Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T18:49:35.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - The Ecology of Rocky Subtidal Habitats of the North-East Atlantic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2019

By
Keith Hiscock ,
Hartvig Christie  and
Trine Bekkby
Edited by
Stephen J. Hawkins ,
Katrin Bohn ,
Louise B. Firth  and
Gray A. Williams
Stephen J. Hawkins
Affiliation:
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth
Katrin Bohn
Affiliation:
Natural England
Louise B. Firth
Affiliation:
University of Plymouth
Gray A. Williams
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Get access

Summary

Rocky subtidal communities are important along the entire north-east Atlantic coast, from those of wave-exposed open coasts and coastal archipelagos through to sheltered inlets and bays, from warm-temperate to Arctic environments. The character of the communities on the north-east Atlantic subtidal hard substratum is determined especially by the amount of light reaching the seabed and by the strength of water flow, including wave action and tidal currents. Those physical factors may be significantly modified by interactions between species, including competition, predation and grazing; and from human activities, such as waste disposal or agricultural run-off (causing eutrophication) and by harvesting. Grazing is a major structuring agent in determining the distribution of algae and animals and may create large differences in species richness and abundance. In the future, changes might occur as ocean warming influences the growth, survival and abundance of key structural or functional species.

Keywords

rockysubtidalcommunitiesinteractionsgrazingwarming
Type
Chapter
Information
Interactions in the Marine Benthos
Global Patterns and Processes
 , pp. 47 - 60
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Araújo, R. M., Assis, J., Aguillar, R. et al. (2016). Status, trends and drivers of kelp forests in Europe: an expert assessment. Biodiversity Conservation, 25 (7), 1319–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, M., Teagle, H., Brown, M. P. and Smale, D. A. (2016). The structure of biogenic habitat and epibiotic assemblages associated with the global invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida in comparison to native macroalgae. Biological Invasions, 18.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. K. A. and Crook, A. C. (2001). Implications of temporal and spatial variability on Paracentrotus lividus populations to the associated commercial coastal fishery. Hydrobiologia, 465 (1), 95–101.Google Scholar
Bekkby, T., Rinde, E., Erikstad, L. and Bakkestuen, V. (2009). Spatial predictive distribution modelling of the kelp species Laminaria hyperborea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66, 2106–15.Google Scholar
Bekkby, T., Rinde, E., Gundersen, H., Norderhaug, K. M., Gitmark, J. and Christie, H. (2014). Length, strength and water flow – the relative importance of wave and current exposure on kelp Laminaria hyperborea morphology. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 506, 61–70.Google Scholar
Birkett, D. A., Maggs, C. A., Dring, M. J., Boaden, P. J. S. and Seed, R. (1998). Infralittoral Reef Biotopes with Kelp Species (Volume VII): An Overview of Dynamic and Sensitivity Characteristics for Conservation Management of Marine SACs. Scottish Association of Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project), Oban, p. 174.Google Scholar
Bishop, G. M. and Earll, R. (1984). Studies on the populations of Echinus esculentus at the St. Abbs and Skomer Voluntary Nature Reserves. Progress in Underwater Science, 9, 53–66.Google Scholar
Brown, S. L., Bearhop, S., Harrdod, C. and McDonald, R. A. (2012). A review of spatial and temporal variation in grey and common seal diet in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 92, 1711–22.Google Scholar
Burton, M., Lock, K., Jones, J. and Newman, P. (2015). Skomer Marine Conservation Zone. Distribution and abundance of Echinus esculentus and selected starfish species. Natural Resources Wales Evidence Report No. 158.Google Scholar
Christie, H., Fredriksen, S. and Rinde, E. (1998). Regrowth of kelp and colonization of epiphyte and fauna community after kelp trawling at the coast of Norway. Hydrobiologia, 375/376, 49–58.Google Scholar
Christie, H., Jorgensen, N. M., Norderhaug, K. M. and Waage-Nielsen, E. (2003). Species distribution and habitat exploitation of fauna associated with kelp (Laminaria hyperborea) along the Norwegian coast. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 83, 687–99.Google Scholar
Christie, H., Jørgensen, N. M. and Norderhaug, K. M. (2007). Bushy or smooth, high or low; importance of habitat architecture and vertical level for distribution of fauna on kelp. Journal of Sea Research, 58, 198–208.Google Scholar
Christie, H. and Kraufvelin, P. (2004). Mechanisms regulating amphipod population density within macroalgal communities with restricted predator impact. Scientia Marina, 68, 189–98.Google Scholar
Christie, H. and Norderhaug, K. M. (2017). Secondary Production. In Olafsson, E., ed. Marine Macrophytes as Foundation Species. Science Publishers, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 161–79.Google Scholar
Christie, H., Norderhaug, K. M. and Fredriksen, S. (2009). Macrophytes as habitat for fauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 396, 221–33.Google Scholar
Clemente, S., Hernandez, J. C., Toledo, K. and Brito, A. (2007). Predation upon Diadema aff. antillarum in barren grounds in the Canary Islands. Scientia Marina, 71 (4), 745–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comely, C. A. and Ansell, A. D. (1988). Population density and growth of Echinus esculentus L. on the Scottish west coast. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 27 (3), 311–34.Google Scholar
Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. and Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecology Letters, 11, 1304–15.Google Scholar
Davoult, D., Engel, C. R., Arzel, P., Knoch, D. and Laurans, M. (2011). Environmental factors and commercial harvesting: exploring possible links behind the decline of the kelp Laminaria digitata in Brittany, France. CBM-Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 52 (4), 429.Google Scholar
Epstein, G. and Smale, D. A. (2017a). Environmental and ecological factors influencing the spillover of the non-native kelp, Undaria pinnatifida, from marinas into natural rocky reef communities. Biological Invasions, 20 (4), 1049–72.Google ScholarPubMed
Epstein, G. and Smale, D. A. (2017b). Undaria pinnatifida: a case study to highlight challenges in marine invasion ecology and management. Ecology and Evolution, 7 (20), 8624–42.Google Scholar
Fagerli, C. W., Norderhaug, K. M. and Christie, H. (2013). Lack of sea urchin settlement may explain kelp forest recovery in overgrazed areas in Norway. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 488, 119–32.Google Scholar
Fagerli, C. W., Norderhaug, K. M., Christie, H., Pedersen, M. F. and Fredriksen, S. (2014). Predators of the destructive sea urchin grazer Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis on the Norwegian coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 502, 207–18.Google Scholar
Fariñas-Franco, J. M., Allcock, L., Smyth, D. and Roberts, D. (2013). Community convergence and recruitment of keystone species as performance indicators of artificial reefs. Journal of Sea Research, 78, 59–74.Google Scholar
Filbee-Dexter, K. and Wernberg, T. (2018). Rise of turfs: a new battlefront for globally declining kelp forests. Bioscience, 68 (2), 64–76.Google Scholar
Foster, V., Giesler, R. J., Wilson, A. M. W., Nall, C. R. and Cook, E. J. (2016). Identifying the physical features of marina infrastructure associated with the presence of non-native species in the UK. Marine biology, 163 (8), 173.Google Scholar
Fredriksen, S. (2003). Food web studies in a Norwegian kelp forest based on stable isotope (delta 13C and delta 15N) analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 260, 71–81.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S. J. and Harkin, E. (1985). Preliminary canopy removal experiments in algal dominated communities low on the shore and in the shallow subtidal on the Isle of Man. Botanica Marina 28 (6), 223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, C. D., Holborow, J. D., Wing, S. R., Frew, R. D. and Hurd, C. L. (2007). Exposure to waves enhances the growth rate and nitrogen status of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 339, 99–108.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K. (1983). Water Movement. In Earll, R. and Erwin, D. G., eds. Sublittoral Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 58–96.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K. (1985). Aspects of the Ecology of Rocky Sublittoral Areas. In Moore, P. G. and Seed, R., eds. The Ecology of Rocky Coasts. Hodder & Stoughton, London, pp. 290–328.