Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 1699–1708 | Cite as

Early phase of the invasion of Balanus glandula along the coast of Eastern Hokkaido: changes in abundance, distribution, and recruitment

  • A. K. M. Rashidul Alam
  • Tomoaki Hagino
  • Keiichi Fukaya
  • Takehiro Okuda
  • Masahiro Nakaoka
  • Takashi Noda
Open Access
Original Paper


To understand the patterns and processes associated with the population dynamics of Balanus glandula during the early phase of invasion along the Pacific coast of eastern Hokkaido, population surveys were conducted from 2002 to 2011 at five shores, each consisting of five paired plots (scraped recruitment plot and unscraped establishment plot), along 49 km of coastline located 144 km east of the eastern front of the invasion of this species in 2000. Larval recruitment was first detected in 2004, but the establishment of a population was not observed until 2 years later at the westernmost shore of the study area. Occurrence increased from non-native barnacle present in 4 % of plots in 2006 to 100 % in 2011, but mean coverage remained low (<5 %) in 2011. Most local population coverage fluctuated without indicating clear temporal trends, but coverage in one plot showed a consistent pattern of rapid increase. Local extinctions occurred, but rates of local extinction decreased with time as larval recruitment increased. Lag times between recruitment and establishment occurred for 64 % of the paired plots and ranged from 1 to 4 years. Lag times decreased after 5 years, when larval recruitment increased. These findings suggest that the intensity of larval recruitment determined invasion dynamics during this early phase of the invasion, and the monitoring of recruitment is therefore essential for early detection of invasions by sessile marine organisms and prediction of their range expansion.


Barnacle Invasion dynamics Marine sessile Pacific coast Range expansion Rocky intertidal 


A biological invasion starts with the arrival of small numbers of propagules beyond the native range of the species. The propagules then become established and reproduce, the result being spatiotemporal changes in the distribution and abundance of invading species (Williamson 1996; Sakai et al. 2001). The early phase, when the population is not close to its equilibrium level, is crucial to understanding the dynamics of invasions (Rouget et al. 2004; Azzurro et al. 2006; Liebhold and Tobin 2008) and to designing management responses (Kolar and Lodge 2001; Hulme 2006). An important question during the early phase of an invasion is how propagule pressure, that is, propagule numbers and spatiotemporal patterns in the arrival of propagules, limits the success of the invasion. Propagule pressure often plays an important role in determining whether the introduced species is able to successfully establish itself and extend its distribution (Lockwood et al. 2005; Drake and Lodge 2006; Roman and Darling 2007; Johnston et al. 2009; Simberloff 2009). Although many previous studies have focused on the early phase of invasion dynamics (Strayer et al. 1996; Carey 1996; Crooks 2005, 2011; Gaubert et al. 2009), most of these studies have not included an estimate of propagule supply (Cohen and Carlton 1998; Costello and Solow 2003; Marchetti et al. 2004; Jeschke and Strayer 2005; Brown et al. 2008; Miller and Ruiz 2009; Marsico et al. 2010), especially in marine habitats (but see Ruiz et al. 2000; Verling et al. 2005; Clark and Johnston 2009; Vaz-Pinto et al. 2012).

Sessile marine animals are a major component of marine ecosystems and are found in a variety of habitats. Most of them exhibit complex life cycles that include pelagic larval and benthic phases linked by recruitment (Todd 1998). Because of their immobility at the benthic stage, dispersal of sessile organisms relies almost completely on larval dispersal. Recruitment should thus play an important role in invasion dynamics. A simultaneous evaluation of abundance, distribution, and larval recruitment should therefore greatly benefit our understanding of the early phase of invasion by sessile marine organisms.

