Sexual Difference in Resource Use in Hermit Crabs; Consequences and Causes

  • Peter A. Abrams
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 151)


Most ecological theory assumes that a species consists of identical individuals, or of individuals whose properties are determined by age or size. In many species, however, there are significant differences in the ecological roles of males and females. Such between-sex differences are potentially important, both in determining the nature of population regulation within a species, and in determining the nature of interactions between species. Although ecologists have devoted large amounts of effort to quantifying the differences in resource use between species (e.g. Schoener, 1974), there has been relatively little quantification of differences in resource use between the sexes. The present paper is an attempt to quantify sex-related differences in resource use in two intertidal hermit crab species, and to analyze the causes and consequences of these differences.


Shell Length Hermit Crab Shell Size Intertidal Species Crab Size 
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. Abrams, P.A. 1978. Shell selection and utilization in a terrestrial hermit crab, Coenobita compressus. Oecoloqia 34:239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams, P.A. 1980. Resource partitioning and interspecific competition in a tropical hermit crab community. Oecoloqia 46:365–379.Google Scholar
  3. Abrams, P.A. 1981a. Shell fighting and competition between two hermit crab species in Panama. Oecoloqia 51:84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrams, P.A. 1981b. Alternative methods of measuring competition applied to two Australian hermit crabs. Oecologia 51:233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abrams, P.A. 1981c. Competition in an Indo-Pacific hermit crab community. Oecoloqia 51:241–249.Google Scholar
  6. Abrams, P.A. 1987a. An analysis of competitive interactions between three hermit crab species. Oecologia, 72:233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Abrams, P.A. 1987b. Resource partitioning and competition for shells between intertidal hermit crabs on the outer coast of Washington State. Oecoloqia, 72:248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Abrams, P.A., C.F. Nyblade, and S. Sheldon. 1986. Resource partitioning and competition for shells in a subtidal hermit crab species assemblage. Oecoloqia 69:429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertness, M.D. 1981a. Competitive dynamics of a tropical hermit crab assemblage. Ecology 62:751–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bertness, M.D. 1981b. Pattern and plasticity in tropical hermit crab growth and reproduction. Am. Nat. 117:754–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertness, M.D. 1981c. Interference, exploitation, and sexual components of competition in a tropical hermit crab assemblage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 49:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bertness, M.D. 1982. Shell utilization, predation pressure, and thermal stress in Panamanian hermit crabs: an interoceanic comparison. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 64:159–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blackstone, N.W. 1985. The effects of shell size and shape on growth and form in the hermit crab Pagurus lonqicarpus. Biol. Bull. 168:75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blackstone, N.W., and Joslyn, A. R. 1984. Utilization and preference for the introduced gastropod Littorina littorea by the hermit crab Pagurus lonqicarpus (Say). J. exp. mar. Biol. & Ecol. 80:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fotheringham, N. 1976. Population consequences of shell utilization by hermit crabs. Ecology 57:570–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart, J.F.L. 1982. Crabs and their relatives of British Columbia. Hand book, British Columbia Provincial Musuem. Victoria, B.C.Google Scholar
  17. Hazlett, B.A. 1966. Social behavior of the Paguridae and Dioqenidae of Curacao. Stud. Fauna Curacao 23:1–143.Google Scholar
  18. Hazlett, B.A. 1981. The behavioral ecology of hermit crabs. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kellogg, C.W. 1977. Coexistence in a hermit crab species ensemble. Biol. Bull. 153:133–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nyblade, C.F. 1974. Coexistence in sympatric hermit crabs. Ph.D. thesis. University of Washington. Seattle.Google Scholar
  21. Schoener, T.W. 1970. Nonsynchronous spatial overlap of lizards in patchy habitats. Ecology 51:408–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schoener, T.W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scully, E.P. 1982. The behavioral ecology of competition and resource utilization among hermit crabs. in: Studies in adaptation: the behavior of higher Crustacea. Ed. by S. Rebach and D. Dunham. New York, J. Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Selander, R. K. 1966. Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor, 68:113–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Slatkin, M. 1984. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38:622–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spight, T. 1977. Availability and use of shells by intertidal hermit crabs. Biol. Bull. 152:120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vance, R.R. 1972. Competition and mechanism of coexistence in three sympatric species of intertidal hermit crabs. Ecology 53:1062–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Abrams
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations