Advertisement

Current Landscape Ecology Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 83–90 | Cite as

Landscape Ecology in the Rocky Intertidal: Opportunities for Advancing Discovery and Innovation in Intertidal Research

  • Corey GarzaEmail author
Landscape Ecology of Aquatic Systems (K Hovel, SECTION EDITOR)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Landscape Ecology of Aquatic Systems

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In this paper, I review the development of landscape-based studies in rocky intertidal communities. The rocky intertidal has served as the site of a number of influential studies in ecology that have helped demonstrate the importance of biological and physical structuring processes in nature. Owing to its ease of access and preponderance of sessile species, the intertidal has also played an important role in studies that monitor the health of coastal systems. Traditional data gathering approaches such as meter tapes and quadrats provide limited capacity to capture data at the spatial and temporal scales across which intertidal systems are currently changing. New approaches and methods are now needed to more efficiently record data across the organizational scales within which ecological processes structure the intertidal.

Recent Findings

Recent developments in landscape-based theory have expanded the types of research questions asked by intertidal ecologists. The subsequent incorporation of geospatial technologies into field studies that test the predictions of emerging landscape theory has revealed emergent patterns in intertidal communities and previously unrecognized relationships between species and habitat across multiple scales of ecological organization.

Summary

New landscape-based approaches will improve our capacity to collect and analyze data and improve quantitative inferences on how habitat complexity affects patterns of species abundance in the intertidal. The continued integration of landscape ecology into rocky intertidal research can help advance discovery science and provide a platform for bridging basic discovery science with conservation and management efforts centered about this important marine habitat.

Keywords

Rocky intertidal Landscape ecology Drones Remote sensing GIS Spatial analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank R. Desharnais and C. Robles for providing the cellular automaton image used in Fig. 1.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Garza has no conflicts of interests to declare.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Disclaimer

This publication was made possible by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Education Educational Partnership Program award (NA16SEC4810009). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the award recipient and do not necessarily represent the official views of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Connell JH. Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecol Monogr. 1961;31(1):61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paine RT. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat. 1966;100:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paine RT. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat. 1969;103:91–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levin SA, Paine RT. Disturbance, patch formation, and community structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1974;71(7):2744–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaines S, Roughgarden J. Larval settlement rate: a leading determinant of structure in an ecological community of the marine intertidal zone. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1985;82(11):3707–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barry JP, Baxter CH, Sagarin RD, Gilman SE. Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California rocky intertidal community. Science. 1995 Feb;267(5198):672–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miner CM, Burnaford JL, Ambrose RF, Antrim L, Bohlmann H, Blanchette CA, et al. Large-scale impacts of sea star wasting disease (SSWD) on intertidal sea stars and implications for recovery. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0192870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Altstatt JM, Ambrose RF, Engle JM, Haaker PL, Lafferty KD, Raimondi PT. Recent declines of black abalone Haliotis cracherodii on the mainland coast of Central California. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1996;142:185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sagarin RD, Ambrose RF, Becker BJ, Engle JM, Kido J, Lee SF, et al. Ecological impacts on the limpet Lottia gigantea populations: human pressure over a broad scale on island and mainland intertidal zones. Mar Biol. 2007;150(3):399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Somero GN. Thermal physiology and vertical zonation of intertidal animals: optima, limits, and costs of living. Integr Comp Biol. 2002;42(4):780–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helmuth B, Harley CD, Halpin PM, O’Donnell M, Hofmann GE, Blanchette CA. Climate change and latitudinal patterns of intertidal thermal stress. Science. 2002;298(5595):1015–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helmuth B, Broitman BR, Yamane L, Gilman SE, Mach K, Mislan KA, et al. Organismal climatology: analyzing environmental variability at scales relevant to physiological stress. J Exp Biol. 2010;213(6):995–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Torossian JL, Kordas RL, Helmuth B. Cross-scale approaches to forecasting biogeographic responses to climate change. In: Advances in ecological research 2016, vol. 55: Academic Press; 2016. p. 371–433. This article highlights how some landscape-based approaches can be integrated into eco-forecasting models.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ricketts TH. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat. 2001;158:87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turner MG. Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;36:319–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landsc Ecol. 2002;17(8):761–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34:487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock J. Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:12923–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garza C. Relating spatial scale to patterns of polychaete species diversity in coastal estuaries of the western United States. Landsc Ecol. 2008;23(1):107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pittman SJ, Brown KA. Multi-scale approach for predicting fish species distributions across coral reef seascapes. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20583.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Irlandi EA, Ambrose WG Jr, Orlando BA. Landscape ecology and the marine environment: how spatial configuration of seagrass habitat influences growth and survival of the bay scallop. Oikos. 1995;72(3):307–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hinchey EK, Nicholson MC, Zajac RN, Irlandi EA. Preface: marine and coastal applications in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol. 2008;23:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boström C, Pittman SJ, Simenstad C, Kneib RT. Seascape ecology of coastal biogenic habitats: advances, gaps and challenges. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011;427:191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robles CD, Desharnais RA. History and current development of a paradigm of predation in rocky intertidal communities. Ecology. 2002;83:1521–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robles CD, Desharnais RA, Garza C, Donahue MJ, Martinez CA. Complex equilibria in the maintenance of boundaries: experiments with mussel beds. Ecology. 2009;90:985–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robles CD, Garza C, Desharnais RA, Donahue MJ. Landscape patterns in boundary intensity: a case study of mussel beds. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25(5):745–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Donahue MJ, Desharnais RA, Robles CD, Arriola P. Mussel bed boundaries as dynamic equilibria: thresholds, phase shifts, and alternative states. Am Nat. 2011;178(5):612–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wootton JT. Local interactions predict large-scale pattern in empirically derived cellular automata. Nature. 2001;413(6858):841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guichard F, Halpin PM, Allison GW, Lubchenco J, Menge BA. Mussel disturbance dynamics: signatures of oceanographic forcing from local interactions. Am Nat. 2003;161(6):889–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wright DJ, Heyman WD. Introduction to the special issue: marine and coastal GIS for geomorphology, habitat mapping and marine reserves. Mar Geod. 2008;31:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garza C. Landscape complexity effects on fisheries: insights from marine landscape ecology. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep. 2016;1(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goodchild MF, Haining RP. GIS and spatial data analysis: converging perspectives. Pap Reg Sci. 2004;83:363–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Paine RT. Intertidal community structure. Oecologia. 1974;15(2):93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meager JJ, Schlacher TA, Green M. Topographic complexity and landscape temperature patterns create a dynamic habitat structure on a rocky intertidal shore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011;428:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meager JJ, Schlacher TA. New metric of microhabitat complexity predicts species richness on a rocky shore. Mar Ecol. 2013;34(4):484–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wethey DS, Brin LD, Helmuth B, Mislan KA. Predicting intertidal organism temperatures with modified land surface models. Ecol Model. 2011;222(19):3568–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Windell SC. Spiny lobster (Panulirus interrtuptus) use of the intertidal zone at a Santa Catalina Island MPA in Southern California. Master’s thesis, California State University, Monterey Bay. 2016.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koh L, Wich S. Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop Conserv Sci. 2012;5(2):121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anderson K, Gaston KJ. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11(3):138–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    •• Klemas VV. Coastal and environmental remote sensing from unmanned aerial vehicles: an overview. J Coast Res. 2015;31(5):1260–7 This article highlights how drones and remote sensing technologies can be used to improve data gathering in the coastal environment.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peterson BJ, Fry B. Stable isotopes in ecosystem studies. Annu RevEcol Syst. 1987;18:293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Post DM. Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology. 2002;83:703–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Graham BS, Koch PL, Newsome SD, McMahon KW, Aurioles D. Using isoscapes to trace the movements and foraging behavior of top predators in oceanic ecosystems. In: West JB, Bowen GJ, Dawson TE, Tu KP, editors. Isoscapes. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. p. 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Block BA, Teo SL, Walli A, Boustany A, Stokesbury MJ, Farwell CJ, et al. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Nature. 2005;434:1121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wunder MB. Using isoscapes to model probability surfaces for determining geographic origins. In: West JB, Bowen GJ, Dawson TE, Tu KP, editors. Isoscapes. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. p. 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    • Wunder MB. Using isoscapes to model probability surfaces for determining geographic origins. In: West JB, Bowen GJ, DawsonTE TKP, editors. Isoscapes. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. p. 251–70. This article provides an insightful review on how to use probability surfaces and isotopes to estimate the geographic origins of species in a community.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McMahon KW, Hamady LL, Thorrold SR. A review of ecogeochemistry approaches to estimating movements of marine animals. Limnol Oceanogr. 2013;58(2):697–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McCormick M. Variable California spiny lobster foraging across a variable intertidal landscape. Master’s thesis, California State University, Monterey Bay. 2016.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Iacchei M, Ben-Horin T, Selkoe KA, Bird CE, García-Rodríguez FJ, Toonen RJ. Combined analyses of kinship and FST suggest potential drivers of chaotic genetic patchiness in high gene-flow populations. Mol Ecol. 2013;22(13):3476–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    • Lathlean J, Seuront L. Infrared thermography in marine ecology: methods, previous applications and future challenges. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;514:263–77 This article reviews the use of thermography as a method for estimating thermal tolerance in the marine environment. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    • Judge R, Choi F, Helmuth B. Life in the slow lane: recent advances in data logging for intertidal ecology. Front Ecol Evol. 2018;6:213 This paper provides a comprehensive review of emerging data logging approaches for intertidal research. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural SciencesCalifornia State University, Monterey BaySeasideUSA

Personalised recommendations