There are at least three fundamental questions that concern the dynamics of the early phase of invasion by sessile marine animals. First, how do abundance, distribution and recruitment change with time after invasion (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977; Hanski 1991, 1998, 1999; Stachowicz et al. 2002; Clark and Johnston 2009)? Previous studies have focused on the establishment phase of invasions, whereas there have been few studies concerning abundance, distribution, and recruitment during the early phase of invasions in marine habitats (Burlakova et al. 2006; Lucy 2006; Kraemer et al. 2007). Second, does the rate of local extinction decrease with time as the result of a temporal increase of recruitment or population size? The probability of local extinction may decrease with increasing recruitment density that results from the rescue effect of a metapopulation (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977; Hanski 1991). Third, does the length of the lag time between population establishment and initial arrival of recruits decrease with time when recruitment density increases? If recruitment is low, there may be a high risk of death of all individuals before maturation because of demographic stochasticity (Lande et al. 2003; Clark and Johnston 2009). To our knowledge, the above questions have not yet been simultaneously answered for a single invasion event. This fact presumably reflects logistic difficulties: for this purpose a survey should be performed over a long timeframe along a long coastline located adjacent to the leading edge of an invasion front.

The native range of the barnacle Balanus glandula is the east Pacific coast from the Aleutian Islands to Baja California (Newman and Ross 1976; Newman and Abbott 1980). This species becomes sexually mature at 1 year of age (Barnes and Barnes 1956) and releases about 30,000 larvae per brood (Newman and Abbott 1980). These planktonic larvae exist in the water column for 2–4 weeks (Brown and Roughgarden 1985; Strathmann 1987).

Balanus glandula has invaded in the southwest Atlantic coast of Argentina (Vallarino and Elias 1997), the southeast Atlantic coast of South Africa (Simon-Blecher et al. 2008), and the northwest Pacific coast of Japan (Kado 2003). In Japan, this barnacle was first found in 2000 at Sasazaki (39°3′N, 141°43′E) (Kado 2003). However, Kado (2003) speculated that in Japan, the first arrival of B. glandula was in 1992 (in Geller et al. 2008). In 2000, its distribution expanded along the Pacific coast of northern Japan up to Hiroo (42°17′N, 143°19′E) of Hokkaido (Fig. 1a) (Kado 2003).
Fig. 1

a Map showing study area located on the Pacific coast of eastern Hokkaido and presence (filled circle) or absence (open circle) of B. glandula at ports along the coast of Hokkaido in 2000 (Kado 2003), b map indicating the five shores studied

To elucidate the patterns and understand the processes that control the population dynamics of B. glandula during the early phase of invasion along the Pacific coast of eastern Hokkaido, we conducted population surveys from 2002 to 2011 at five shores, each consisting of five paired plots, along 49 km of coastline located 144 km east of the eastern invasion front of this species in 2000. The specific questions we asked were as follows: (1) how do the abundance, distribution, and recruitment density increase with time after an invasion; (2) does the rate of local extinction decrease with time, and what are the effects of recruitment density on local extinction; and (3) does the length of the lag time between population establishment and initial arrival of recruits decrease with time, and what is the effect of recruitment density on the lag time of local population establishment?


Study area

The study area was located along the 49 km of coastline between Nikomanai (shore A) and Mochirippu (shore E), 144 km east of Hiroo, which was reported to be the eastern invasion front of B. glandula in 2000 (Kado 2003) (Fig. 1a). The study area is within a sub-arctic zone (Briggs 1995; Asakura 2003) impacted by the cold Oyashio (Kurile) current, and is a region where ice scour occurs once every few years. Low spring tide occurs during the day from late March to early September and during the night from late September to early March. The mid tidal zone examined in this study is dominated by a native barnacle, Chthamalus dalli (Fukaya et al. 2013). Other typical space occupants include Semibalanus cariosus (barnacle; Nakaoka et al. 2006), and the seaweeds Analipus japonicus, Chondrus yendoi, Corallina pilulifera, Gloiopeltis furcata, and Hildenbrandia sp. (Okuda et al. 2004). Invertebrate predators include the whelk Nucella lima and sea star Leptasterias ochotensis, with the latter species uncommon and restricted to a lower tidal zone (Nakaoka et al. 2006; Munroe and Noda 2010). N. lima preys on barnacles at the mid tidal zone on these shores (AKM Rashidul Alam, personal observation).

