Marine Biology

, Volume 159, Issue 12, pp 2867–2874 | Cite as

Habitat complexity impacts persistence and species interactions in an intertidal whelk

  • J. Stephen Gosnell
  • Jamie B. DiPrima
  • Steven D. Gaines
Original Paper


Although experiments have shown that habitat structure may influence the distribution of species and species interactions, these effects are still not commonly integrated into studies of community dynamics. Since habitat structure often varies within and among communities, this may limit our understanding of how various factors influence communities. Here, we examined how mussel bed complexity (the presence and thickness of mussel layers) influenced the persistence of whelks (Nucella emarginata) and interactions with a top predator (ochre sea stars, Pisaster ochraceus) and prey (mussels, Mytilus californianus). Results from a mark–recapture experiment indicate that whelk recapture rates are higher in more complex habitats, and laboratory experiments demonstrate that habitat complexity affects whelk feeding, growth, and nonconsumptive interactions with a keystone predator. Habitat complexity therefore has direct effects on species and also may lead to trade-offs among feeding, refuge, and other factors, potentially influencing the distribution of whelks and the effects of both whelks and sea stars on intertidal communities. These results demonstrate that habitat structure may play an important role in intertidal communities and other habitats and should be further considered in the experimental design of future studies of community dynamics.


Habitat Structure Species Interaction Habitat Complexity Byssal Thread Intertidal Community 
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.