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K., ed. (1998). Marine Nature Conservation Review: Benthic Marine Ecosystems: A Review of Current Knowledge for Great Britain and the North-East Atlantic. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K. (2018). Exploring Britain’s Hidden World: A Natural History of Seabed Habitats. Wild Nature Press, Plymouth.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K. and Hoare, R. (1975). The ecology of sublittoral communities at Abereiddy Quarry, Pembrokeshire. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 55, 833–64.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K. and Mitchell, R. (1980). The Description and Classification of Sublittoral Epibenthic Ecosystems. In Farnham, W. F., Irvine, D. E. G. and Price, J. H., eds. The Shore Environment: Ecosystems, vol. 2. Academic Press, London, pp. 323–70.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K., Sharrock, S., Highfield, J. and Snelling, D. (2010). Colonisation of an artificial reef in south-west England – ex-HMS Scylla. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 90, 69–94.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K., Southward, A. J., Tittley, I. and Hawkins, S. J. (2004). Effect of changing temperature on benthic marine life in Britain and Ireland. Aquatic Conservation, 14, 333–62.Google Scholar
Jones, N. S. and Kain, J. M. (1967). Subtidal algal colonization following the removal of Echinus. Helgoland Marine Research, 15 (1), 460–6.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, N. M. and Christie, H. (2003). Diurnal, horizontal and vertical dispersal of kelp-associated fauna. Hydrobiologia, 503, 69–76.Google Scholar
Kain, J. M. (1971). The biology of Laminaria hyperborea. VI. Some Norwegian populations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 51, 387–408.Google Scholar
Kinlan, B. P. and Gaines, S. D. (2003) Propagule dispersal in marine and terrestrial environments: a community perspective. Ecology, 84, 2007–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitching, J. A. (1941). Studies in sublittoral ecology. III Laminaria forest on the west coast of Scotland; a study of zonation in relation to wave action and illumination. Biological Bulletin of the Marine Biology Laboratory Woods Hole, 80, 324–37.Google Scholar
Kitching, J. A. and Ebling, F. J. (1961). The ecology of Lough Ine. X1. The control of algae by Paracentrotus lividus (Echinoidea). Journal of Animal Ecology, 30, 373–83.Google Scholar
Kitching, J. A., Macan, T. T. and Gilson, H. C. (1934). Studies in sublittoral ecology. I. A submarine gully in Wembury Bay, south Devon. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 19, 677–705.Google Scholar
Kitching, J. A. and Thain, V. M. (1983). The ecological impact of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck) in Lough Ine, Ireland. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 300, 513–52.Google Scholar
Kraufvelin, P. (2017) Macroalgal grazing by the green sea urchin: born to consume resources. Marine Biology, 164, 132.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. M. (1975). On the relationship between marine plants and sea urchins. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 13, 213–86.Google Scholar
Leinaas, H. P. and Christie, H. (1996). Effects of removing sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis): stability of the barren state and succession of kelp forest recovery in the east Atlantic. Oecologia, 105, 524–36.Google Scholar
Leleu, K., Remy-Zephir, B., Grace, R. and Costello, M. J. (2012). Mapping habitats in a marine reserve showed how a 30-year trophic cascade altered ecosystem structure. Biological Conservation, 155, 193–201.Google Scholar
Ling, S. D., Scheibling, R. E., Rassweiler, A. et al. (2015). Global regime shift dynamics of catastrophic sea urchin overgrazing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 370.Google Scholar
Ling, S. D., Johnson, C. R., Frusher, S. D. and Ridgeway, K. R. (2009). Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase shift, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 22341–5.Google Scholar
Lobban, C. S. and Harrison, P. J. (1994). Seaweed Ecology and Physiology: 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moore, P. G. (1973). The kelp fauna of northeast Britain. I. Introduction and the physical environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 13, 97–125.Google Scholar
Nickols, K. J., White, J. W., Largier, J. L. and Gaylord, B. (2015). Marine population connectivity: reconciling large-scale dispersal and high self-retention. American Naturalist, 185 (2), 196–211.Google Scholar
Norderhaug, K. M., Christie, H. and Rinde, E. (2002). Colonisation of kelp imitations by epiphyte and holdfast fauna; a study of mobility patterns. Marine Biology, 141, 965–73.Google Scholar
Norderhaug, K. M., Christie, H., Fosså, J. H. and Fredriksen, S. (2005). Fish–macrofauna interactions in a kelp (Laminaria hyperborea) forest. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 85, 1279–86.Google Scholar
Norderhaug, K. M. and Christie, H. C. (2009). Sea urchin grazing and kelp re-vegetation in the NE Atlantic. Marine Biology Research, 5, 515–28.Google Scholar
Norderhaug, K. M., Christie, H., Rinde, E., Gundersen, H. and Bekkby, T. (2014). Importance of wave and current exposure to fauna communities in Laminaria hyperborea kelp forests. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 502, 295–301.Google Scholar
Pedersen, M. F., Nejrup, L. B., Fredriksen, S, Christie, H. and Norderhaug, K. M. (2012). Effects of wave exposure on population structure, demography, biomass and productivity in kelp Laminaria hyperborea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 451, 45–60.Google Scholar
Rinde, E., Christie, H., Fagerli, C. W. et al. (2014). The influence of physical factors on kelp and sea urchin distribution in previously and still grazed areas in the NE Atlantic. PLoS ONE, 9, e0100222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100222.Google Scholar
Schultze, K., Janke, K., Krüß, A. and Weidemann, W. (1990). The macrofauna and macroflora associated with Laminaria digitata and L. hyperborea at the island of Helgoland (German Bight, North Sea). Helgolander Meeresunters, 44, 39–51.Google Scholar
Sebens, K. P. (1985). Community Ecology of Vertical Rock Walls in the Gulf of Maine, U.S.A.: Small-scale Processes and Alternative Community States. In Moore, P. G. and Seed, R., eds. The Ecology of Rocky Coasts. Hodder & Stoughton, London, pp. 346–71.Google Scholar
Sivertsen, K. (1997). Geographical and environmental factors affecting the distribution of kelp beds and barren grounds and changes in biota associated with kelp reduction at sites along the Norwegian coast. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54, 2872–87.Google Scholar
Sjøtun, K., Christie, H. and Fossa, J. H. (2006). The combined effect of canopy shading and sea urchin grazing on recruitment in kelp forest (Laminaria hyperborea). Marine Biology Research 2, 24–32.Google Scholar
Skadsheim, A., Christie, H. and Leinaas, H. P. (1995). Population reductions of Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Echinodermata) in Norway and the distribution of its endoparasite Echinomermella matsi (Nematoda). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 119, 199–209.Google Scholar
Skiftesvik, A. B., Durif, C. M. F., Bjelland, R. M. and Browman, H. I. (2015). Distribution and habitat preferences of five species of wrasse (Family Labridae) in a Norwegian fjord. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72, 890–9.Google Scholar
Smale, D. A., Burrows, M. T., Moore, P., O’Connor, N. and Hawkins, S. J. (2013). Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology & Evolution, 3, 4016–38.Google Scholar
Steneck, R. S., Leland, A., McNaught, D. C. and Vavrinec, J. (2013) Ecosystem flips, locks, and feedbacks: the lasting effects of fisheries on Maine’s kelp forest ecosystem. Bulletin of Marine Science, 89, 31–55.Google Scholar
Teagle, H., Hawkins, S. J., Moore, P. J. and Smale, D. A. (2017). The role of kelp species as biogenic habitat formers in coastal marine ecosystems. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 492, 81–98.Google Scholar
Teagle, H. and Smale, D. A. (2018). Climate‐driven substitution of habitat‐forming species leads to reduced biodiversity within a temperate marine community. Diversity & Distribution, 24, 1367–80.Google Scholar
Villegas-Rios, D., Alos, J., March, D., Palmer, M., Mucientes, G. and Saborido-Rey, F. (2013). Home range and diel behaviour of the ballan wrasse, Labrus bergylta, determined by acoustic telemetry. Journal of Sea Research, 80, 61–71.Google Scholar
Waage-Nielsen, E., Christie, H. and Rinde, E. (2003). Short term dispersal of kelp fauna to cleared (kelp harvested) areas. Hydrobiologia, 503, 77–91.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×