Survey design

A hierarchical design (Noda 2004) was used for the arrangement of the study, with five paired plots nested within each of five shores for a total of 25 paired plots (Fig. 1b). Shores were separated by 10–24 km; plots were separated by 10–15 m. Each paired plot consisted of an adjacent recruitment and control plot separated by several tens of cm and marked with permanent anchors drilled into roughly vertical rock. The vertical midpoints of both plots corresponded to the mean tidal levels, and their vertical heights were 30 cm. This vertical dimension was chosen to approximately correspond to the vertical range of B. glandula recruitment determined from a pilot survey (AKM Rashidul Alam, unpublished data). The horizontal widths of the control and recruitment plots were 50 and 30 cm, respectively.

Recruitment plots were cleared of all surface organisms each year during low tide events in May by burning and then scraping the rock surface with a wire brush. This clearing was also conducted immediately after each survey. Sampling of recruitment plots was performed thrice every year, in May, August, and October. This sampling began in 2004 and continued until 2011. Sampling of recruitment plots involved using an Olympus Digital Camera (Model no. μ1030 SW) to photograph square, 25-cm2 quadrates. Photographs of 12 replicate quadrates were taken from each recruitment plot. A pilot survey indicated that recruitment density in photographs taken in May was quite low compared with August and October (AKM Rashidul Alam, unpublished data). Thus, at each location, we added recruits in August and October to estimate the annual recruitment density of B. glandula based on its major recruitment period.

Control plots were surveyed in each August, beginning in 2002 and continuing through 2011. Occurrence of B. glandula was based on presence or absence in a plot. Estimates of barnacle coverage as a surrogate of the population size were performed by using a grid placed over the sample plot, with observation points at evenly spaced intervals (5 cm vertically and 5 cm horizontally; 60 grid points total). Presence or absence of B. glandula at each point on the grid was used to estimate coverage of B. glandula for each control plot at each survey.

Data analyses

Evaluation of temporal changes in occurrence and distribution

If a control plot occupied by B. glandula became unoccupied in the next year, the local population was considered to have gone extinct. The rate of local extinction for each year was obtained by dividing the total number of extinctions that occurred in a given year by the total number of control plots occupied in the previous year. To evaluate the effect of recruitment density on extinction, the annual recruitment densities from the previous year were compared between extinct and surviving populations for each year by a Mann–Whitney U test.

Elucidation of timing of the local population establishment

When B. glandula was present on a control plot in at least two consecutive years, including the final year of the survey, the local population was considered to be established. To elucidate the time lag associated with local population establishment, we calculated the number of years between the initial arrival of recruits at the recruitment plot and population establishment at the control plot. To assess the effect of recruitment density on the lag time associated with local population establishment, log transformed annual recruitment densities of populations that became established at the initial arrival of recruits without a time lag and with a time lag were compared by a Mann–Whitney U test.


Temporal changes in coverage and recruitment density

Until 2009, the mean coverage of B. glandula was low (<0.5 %) (Fig. 2a). Coverage then increased rapidly and approached 5 % in 2011. The coverage of B. glandula population in all plots except for one (in A1) varied substantially from year to year. In A1, there was a steady increase to 60 % coverage from 2008 to 2011.
Fig. 2

Temporal changes in coverage and annual recruitment density of B. glandula on the study area; a mean coverage during 2002–2011 at control plots, and b mean annual density of recruits at recruitment plots during 2004–2011. Vertical bar indicates standard errors

On recruitment plots, B. glandula was first detected in 2004 (Fig. 2b). The mean annual recruitment density remained low (<0.5 cm−2) until 2008, increased in 2010, and declined in 2011.

Occurrence dynamics

Control plots

Balanus glandula was first detected in this study area in 2006, on one plot of the westernmost shore, A (Fig. 3a). In 2007, B. glandula was found at one plot of A and another plot of C. In 2008, its occurrence was recorded at six plots located on two shores: A and the easternmost shore, E. After 2009, this species was detected at all shores, the number of occupied plots increasing from year to year. Extinction and re-colonization were detected in the cases of three local populations (C2, A5, and B1). Populations that colonized plots C2 in 2007, A5 in 2008, and B1 in 2009 were locally extinct in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively.
Fig. 3

Presence of B. glandula at a control plots during 2002–2011, and b recruitment plots during 2004–2011. Five paired plots were established on each of five shores (A, B, C, D, E) from west to east on the study area; Rectangle indicates presence; asterisk plot was covered by sediment; triangle a photo survey could not be performed

Recruitment plots

The number of recruitment plots where B. glandula occurred increased during 2004–2011. On recruitment plots, B. glandula was first detected at the westernmost shore (A) of the study area in 2004 (Fig. 3b). During 2005–2006, the occurrence was observed at two A plots. B. glandula was found on 12 plots from three shores (A, D, and E) in 2007 and on six plots from two shores (A and E) in 2008. At shores B and C, recruitment occurred first in 2009. From 2009 to 2011, B. glandula was detected on all plots of all five shores.

Comparison of control and recruitment plots

We found similarities and differences in the occurrence of B. glandula between the control and recruitment plots. On both control and recruitment plots, B. glandula was first found at the westernmost shore (A) of this study area. The occurrence was first detected simultaneously on control and recruitment plots of shore B in 2009. After 2009, B. glandula was found on both types of plots at all shores. During 2004–2010, except 2008, the presence of this barnacle was higher on recruitment plots than on control plots. In 2007, B. glandula was present on recruitment plots of the easternmost two shores, D and E, whereas B. glandula was not detected on D and E control plots in 2007.

Local extinction

Three extinction events occurred. The rate of local extinction gradually decreased from 50 % during 2007–2008 to 0 % during 2010–2011 (Table 1). The log-transformed annual recruitment densities (mean ± SE cm−2) of surviving and extinct populations were −0.20 ± 0.08 and −0.75 ± 0.38, respectively. The former was significantly higher than the latter (Mann–Whitney U test, ts = 2.68, P < 0.01).
Table 1

Temporal changes in local extinction rate of B. glandula during 2006–2011 at 25 control plots


No. of extinctions

No. of plots occupied during previous year

Extinction rate (%)





















Timing of the local population establishment

Out of 22 cases, eight populations became established in the year when the arrival of recruits was first detected (Fig. 4). Among the remaining 14 populations, there were time lags between the years of initial arrival of recruits and population establishment. The duration of the time lags ranged from 1 to 4 years. The slope of the linear regression between the years of initial arrival of recruits and population establishment significantly differed from one (P < 0.001), suggesting that the lag time between the years of initial arrival of recruits and population establishment decreased over the course of invasion. The log-transformed annual recruitment densities (mean ± SE cm−2) of populations established in the year of initial arrival of recruits (no time lags) and populations that became established only after time lags were −0.32 ± 0.12 and −1.56 ± 0.19 cm−2, respectively. The former was significantly higher than the latter (Mann–Whitney U test, ts = 3.42, P < 0.01).
Fig. 4

Temporal relationship between the year of first detection of recruitment and establishment of B. glandula populations along the coast of eastern Hokkaido during 2002–2011. Numeric character adjacent to each circle indicates number of plots where barnacles were established. The solid line is the linear regression between year of first detection of recruitment and year of population establishment. The value of R2 and slope (b1) are shown. Each asterisk on the value of R2 and b1 indicates whether the slope of regression is different from 0 and 1.0, respectively, at a significance level of **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001. Dash line corresponds to no lag in population establishment


Spreading pattern and underlying processes

The front of B. glandula’s invasion was located beyond the western boundary of this study area in 2000 (Kado 2003). The subsequent spreading pattern and underlying processes were estimated on the basis of information that was obtained from recruitment and population surveys. At least in 2004, larvae reached the westernmost shore, A; larvae may have been released from a source located beyond the western boundary of this study area. The supply of larvae to A did not result in population establishment until 2005. In 2007, larvae did not arrive at shores B and C, but instead arrived at shores D and E; these larvae may have been released from unknown external sources located to the east of E or from the western shore around A. The larval supply to D and E did not result in population establishment until 2008 and 2009 at E and D, respectively. In 2009, larvae reached B and C and established local populations immediately; these larvae may have been released from multiple sources located on the east and west of both B and C.

