JA, Muntz L, Ebling FJ (1966) The ecology of Lough Ine. XV. The ecological significance of shell and body forms in Nucella. J Anim Ecol 35:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lively CM (1986a) Predator-induced shell dimorphism in the acorn barnacle Chthamalus anisopoma. Evolution 40:232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lively CM (1986b) Competition, comparative life histories and maintenance of shell dimorphism in a barnacle. Ecology 67:858–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lively CM (1986c) Canalization versus developmental conversion in a spatially-variable environment. Am Nat 128:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lively CM, Hazel WN, Schellenberger MJ, Michelson KS (2000) Predator-induced defence: variation for inducibility in an intertidal barnacle. Ecology 81:1240–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marchinko KB (2003) Dramatic phenotypic plasticity in barnacle legs Balanus glandula (Darwin): magnitude age dependence and speed of response. Evolution 57:1281–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miner BG, Donovan DA, Portis LM, Goulding TC (2013) Whelks induce an effective defense against sea stars. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 493:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raimondi PT, Forde SE, Delph LF, Lively CM (2000) Processes structuring communities: evidence for trait-mediated indirect effects through induced polymorphisms. Oikos 91:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reimer O, Tedengren M (1996) Phenotypical improvement of morphological defences in the mussel Mytilus edulis induced by exposure to the predator Asterias rubens. Oikos 75:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reimer O, Olsson B, Tedengren M (1995) Growth physiological rates and behaviour of Mytilus edulis exposed to the predator Asterias rubens. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 25:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Relyea RA, Auld JR (2004) Having the guts to compete: how intestinal plasticity explains costs of inducible defences. Ecol Lett 7:869–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roff DA (1996) The evolution of threshold traits in animals. Q Rev Biol 71:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schoeppner NM, Relyea RA (2005) Damage digestion and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences. Ecol Lett 8:505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith LD, Jennings JA (2000) Induced defensive responses by the bivalve Mytilus edulis to predators with different attack modes. Mar Biol 136:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Southward AJ (1991) 40 years of change in species composition and population density of barnacles on a rocky shore near Plymouth. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 71:495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Toth GB, Pavia H (2000) Water-borne cues induce chemical defence in a marine alga (Ascophyllum nodosum). Proc Nat Acad Sci 97:14418–14420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trussell GC (1996) Phenotypic plasticity in an intertidal snail: the role of a common crab predator. Evolution 50:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Buskirk J, Arioli M (2002) Dosage response of an induced defence: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk? Ecology 83:1580–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vos M, Kooi BW, DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2004) Inducible defences and the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 105:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jefferson Murua
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael T. Burrows
    • 3
  • Roger N. Hughes
    • 4
  • Stephen J. Hawkins
    • 1
    • 5
  • Richard C. Thompson
    • 6
  • Stuart R. Jenkins
    • 1
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomCitadel Hill, PlymouthUK
  2. 2.Azti-TecnaliaSukarrietaSpain
  3. 3.Dunstaffnage Marine LaboratoryScottish Association for Marine SciencesOban, ArgyllUK
  4. 4.School of Biological SciencesBangor UniversityGwyneddUK
  5. 5.Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre SouthamptonUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  6. 6.School of Marine Science and EngineeringPlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK
  7. 7.School of Ocean SciencesBangor UniversityMenai Bridge, AngleseyUK

Personalised recommendations