Oecologia

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 429–445 | Cite as

Resource partitioning and competition for shells in a subtidal hermit crab species assemblage

  • Peter Abrams
  • Carl Nyblade
  • Sallie Sheldon
Original Papers

Summary

Shell and habitat utilization are quantified for 12 hermit crab species occurring subtidally in the San Juan Archipelago, Washington. The mechanism of competition for shells between these species is investigated using laboratory experiments to determine shell preferences, shell acquisition rates, and rates of exchange of shells via shell fighting. This information is used to estimate relative intensities of inter- and intra-specific competition for shells between the species in this assemblage. In contrast to earlier findings on intertidal hermit crab assemblages, a significant number (5) of the species in this assemblage appear to experience a greater reduction in their shell supply due to members of other species than due to other members of their own species. The relative amounts of inter- and intra-specific competition differ greatly for different species in the community. The high average figures for interspecific/intraspecific competition are largely a result of the presence of three abundant and very generalized species. In spite of the large number of species and relatively high ratios of interspecific to intraspecific competition, the species in this group are not close to a limiting similarity in resource use. There is suggestive evidence that greater selection pressures for divergence in habitat use may have resulted in the lower amounts of overlap observed in intertidal hermit crab assemblages in previous studies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams PA (1980) Resource partitioning and interspecific competition in a tropical hermit crab community. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:365–379Google Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (1981a) Shell fighting and competition between two hermit crab species in Panama. Oecologia (Berlin) 51:84–90Google Scholar
  3. Abrams PA (1981b) Alternative methods of measuring competition applied to two Australian hermit crabs. Oecologia (Berlin) 51:233–240Google Scholar
  4. Abrams PA (1981c) Competition in an Indo-Pacific hermit crab community. Oecologia (Berlin) 51:241–249Google Scholar
  5. Abrams PA (1982) Frequencies of interspecific shell exchange between hermit crabs. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 61:99–109Google Scholar
  6. Abrams PA (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 14:359–376Google Scholar
  7. Abrams PA (1986a) Character displacement and niche shift analyzed using consumer-resource models of competition. Theoretical Population Biology, 29 (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Abrams PA (1986b) An analysis of competitive interactions between three hermit crab species. Ecology (submitted)Google Scholar
  9. Bertness MD (1981) Competitive dynamics of a tropical hermit crab assemblage. Ecology 62:751–761Google Scholar
  10. Case TJ (1982) Coevolution in resource-limited competition communities. Theoretical Population Biology 21:69–91Google Scholar
  11. Hart JFL (1982) Crabs and their relatives of british Columbia. Handbook, British Columbia Provincial Museum. Victoria, BCGoogle Scholar
  12. Hazlett BA (1981) The behavioral ecology of hermit crabs. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12:1–22Google Scholar
  13. Kellogg CW (1977) Coexistence in a hermit crab species ensemble. Biol Bull 153:133–144Google Scholar
  14. May RM (1972) Will a large complex system be stable? Nature (Lond) 254:137–138Google Scholar
  15. May RM (1981) Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. McLean RB (1974) Direct shell acquisition by hermit crabs from gastropods. Experentia 30:206–208Google Scholar
  17. Mueller LD, Altenberg L (1985) Statistical interference on measures of niche overlap. Ecology 66:1204–1210Google Scholar
  18. Nyblade CF (1974) Coexistence in sympatric hermit crabs. Ph D thesis. University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  19. Orians GH, King CE (1964) Shell selection and invasion rates of some Pacific hermit crabs. Pacific Science 18:297–306Google Scholar
  20. Ricklefs RE, Lau M (1980) Bias and dispersion of overlap indices: results of some Monte Carlo simulations. Ecology 61:1019–1024Google Scholar
  21. Schoener TW (1970) Nonsynchronous spatial analog of ligards in patchy habitats. Ecology 51:408–418Google Scholar
  22. Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39Google Scholar
  23. Schoener TW (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. American Scientist 70:586–595Google Scholar
  24. Simberloff D, Boecklen W (1981) Santa Rosalia reconsidered. Evolution 35:1206–1228Google Scholar
  25. Spight TM (1977) Availability and use of shells by intertidal hermit crabs. Biol Bull 152:120–133Google Scholar
  26. Stevens BA (1925) Hermit crabs of Friday Harbor, Washington. Publs Puget Sound Marine Biological Station. 3:273–309Google Scholar
  27. Vance RR (1972) Competition and mechanism of coexistence in three sympatric species of intertidal hermit crabs. Ecology 53:1062–1074Google Scholar
  28. Yodzis P (1982) The compartmentation of real and assembled ecosystems. American Naturalist 120:551–570Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Abrams
    • 1
  • Carl Nyblade
    • 2
  • Sallie Sheldon
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Behavioral BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Friday Harbor LaboratoriesFriday HarborUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyMiddlebury CollegeMiddleburyUSA

Personalised recommendations