For the majority of the locations there were time lags between the initial arrival of recruits and population establishment. These time lags may be partially explained by the negative impact of endemic assemblages. At control plots, preemption by endemic sessile organisms may have limited recruitment density. Indeed, the mean coverage of all sessile organisms was ~60 % (AKM Rashidul Alam, unpublished data), the indication being that free space available for larvae of B. glandula was limited. In addition, predation by the whelk, N. lima, may have affected survival of this barnacle. At control plots, N. lima has been commonly found, but it was rarely found at recruitment plots (Takashi Noda, personal observation). Actually, the absence of the introduced barnacles often reflects inhibition associated with interactions with endemic species, such as competition (Zabin 2009) and predation (Laird and Griffiths 2008; Sanford and Swezey 2008).

The arrival of larvae at both B and C was delayed compared with shores D and E. There are two hypotheses that may explain the causes of the delay. First, less exposure to waves caused a lower larval flux (Noda et al. 1998; Archambault and Bourget 1999; Gaylord and Gaines 2000; Jenkins and Hawkins 2003) within Akkeshi Bay. On the basis of this hypothesis, the dependency of larval flux on wave exposure should be independent of barnacle species (Macho et al. 2010; Pfaff et al. 2011). However, the larval recruitment density of B. glandula was lower at B and C than at D and E, whereas larval recruitment density of C. dalli was higher at B and C than at D and E (AKM Rashidul Alam, unpublished data). This hypothesis is therefore not supported. Second, the main coastal current that transports barnacle larvae does not sweep the coast of a bay (Gaines and Bertness 1992; Todd 1998; Jonsson et al. 2004). However, there is no available information on coastal currents in this area.

Local population dynamics

Most of the local populations fluctuated randomly, whereas the population at A1 consistently increased during 2009–2011. Even a few such successful and growing populations may contribute greatly to range expansion. The supply of larvae from a hotspot, a small portion of the locations with remarkably high abundance, plays an important role in range expansion (Semmens et al. 2004; Leslie et al. 2005; Ruiz et al. 2011). Indeed, the temporal pattern in the coverage at A1 was similar to that of the mean population coverage. If plot A1 is removed from calculations, the average cover exhibits more unclear temporal trend, reaching only 2 % at the end of the study period (i.e., 2011).

Extinction and local population establishment

During the early phase of the B. glandula invasion, population dynamics were characterized by a higher rate of local extinction and a longer lag time (4 years after the initial invasion at this study area) for population establishment. One of the major underlying mechanisms may be demographic stochasticity, especially for the survival of recruits, caused by low recruitment intensity. We assumed annual mortality to be 0.97, the mortality of B. glandula recruits in their native range (Menge 2000). From 2004 to 2008, recruitment plots where B. glandula was present had an average density of 0.144 cm−2. Accounting for the fraction of free space on control plots (0.4), the probability of complete die-off of recruits before maturation (1 year of age) was estimated to be 0.5 (SE = 0.077, n = 24). In contrast, from 2009 to 2011, recruitment on to plots where B. glandula was present occurred at 1.06 cm−2, and the corresponding estimate of die-off within 1 year was much lower at 0.05 (SE = 0.018, n = 73).

