Marine Biology

, Volume 106, Issue 1, pp 113–118 | Cite as

Feeding preferences of periwinkles among four species ofFucus

  • K. M. Barker
  • A. R. O. Chapman


A widely accepted view of intertidal community organizatiton in the NW Atlantic proposes that fucoid vegetation is maintained by the actions of predators which remove species competitively superior toFucus species. Herbivory is an important component of these predatory interactions, but has been studied largely with reference to the interaction betweenF. vesiculosus andLittorina littorea. There are many species of fucoids and herbivorous invertebrates on the shores of the NW Atlantic and this paper reports field and laboratory experiments performed in 1987 (in or near Halifax, Canada) on the effects of grazing by three species ofLittorina on adults and juveniles of four species ofFucus. In laboratory experiments, portions ofFucus species were presented singly (no choice) or together (multiple choice) to single species ofLittorina. AdultF. distichus was grazed to only a small extent.F. evanescens andF. vesiculosus adult tissues were heavily grazed in most laboratory experiments.F. spiralis adults were heavily grazed in no choice experiments, but were grazed only slightly in multiple choice tests. When adult fucoid tissues were exposed to a mixed suite of grazers in the field, onlyF. vesiculosus was grazed heavily. Tests done on adult tissues showed clearly thatFucus species are highly variable in their vunerability to grazers. Moreover, we found variability among periwinkle species in grazing rates on adultFucus. We also found a great disparity in the feeding rates of different periwinkle species on juveniles ofFucus. Therefore, it is not possible to extrapolate from a single periwinkle species/single fucoid species interaction when attempting to identify vegetation structuring processes.


Laboratory Experiment Single Species Multiple Choice Small Extent Choice Experiment 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Brenchley, G. A., Carlton, J. T. (1983). Competitive diplacement of native mud snails by introduced periwinkles in the New England intertidal zone. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 165: 543–558Google Scholar
  2. Chapman, A. R. O., Johnson, C. R. (1990). Disturbance and organization of macroalgal assemblages in the northwest Atlantic. Hydrobiologia 192: 77–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman, A. R. O. (1989). Abundance ofFucus spiralis and ephemeral seaweeds in a high eulittoral zone: effects of grazers, canopy and substratum type. Mar. Biol. 102: 565–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hay, M. E., Fennical, W. (1988). Marine plant-herbivore interactions: the ecology of chemical defense. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19: 111–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Howell, D. C. (1987) Statistical methods for psychology. Duxbury Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Lubchenco, J. (1982). Effects of grazers and algal competitors on fucoid colonization in tide pools. J. Phycol. 18: 544–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lubchenco, J. (1983).Littorina andFucus: effects of herbivores, substratum heterogeneity and plant escapes during sucession. Ecology 64: 116–1123Google Scholar
  8. Lubchenco, J. (1986). Relative importance of competition and predation: early colonization by seaweeds in New Englang. In: Diamond, J., Case, T. J. (eds.) Community ecology. Harper and Rew, New York, p. 537–555Google Scholar
  9. Lubchenco, J., Menge, B. A. (1978). Community development and persistence in a low rocky intertidal zone. Ecol. Monogr. 48: 67–94Google Scholar
  10. Mann, K. H. (1972). Ecological energetics of the seaweed zone in a marine bay on the Atlantic coast of Canada. I. Zonation and biomass of seaweeds. Mar. Biol. 12: 1–10Google Scholar
  11. Menge, B. A. (1976). Organization of the New England rocky intertidal community: role of predation, competition and environmental heterogeneity. Ecol. Monogr. 46: 355–393Google Scholar
  12. Miller, S. L., Vadas, R. L. (1984). The population biology ofAscophyllum nodosum: biological and physical factors affecting survivorship of germlings. Br. phycol. J. 19: 198Google Scholar
  13. Parker, T. (1987). The roles of gammarid amphipods and littorinid snails in high intertidal tidepool communities dominated byFucus distichus. M.Sc. thesis, Dalhousie University, HalifaxGoogle Scholar
  14. Petraitis, P. S. (1987). Factors organizing rocky intertidal communities of New England: herbivory and predation in sheltered bays. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 109: 117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. M. Barker
    • 1
  • A. R. O. Chapman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations