Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:45:53.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An exposure scale for marine shores in western Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

D. H. Dalby
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Imperial College, London
E. B. Cowell
Affiliation:
The British Petroleum Company Ltd, Brittanic House, Moor Lane, London
W. J. Syratt
Affiliation:
BP Petroleum Development Ltd, P.O. Box 16, Lerwick, Shetland
J. H. Crothers
Affiliation:
Field Studies Council, Leonard Wills Field Centre, Williton, Taunton, Somerset

Extract

A rocky shore exposure scale, intended primarily for use in the Fensfjord area, Western Norway, has been prepared. This scale is developed from an earlier scale devised by Ballantine for Milford Haven, Wales, making use of species abundance curves along the wave exposure gradient. Independent evidence for the validity of the scale is provided by shell shape variation in Nucella lapillus and by the height of the black lichen zone in the supralittoral fringe. The successive steps in the preparation of the scale are outlined, definitions of the exposure grades are given in tabular form for the restricted set of species analysed numerically and descriptions are provided in an extended form to provide a fuller picture for users of the scale. It is believed that the scale will prove applicable to other rocky shores around the North Sea.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1978

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

Baardseth, E., 1955. A statistical study of the structure of the Ascophyllum zone. Report. Norwegian Instiutute of Seaweed Research, no. 11, 34 pp.Google Scholar
Baardseth, E., 1970. A square-scanning, two-stage sampling method of estimating seaweed quantities. Report. Norwegian Institute of Seaweed Research, no. 33, 41 pp.Google Scholar
Ballantine, W. J., 1961. A biologically-defined exposure scale for the comparative description of rocky shores. Field Studies, 1 (3), 119.Google Scholar
Brinkhuis, B. H., 1976. The ecology of temperate salt-marsh fucoids. 1. Occurrence and distribution of Ascophyllum nodosum ecads. Marine Biology, 34, 325338.Google Scholar
Brinkhuis, B. H. & Jones, R. F., 1976. The ecology of temperate salt-marsh fucoids. II. In situ growth of transplanted Ascophyllum ecads. Marine Biology, 34, 339348.Google Scholar
Crapp, G. B., 1973. The distribution and abundance of animals and plants on the rocky shores of Bantry Bay, Irish Fisheries Investigations (B), no. 9, 35 pp.Google Scholar
Crisp, D. J. & Southward, A. J., 1958. The distribution of intertidal organisms along the coasts of the English Channel. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 37, 157208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crothers, J. H., 1973. On variation in Nucella lapillus (L): shell shape in populations from Pembrokeshire, South Wales. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 40, 319327.Google Scholar
Crothers, J. H., 1974. On variation in Nucella lapillus (L): shell shape in populations from the Bristol Channel. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 41, 157170.Google Scholar
Crothers, J. H., 1975 a. On variation in Nucella lapillus (L): shell shape in populations from the south coast of England. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 41, 489498.Google Scholar
Crothers, J. H., 1975 b. On variation in Nucella lapillus (L): shell shape in populations from the Channel Islands and North-Western France. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 41, 499502.Google Scholar
Crothers, J. H., 1977. On variation in Nucella lapillus (L): shell shape in populations towards the southern limit of its European range. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 43, 181188.Google Scholar
Dahl, E. & Krog, H., 1973. Macrolichens of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Scandinavian University Books.Google Scholar
Evans, R. G., 1947. The intertidal ecology of selected localities in the Plymouth neighbourhood. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 27, 173218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, D. C., 1957. The free-living forms of Ascophyllum nodosum (L). Le Jol. Journal of Ecology, 45, 4983.Google Scholar
Graham, A., 1971. British Prosobranchs. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series), no. 2, 112 pp.Google Scholar
Heller, J., 1975. The taxonomy of some British Littorina species, with notes on their reproduction (Mollusca: Prosobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 56, 131151.Google Scholar
James, P. W., 1965. A new check-list of British lichens. Lichenologist, 3, 95135.Google Scholar
Jones, W. E. & Demetropoulos, A., 1968. Exposure to wave action: measurements of an important ecological parameter on rocky shores on Anglesey. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 2, 4663.Google Scholar
Jorde, I., 1974. The Marine Algae of Hordaland Fylke, Western Norway, Species Distribution and Ecology. Duplicated report, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Kolstad, K., 1959. Patella aspera Lamarck, new to Norway. Nature, London, 184, 1886.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. R., 1964. The Ecology of Rocky Shores. 323 pp. London: The English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. R. & Tambs-Lyche, H., 1962. Littorina neritoides in Scandinavia. Sarsia, 7, 710.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, 279307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, P. G., 1977. Additions to the littoral fauna of Rockall, with a description of Araeolaimus penelope sp.nov. (Nematoda: Axonolaimidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 57, 191200.Google Scholar
Moyse, J. & Nelson-Smith, A., 1963. Zonation of animals and plants on rocky shores around Dale, Pembrokeshire. Field Studies, 1 (5), 131.Google Scholar
Niemelä, T. K. & Gyllenberg, H. G., 1975. Simulation of computer-aided self-correcting classification method. In Biological Identification with Computers (ed. Pankhurst, R. J.), pp. 137151. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parke, M. & Dixon, P. S., 1976. Check-list of British marine algae – third revision. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56, 527594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, H. T., 1957. Studies in the genus Fucus L. I. Fucus distichus L. emend. Powell. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 36, 407432.Google Scholar
Powell, H. T., 1963. Speculation in the genus Fucus L., and related genera. In Speciation in the Sea (ed. Harding, J. P. and Tebble, N.), pp. 6377. London: Systematics Association.Google Scholar
Rueness, J., 1977. Norsk Algeflora. Scandinavian University Books.Google Scholar
Silva, P. C., 1957. Codium in Scandinavian waters. Svensk botanisk tidskrift, 51 (1), 117134.Google Scholar
Syratt, W. J. & Cowell, E. B., 1975. The Littoral Ecology of the Area around Mongstad Refinery, Fensfjord. Baseline survey and related investigations 19711974. Report to Rafinor A/S and Company, Mongstad. London: British Petroleum Company Limited.Google Scholar