The implications of this study are twofold. First, propagule pressure (i.e., larval supply) was crucial for successful invasion of the rocky intertidal barnacle, B. glandula, within a few years after the arrival of the first larvae at a given location. When recruitment density was low, there was a time lag between the initial appearance of recruits and the establishment of a population at a location, and local extinction sometimes occurred. Indeed, both the rate of local extinction and the probability of failure to establish a population depended on recruitment density. Second, monitoring of recruitment is essential for the early detection of invasions by sessile marine organisms and prediction of their range expansion. The first arrival of recruits was detected 2 years before the establishment of a population in this study area. The majority of local populations were established after a time lag that followed the initial arrival of recruits. It can be said that a recruitment survey is cost-effective for monitoring of a marine invasion. A recruitment survey can be performed by setting larval collectors such as shells of bivalves and artificial substrata, which can be useful for the rapid detection and identification of similar multiple species at the same time, are cheap and easily available for monitoring of a marine invasion.



We would like to thank M. Tsujino, D. M. Munroe, R. Ebihara, M. Iida, A. Iwasaki, M. Sakaguchi, and R. Sahara for helping with our field surveys. Thanks to the staffs for their warm hospitality and the students of Akkeshi Marine Laboratory for their assistance in the photo survey in the field. This study was made possible by the generous support and encouragement of local fishermen and the fishery office of the Fishermen’s Cooperative Association in Hokkaido. This research was supported by grants-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Japan to T.N. (Nos. 20570012 and 24570012) and to M.N. (Nos. 14340242, 18201043 and 21241055). Financial support was provided to A.K.M.R.A. in the form of a scholarship entitled ‘Special Grants Program for International Students to perform Doctoral Research’ by Hokkaido University.