We would like to thank Jessica Beatty, Jennifer Chiu, James Jelks, Kylie Langlois, Teal Riege, Taylor Scott, and Louise Stevenson for their aid in completing this project. Input from Sarah Teck and Elizabeth Hoaglund improved the project and manuscript, as did input from two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Baber MJ, Babbitt KJ (2004) Influence of habitat complexity on predator–prey interactions between the fish (Gambusia holbrooki) and tadpoles of Hyla squirella and Gastrophryne carolinensis. Copeia 2004:173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck MW (2000) Separating the elements of habitat structure: independent effects of habitat complexity and structural components on rocky intertidal gastropods. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 249:29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borthagaray AI, Carranza A (2007) Mussels as ecosystem engineers: their contribution to species richness in a rocky littoral community. Acta Oecol 31:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdeau PE (2009) Prioritized phenotypic responses to combined predators in a marine snail. Ecology 90:1659–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buschbaum C, Dittmann S, Hong J-S, Hwang I-S, Strasser M, Thiel M, Valdivia N, Yoon S-P, Reise K (2008) Mytilid mussels: global habitat engineers in coastal sediments. Helgol Mar Res 63:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connell JH (1961) Influence of interspecific competition and other factors on distribution of barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42:710–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book, 1st edn. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowder LB, Cooper WE (1982) Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63:1802–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davenport J, Moore P, LeComte E (1996) Observations on defensive interactions between predatory dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L) and mussels, Mytilus edulis L. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 206:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Day R, Barkai A, Wickens P (1991) Trapping of 3 drilling whelks by 2 species of mussel. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 149:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diehl S (1992) Fish predation and benthic community structure: the role of omnivory and habitat complexity. Ecology 73:1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eklov P, Werner EE (2000) Multiple predator effects on size-dependent behavior and mortality of two species of anuran larvae. Oikos 88:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferner MC, Smee DL, Weissburg MJ (2009) Habitat complexity alters lethal and non-lethal olfactory interactions between predators and prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 374:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Firstater FN, Hidalgo FJ, Lomovasky BJ, Ramos E, Gamero P, Iribarne OO (2010) Habitat structure is more important than nutrient supply in modifying mussel bed assemblage in an upwelling area of the Peruvian coast. Helgol Mar Res 65:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman AS, Byers JE (2006) Divergent induced responses to an invasive predator in marine mussel populations. Science 313:831–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gingold R, Mundo-Ocampo M, Holovachov O, Rocha-Olivares A (2010) The role of habitat heterogeneity in structuring the community of intertidal free-living marine nematodes. Mar Biol 157:1741–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gosnell JS, Gaines SD (2012) Keystone intimidators in the intertidal: non-consumptive effects of a keystone sea star regulate feeding and growth in whelks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 450:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grabowski JH (2004) Habitat complexity disrupts predator-prey interactions but not the trophic cascade on oyster reefs. Ecology 85:995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grabowski JH, Hughes AR, Kimbro DL (2008) Habitat complexity influences cascading effects of multiple predators. Ecology 89:3413–3422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffin JN, Jenkins SR, Gamfeldt L, Jones D, Hawkins SJ, Thompson RC (2009) Spatial heterogeneity increases the importance of species richness for an ecosystem process. Oikos 118:1335–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt RD, Grover J, Tilman D (1994) Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. Am Nat 144:741–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irlandi EA (1994) Large- and small-scale effects of habitat structure on rates of predation: how percent coverage of seagrass affects rates of predation and siphon nipping on an infaunal bivalve. Oecologia 98:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kohn AJ, Leviten PJ (1976) Effect of habitat complexity on population density and species richness in tropical intertidal predatory gastropod assemblages. Oecologia 25:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koivisto ME, Westerbom M (2010) Habitat structure and complexity as determinants of biodiversity in blue mussel beds on sublittoral rocky shores. Mar Biol 157:1463–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langellotto G, Denno R (2004) Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: a meta-analytical synthesis. Oecologia 139:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lubchenco J (1978) Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. Am Nat 112:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McConnell CL (2003) Individual Feeding Behavior of a Marine Gastropod, Nucella emarginata, in Southern California. Master thesis, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  30. Menge BA (2000) Recruitment vs. postrecruitment processes as determinants of barnacle population abundance. Ecol Monogr 70:265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menge BA, Lubchenco J, Ashkenas LR (1985) Diversity, heterogeneity and consumer pressure in a tropical rocky intertidal community. Oecologia 65:394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Menge BA, Berlow EL, Blanchette CA, Navarrete SA, Yamada SB (1994) The keystone species concept—variation in interaction strength in a rocky intertidal habitat. Ecol Monogr 64:249–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menge BA, Blanchette C, Raimondi P, Freidenburg T, Gaines S, Lubchenco J, Lohse D, Hudson G, Foley M, Pamplin J (2004) Species interaction strength: testing model predictions along an upwelling gradient. Ecol Monogr 74:663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Navarrete SA (1996) Variable predation: effects of whelks on a mid-intertidal successional community. Ecol Monogr 66:301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Navarrete SA, Menge BA (1996) Keystone predation and interaction strength: interactive effects of predators on their main prey. Ecol Monogr 66:409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norling P, Kautsky N (2008) Patches of the mussel Mytilus sp are islands of high biodiversity in subtidal sediment habitats in the Baltic Sea. Aquat Biol 4:75–87Google Scholar
  37. O’Donnell M (2008) Reduction of wave forces within bare patches in mussel beds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 362:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat 100:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paine RT (1974) Intertidal community structure—experimental studies on relationship between a dominant competitor and its principal predator. Oecologia 15:93–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paine RT (1976) Size-limited predation: an observational and experimental approach with the Mytilus-Pisaster interaction. Ecology 57:858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petes LE, Mouchka ME, Milston-Clements RH, Momoda TS, Menge BA (2008) Effects of environmental stress on intertidal mussels and their sea star predators. Oecologia 156:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petraitis PS (1987) Immobilization of the predatory gastropod, Nucella lapillus, by its prey, Mytilus edulis. Biol Bull 172:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pincebourde S, Sanford E, Helmuth B (2008) Body temperature during low tide alters the feeding performance of a top intertidal predator. Limnol Oceanogr 53:1562–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Development Core Team (2010) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects modelsGoogle Scholar
  46. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI (2008) The many faces of fear: comparing the pathways and impacts of nonconsumptive predator effects on prey populations. PLoS ONE 3:e2465Google Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  48. Relyea RA (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84:1827–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robles CD, Desharnais RA, Garza C, Donahue MJ, Martinez CA (2009) Complex equilibria in the maintenance of boundaries: experiments with mussel beds. Ecology 90:985–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robles CD, Garza C, Desharnais RA, Donahue MJ (2010) Landscape patterns in boundary intensity: a case study of mussel beds. Landsc Ecol 25:745–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanders D, Nickel H, Grützner T, Platner C (2008) Habitat structure mediates top-down effects of spiders and ants on herbivores. Basic Appl Ecol 9:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sanford E (1999) Regulation of keystone predation by small changes in ocean temperature. Science 283:2095–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanford E (2002a) Water temperature, predation, and the neglected role of physiological rate effects in rocky intertidal communities. Integr Comp Biol 42:881–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanford E (2002b) The feeding, growth, and energetics of two rocky intertidal predators (Pisaster ochraceus and Nucella canaliculata) under water temperatures simulating episodic upwelling. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 273:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith JR, Fong P, Ambrose RF (2006) Long-term change in mussel (Mytilus californianus Conrad) populations along the wave-exposed coast of southern California. Mar Biol 149:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suchanek TH (1994) Temperate coastal marine communities: biodiversity and threats. Am Zool 34:100–114Google Scholar
  57. Tokeshi M, Romero L (1995) Filling a gap: dynamics of space occupancy on a mussel-dominated subtropical rocky shore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 119:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trussell GC (1997a) Phenotypic selection in an intertidal snail: effects of a catastrophic storm. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 151:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trussell GC (1997b) Phenotypic plasticity in the foot size of an intertidal snail. Ecology 78:1033–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walther GR, Post E, Convey P, Menzel A, Parmesan C, Beebee TJC, Fromentin JM, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bairlein F (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416:389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Warton D, Hui F (2010) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Wieters EA, Salles E, Januario SM, Navarrete SA (2009) Refuge utilization and preferences between competing intertidal crab species. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 374:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilkinson EB, Feener DH (2007) Habitat complexity modifies ant-parasitoid interactions: implications for community dynamics and the role of disturbance. Oecologia 152:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zuur AF (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Stephen Gosnell
    • 1
  • Jamie B. DiPrima
    • 1
  • Steven D. Gaines
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations