Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T09:42:01.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting Connell: competition but not as we know it

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2017

Jenna M. Gordon  and
Antony M. Knights
Jenna M. Gordon
Affiliation:
Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Plymouth University, Davy Building 622, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
Antony M. Knights*
Affiliation:
Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Plymouth University, Davy Building 622, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: A. M. Knights, Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Plymouth University, Davy Building 622, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Space is one of the primary limiting resources for organisms on the intertidal rocky shore. This paper examined the effect of reduced density on key traits (mortality and growth) on the intertidal barnacles, Chthamalus montagui and Semibalanus balanoides, on the mid-shore in Plymouth, UK. Intra- and interspecific treatments comprising of C. montagui and S. balanoides were manipulated to reduce densities at two similar sites. Changes in mortality and operculum growth were assessed over an 8-week period using digital photography. Covariates of growth included nearest neighbour distance, competition between closest pairs and initial size. Conflicting patterns were observed when comparing growth rates between treatments and sites. At Site 1, interspecific treatments had a lower growth rate than intraspecific treatments, whereas at Site 2, interspecific growth rates were higher. ANCOVA showed that nearest neighbour distance had no significant effect on growth, but when comparing differences in growth of closest neighbouring pairs, C. montagui treatment showed evidence of competition whereas S. balanoides did not. ANCOVA analysis indicated no difference in growth between each outcome of pair competition, suggesting winners are initially bigger than losers. Comparisons of mortality between treatments indicated mortality over time with no significant differences observed between treatments, but response surface methodology (RSM) revealed no effects of competition on mortality of S. balanoides, but negative effects of both intra- and interspecific competition on C. montagui survivorship. Examination of natural populations of barnacles in the mid-shore indicated there was strong spatial variation in growth rates, perhaps driven by small-scale differences within sites.

Keywords

Barnaclesrocky shorecompetitiongrowthnearest neighbour distancecoexistencersm
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 98 , Issue 6 , September 2018 , pp. 1253 - 1261
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2017 

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

REFERENCES

Barnes, H. and Powell, H.T. (1950) The development, general morphology and subsequent elimination of barnacle populations, Balanus crenatus and Balanus balanoides, after a heavy initial settlement. Journal of Animal Ecology 19, 175–179.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. and Walker, S. (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effect models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Begon, M., Townsend, C. and Harper, J. (2006) Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems, 4th edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 132–163.Google Scholar
Bertness, M.D. (1989) Intraspecific competition and facilitation in a northern acorn barnacle population. Ecology 70, 257–268.Google Scholar
Bertness, M.D., Gains, S.D. and Yeh, S.M. (1998) Making mountains out of barnacles: the dynamics of acorn barnacle hummocking. Ecology 79, 1382–1398.Google Scholar
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, J.S. and Hunter, W.G. (2005) Statistics for experimenters, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Bracewell, S.A., Robinson, L.A., Firth, L.B. and Knights, A.M. (2013) Predicting free-space occupancy on novel artificial structures by an invasive intertidal barnacle using a removal experiment. PLoS ONE 8, 1–7.Google Scholar
Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R. (2004) Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33, 261–304.Google Scholar
Burrows, M.T., Jenkins, S.R., Robb, L. and Harvey, R. (2010) Spatial variation in size and density of adult and post-settlement Semibalanus balanoides: effects of oceanographic and local conditions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 398, 207–219.Google Scholar
Caro, A.U., Guiñez, R., Ortiz, V. and Castilla, J.C. (2011) Competition between a native mussel and a non-indigenous invader for primary space on intertidal rocky shores in Chile. Marine Ecology Progress Series 428, 177–185.Google Scholar
Connell, J.H. (1961a) The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecological Society of America 42, 710–723.Google Scholar
Connell, J.H. (1961b) Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecological Society of America 31, 62–103.Google Scholar
Connell, J.H. (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiment. American Naturalist 122, 661–662.Google Scholar
Feldhamer, G.A., Dricamer, L.C., Vessey, S.H., Merritt, J.F. and Krajewski, C. (2007) Mammalogy: adaptation, diversity, ecology. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 481–482.Google Scholar
Fukaya, K., Okuda, T., Hori, M., Yamamoto, T., Nakaoka, M. and Noda, T. (2013) Variable processes that determine population growth and an invariant mean-variance relationship of intertidal barnacles. Ecological Society of America 4, 48.Google Scholar
Fukaya, K., Okuda, T., Nakaoka, M., Hori, M. and Noda, T. (2010) Seasonality in the strength and spatial scale of processes determining intertidal barnacle population growth. Journal of Animal Ecology 79, 1270–1279.Google Scholar
Gause, G.F. (1934) Experimental analysis of Vito Volterra's mathematical theory of the struggle for existence. Science 79, 16–17.Google Scholar
Gaylord, B. (1999) Detailing agents of physical disturbance: wave-induced velocities and accelerations on a rocky shore. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 239, 85–124.Google Scholar
Gerwing, T.G., Drolet, D., Hamilton, D.J. and Barbeau, M.A. (2016) Relative importance of biotic and abiotic forces on the composition and dynamics of a soft-sediment intertidal community. PLoS ONE 11, 1–15.Google Scholar
Hart, S.P. and Marshall, D.J. (2009) Spatial arrangement affects population dynamics and competition independent of community composition. Ecological Society of America 90, 1485–1491.Google Scholar
Hixon, M.A., Pacala, S.W. and Sandin, S.A. (2002) Population regulation: historical context and contemporary challenges of open vs closed systems. Ecology 83, 1490–1508.Google Scholar
Inouye, B.D. (2001) Response surface experimental designs for investigating interspecific competition. Ecology 82, 2696–2706.Google Scholar
Jenkins, S.R., Murua, J. and Burrows, M.T. (2008) Temporal changes in the strength of density-dependent mortality and growth in intertidal barnacles. Journal of Animal Ecology 77, 573–584.Google Scholar
Knights, A.M., Firth, L.B., Thompson, R.C., Yunnie, A.L.E., Hiscock, K. and Hawkins, S.J. (2016) Plymouth – a world harbour through the ages. Regional Studies in Marine Science. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2016.02.002.Google Scholar
Knights, A.M., Firth, L.B. and Walters, K. (2012) Interactions between multiple recruitment drivers: post-settlement predation mortality overrides flow-mediated recruitment. PLoS ONE 7, e35096.Google Scholar
Knights, A.M. and Walters, K. (2010) Recruit-recruit interactions, density-dependent processes and population persistence in the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Marine Ecology Progress Series 404, 79–90.Google Scholar
Lenth, R.V. (2009) Response-surface methods in R, using rsm. Journal of Statistical Software 32, 1–17.Google Scholar
Leslie, H.M. (2005) Positive intraspecific effects trump negative effects in high-density barnacle aggregations. Ecology 86, 2716–2725.Google Scholar
López, B.A., Catalán, A.M., Barriga, D.A. and López, D.A. (2014) Morphological response of the exoskeleton in the intertidal barnacle Jehlius cirratus growing at different densities. Journal of Crustacean Biology 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
López, B.A., Ramírez, R.P., Guaitro, S.Y. and López, D.A. (2010) Interspecific differences in the phenotypic plasticity of intertidal barnacles in response to habitat changes. Journal of Crustacean Biology 30, 357–365.Google Scholar
López, D.A., López, B.A., Burgosb, I.C., Arriagadac, S.E. and González, M.L. (2007) Consequences of base modification in hummocks of the barnacle Austromegabalanus psittacus. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41, 291–298.Google Scholar
Lotka, A.J. (1925) Elements of physical biology. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Moore, H.B. (1935) The biology of Balanus balanoides. IV. Relation to environmental factors. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 20, 279–307.Google Scholar
Moore, H.B. (1939) The biology of Balanus balanoides. I. Growth rate and its relation to size, season and tide level. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 17, 851–868.Google Scholar
Neal, D. (2004) Introduction to population biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 68–70.Google Scholar
O'Brien, R.M. (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Quality and Quantity 41, 673–690.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Available at http://www.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Reece, J.B., Urry, L.A., Cain, M.L., Wasserman, S.A., Minorsky, P.V. and Jackson, R.B. (2011) Campbell biology. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, pp. 1200–1300.Google Scholar
Sandford, E. and Menge, B.A. (2001) Spatial and temporal variation in barnacle growth in a coastal upwelling system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 209, 143–157.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P.S., Bertness, M.D. and Rand, D.M. (2015) Environmental heterogeneity and balancing selection in the acorn barnacle Semibalanus balanoides. The Royal Society 282(1804), 379–383.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P.S. and Rand, D.M. (1999) Intertidal microhabitat and selection at MPI: interlocus contrasts in the northern acorn barnacle, Semibalanus balanoides. Evolution 53, 135–146.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.A., Rasband, W.S. and Eliceiri, K.W. (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9, 671–675.Google Scholar
Shinen, J.L. and Navarrete, S.A. (2010) Coexistence and intertidal zonation of chthamalid barnacles along central Chile: interference competition or a lottery for space? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 392, 176–187.Google Scholar
Shinen, J.L. and Navarrete, S.A. (2014) Lottery coexistence on rocky shores: weak niche differentiation or equal competitors engaged in neutral dynamics? American Society of Naturalists 183, 342–362.Google Scholar
Siepielski, A.M. and McPeek, M.A. (2010) On the evidence for species coexistence: a critique of the coexistence program. Ecological Society of America 91, 3153–3164.Google Scholar
Southward, A.J. (1976) Taxonomic status and distribution of Chthamalus stellatus (Cirripedia) in Northeast Atlantic region – with a key to common intertidal barnacles of Britain. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 56, 1007–1028.Google Scholar
Strong, D.R., Simberloff, D., Abele, L. and Thistle, A. (1984) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 51–75.Google Scholar
Volkenborn, N., Hedtkamp, S.I.C., van Beusekom, J.E.E. and Reise, K. (2007) Effects of bioturbation and bioirrigation by lugworms (Arenicola marina) on physical and chemical sediment properties and implications for intertidal habitat succession. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 74, 331–343.Google Scholar
Volterra, V. (1926) Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118, 558–560.Google Scholar
Wethey, D.S. (1983) Intrapopulation variation in growth of sessile organisms: natural populations of the intertidal barnacle Balanus balanoides. Oikos 40, 14–23.Google Scholar
Ying, Z., Liao, J., Wang, S., Hui, L. and Liu, Y. (2014) Species coexistence in a lattice-structured habitat: effects of species dispersal and interactions. Journal of Theoretical Biology 359, 184–191.Google Scholar