  1. Archambault P, Bourget E (1999) Influence of shoreline configuration on spatial variation of meroplanktonic larvae, recruitment and diversity of benthic subtidal communities. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 241:309–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asakura A (2003) Biogeography. In: Wada K (ed) Ecology of marine benthos. Tokai University Press, Hatano, pp 303–367Google Scholar
  3. Azzurro E, Golani D, Bucciarelli G, Bernardi G (2006) Genetics of the early stages of invasion of the Lessepsian rabbitfish Siganus luridus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 333:190–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes H, Barnes M (1956) The general biology of Balanus glandula Darwin. Pac Sci 10:415–422Google Scholar
  5. Briggs JC (1995) Global biogeography. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown SK, Roughgarden J (1985) Growth, morphology and laboratory culture of larvae of Balanus glandula (Cirripedia: Thoracica). J Crust Biol 5(4):574–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown PMJ, Roy HE, Rothery P, Roy DB, Ware RL, Majerus MEN (2008) Harmonia axyridis in Great Britain: analysis of the spread and distribution of a non-native coccinellid. Biol Control 53:55–67Google Scholar
  9. Burlakova LE, Karatayev AY, Padilla DK (2006) Changes in the distribution and abundance of Dreissena polymorpha within lakes through time. Hydrobiologia 571:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey JR (1996) The incipient Mediterranean fruit fly population in California: implications for invasion biology. Ecology 77:1690–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark GF, Johnston EL (2009) Propagule pressure and disturbance interact to overcome biotic resistance of marine invertebrate communities. Oikos 118:1679–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen AN, Carlton JT (1998) Accelerated invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costello CJ, Solow AR (2003) On the pattern of discovery of introduced species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:3321–3323PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Crooks JA (2005) Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Écoscience 12:316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crooks JA (2011) Lag times. In: Simberloff D, Rejmánek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 404–411Google Scholar
  16. Drake JM, Lodge DM (2006) Allee effects, propagule pressure and the probability of establishment: risk analysis for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fukaya K, Okuda T, Hori M, Yamamoto T, Nakaoka M, Noda T (2013) Variable processes that determine population growth and an invariant mean-variance relationship of intertidal barnacles. Ecosphere 4:1–20 (Art 48)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaines SD, Bertness MD (1992) Dispersal of juveniles and variable recruitment in sessile marine species. Nature 360:579–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaubert P, Godoy JA, del Cerro I, Palomares F (2009) Early phases of a successful invasion: mitochondrial phylogeography of the common genet (Genetta genetta) within the Mediterranean Basin. Biol Invasions 11:523–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaylord B, Gaines SD (2000) Temperature or transport? Range limits in marine species mediated solely by flow. Am Nat 155:769–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geller JB, Sotka EE, Kado R, Palumbi SR, Schwindt E (2008) Sources of invasions of a northeastern Pacific acorn barnacle, Balanus glandula, in Japan and Argentina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 358:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1991) Single-species metapopulation dynamics: concepts, models and observation. Biol J Linn Soc 42:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanski I (1999) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J Appl Ecol 43:835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins SR, Hawkins SJ (2003) Barnacle larval supply to sheltered rocky shores: a limiting factor? Hydrobiologia 503:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeschke JM, Strayer DL (2005) Invasion success of vertebrates in Europe and North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:7198–7202PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston EL, Piola RF, Clark GF (2009) The role of propagule pressure in invasion success. In: Rilov G, Crooks JA (eds) Biological invasions in marine ecosystems. Springer, Berlin. Ecol Stud 204:133–151Google Scholar
  29. Jonsson PR, Berntsson KM, Larsson AI (2004) Linking larval supply to recruitment flow-mediated control of initial adhesion of barnacle larvae. Ecology 85:2850–2859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kado R (2003) Invasion of Japanese shores by the NE Pacific barnacle Balanus glandula and its ecological and biogeographical impacts. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 249:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kraemer GP, Sellberg M, Gordon A, Main J (2007) Eight-year record of Hemigrapsus sanguineus (Asian Shore Crab) invasion in Western Long Island Sound Estuary. Northeast Nat 14:207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laird MC, Griffiths CL (2008) Present distribution and abundance of the introduced barnacle Balanus glandula Darwin in South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci 30:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lande R, Engen S, Saether BE (2003) Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution, Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leslie HM, Breck EN, Chan F, Lubchenco J, Menge BA (2005) Barnacle reproductive hotspots linked to nearshore ocean conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci102:10534–10539. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503874102
  36. Liebhold AM, Tobin PC (2008) Population ecology of insect invasions and their management. Ann Rev Entomol 53:387–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lucy F (2006) Early life stages of Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussel): the importance of long-term datasets in invasion ecology. Aquat Invasions 1:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Macho G, Vázquez E, Giráldez R, Molares J (2010) Spatial and temporal distribution of barnacle larvae in the partially mixed estuary of the Ría de Arousa (Spain). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 392:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB, Levine R (2004) Invasive species profiling? Exploring the characteristics of non-native fishes across invasion stages in California. Freshw Biol 49:646–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marsico TD, Burt JW, Espeland EK, Gilchrist GW, Jamieson MA, Lindstrom L, Roderick GK, Swope S, Szűcs M, Tsutsui ND (2010) Underutilized resources for studying the evolution of invasive species during their introduction, establishment, and lag phases. Evol Appl 3:203–219CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Menge BA (2000) Recruitment vs. postrecruitment processes as determinants of barnacle population abundance. Ecol Monogr 70:265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller AW, Ruiz GM (2009) Differentiating successful and failed invaders: species pools and the importance of defining vector, source and recipient regions. In: Rilov G, Crooks JA (eds) Biological invasions in marine ecosystems. Springer, Berlin. Ecol Stud 204:153–170Google Scholar
  44. Munroe DM, Noda T (2010) Physical and biological factors contributing to changes in the relative importance of recruitment to population dynamics in open populations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 412:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nakaoka M, Ito N, Yamamoto T, Okuda T, Noda T (2006) Similarity of rocky intertidal assemblages along the Pacific coast of Japan: effects of spatial scales and geographic distance. Ecol Res 21:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newman WA, Abbott DP (1980) Cirripedia: the barnacles. In: Morris RH, Abbott DP, Haderlie EC (eds) Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp 504–535Google Scholar
  47. Newman WA, Ross A (1976) Revision of the balanomorph barnacles; including a catalogue of the species. Mem San Diego Nat Hist Mus 9:1–108 Google Scholar
  48. Noda T (2004) Spatial hierarchical approach in community ecology: a way beyond high context-dependency and low predictability in local phenomena. Popul Ecol 46:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Noda T, Fukushima K, Mori T (1998) Daily settlement variability of the barnacle Semibalanus cariosus: importance of physical factors and density-dependent processes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 169:289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Okuda T, Noda T, Yamamoto T, Ito T, Nakaoka M (2004) Latitudinal gradient of species diversity: multi-scale variability in rocky intertidal sessile assemblages along the northeast pacific coast. Popul Ecol 46:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pfaff MC, Branch GM, Wieters EA, Branch RA, Broitman BR (2011) Upwelling intensity and wave exposure determine recruitment of intertidal mussels and barnacles in the southern Benguela upwelling region. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 425:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roman J, Darling JA (2007) Paradox lost: genetic diversity and the success of aquatic invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:454–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rouget M, Richardson DM, Nel JL, Maitre DCL, Egoh B, Mgidi T (2004) Mapping the potential ranges of major plant invaders in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland using climatic suitability. Divers Distrib 10:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruiz GM, Fofonoff PW, Carlton JT, Wonham MJ, Hines AH (2000) Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent patterns, processes and biases. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 31:481–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruiz GM, Fofonoff PW, Steves B, Foss SF, Shiba SN (2011) Marine invasion history and vector analysis of California: a hotspot for western North America. Divers Distrib 17:362–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanford E, Swezey DS (2008) Response of predatory snails to a novel prey following the geographic range expansion of an intertidal barnacle. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 354:220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Semmens BX, Buhle ER, Salomon AK, Pattengill-Semmens CV (2004) A hotspot of non-native marine fishes: evidence for the aquarium trade as an invasion pathway. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 266:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simberloff D (2009) The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simon-Blecher N, Granevitze Z, Achituv Y (2008) Balanus glandula: from north-west America to the west coast of South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci 30:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stachowicz JJ, Fried H, Osman RW, Whitlatch RB (2002) Biodiversity, invasion resistance, and marine ecosystem function: reconciling pattern and process. Ecology 83:2575–2590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strathmann MF (1987) Reproduction and development of marine invertebrates of the northern Pacific coast: data and methods for the study of eggs, embryos, and larvae. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  63. Strayer DL, Powell J, Ambrose P, Smith LC, Pace ML, Fischer DT (1996) Arrival, spread, and early dynamics of a zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) population in the Hudson River estuary. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Todd CD (1998) Larval supply and recruitment of benthic invertebrates: do larvae always disperse as much as we believe? Hydrobiologia 375/376:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vallarino EA, Elias R (1997) The dynamics of introduced Balanus glandula population in the southwestern Atlantic rocky shores. The consequences on the intertidal community. Mar Ecol 18:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vaz-Pinto F, Olabarria C, Arenas F (2012) Propagule pressure and functional diversity: interactive effects on a macro algal invasion process. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 471:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Verling E, Ruiz GM, Smith LD, Galil B, Miller AW, Murphy KR (2005) Supply-side invasion ecology: characterizing propagule pressure in coastal ecosystems. Proc R Soc Biol 272:1249–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williamson M (1996) Biological invasion, 1st edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Zabin CJ (2009) Battle of the barnacle newcomers: niche compression in invading species in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 381:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. K. M. Rashidul Alam
    • 1
    • 6
  • Tomoaki Hagino
    • 1
  • Keiichi Fukaya
    • 2
  • Takehiro Okuda
    • 3
  • Masahiro Nakaoka
    • 4
  • Takashi Noda
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Graduate School of Environmental ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.The Institute of Statistical MathematicsTachikawaJapan
  3. 3.National Research Institute of Far Seas FisheriesFisheries Research AgenciesYokohamaJapan
  4. 4.Akkeshi Marine Laboratory, Field Science Centre for Northern BiosphereHokkaido UniversityAkkeshiJapan
  5. 5.Faculty of Environmental Earth ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  6. 6.Department of Environmental SciencesJahangirnagar UniversityDhakaBangladesh

Personalised recommendations