Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:46:16.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition for Space in encrusting bryozoan assemblages: the influence of encounter angle, site and year

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Stephanie J. Turner  and
Christopher D. Todd
Stephanie J. Turner
Affiliation:
Gatty Marine Laboratory, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB
Christopher D. Todd
Affiliation:
Gatty Marine Laboratory, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This field study examined competition for space among encrusting bryozoans on artificial panel substrata used to simulate the habitat found on the undersides of boulders. In all 1761 interactions were analysed, involving 16 species of cheilostomes (genera Callopora, Celleporella, Cribrilina, Electra, Escharella, Escharoides, Haplopoma, Membraniporella, Microporella, Phaeostachys, Schizomavella, Schizoporella and Umbonula) and two ctenostome genera (Alcyonidium and Flustrellidra). Neither absolutely transitive nor intransitive arrangements of competitive outcome occurred among the species. Instead, the high incidence of ‘ties’ and reversals of outcome produced a network-like arrangement. In terms of outcome alone Escharoides coccinea (Abildgaard), Membraniporella nitida (Johnston) and Schizoporella unicornis (Johnston in Wood) were apparently ‘overgrowth dominants’, Alcyonidium spp. and Cribrilina cryptooecium Norman were ‘intermediate dominants’ and Callopora lineata (L.), Callopora craticula (Alder), Celleporella hyalina (L.) and Electra pilosa (L.) were ‘inferior competitors’ for space. The effects of four variables on the outcome of specific competitive encounters were assessed in detail and included (i) the identity of the colony encountered, (ii) the angle of contact between the competing colonies, (iii) the location (two sites, on both the east and west coasts of Scotland) and (iv) the year (1983, 1984). Models incorporating these variables were developed, using the Generalized Linear Interactive Modelling System (GLIM), to examine their influence on the outcome of bryozoan encounters. All of these factors contributed to explaining the considerable variability in the outcome of competitive interactions. The species were not, however, affected equally by all the variables, although encounter angle and year were significant for dominants and encounter angle, site and year all were significant for intermediate species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , August 1994 , pp. 603 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1994

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

Best, M.A. & Thorpe, J.P., 1986. Feeding-current interactions and competition for food among the bryozoan epiphytes of Fucus serratus. Marine Biology, 93, 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, L.W., 1979a. Bryozoan overgrowth interactions - the interdependence of competition for space and food. Nature, London, 281, 475–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, L.W., 1979b. Habitat selection, directional growth and spatial refuges: why colonial animals have more hiding places. In Biology and systematics of colonial organisms (ed. G., Larwood and B.R., Rosen), pp. 459–497. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Buss, L. W., 1980. Competitive intransitivity and size-frequency distributions of interacting populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 77, 5355–5359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, L.W., 1986. Competition and community organization on hard surfaces in the sea. In Community ecology (ed. J., Diamond and T.J., Case), pp. 517–536. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Buss, L.W. & Jackson, J.B.C., 1979. Competitive networks: nontransitive competitive relation-ships in cryptic coral reef environments. American Naturalist, 113, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, L.W. & Jackson, J.B.C., 1981. Planktonic food availability and suspension-feeder abundance: evidence of in situ depletion. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 49, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, J.H., 1961a. Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecological Monographs, 31, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, J.H., 1961b. The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology, 42, 710–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, J.H., 1976. Competitive interactions and the species diversity of corals. In Coelenterate ecology and behavior (ed. G.O., Mackie), pp. 51–58. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, J.H., 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. American Naturalist, 122, 661–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayton, P.K., 1971. Competition, disturbance, and community organization: the provision and subsequent utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecological Monographs, 41, 351–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D.P., 1972. Biological relationships of an intertidal bryozoan population. Journal of Natural History, 6, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GLIM, 1986. The GLIM system release 3.77 manual. Oxford: NAG.Google Scholar
Hayward, P.J. & Ryland, J.S., 1975. Growth, reproduction and larval dispersal in Alcyonidium hirsutum (Fleming) and some other Bryozoa. Pubblicazione della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli, 39, supplement 1, 226–241. [Proceedings of the Eighth European Marine Biology Symposium.]Google Scholar
Hughes, D.J. & Jackson, J.B.C., 1992. Distribution and abundance of cheilostome bryozoans on the Caribbean reefs of central Panama. Bulletin of Marine Science, 51, 443–465.Google Scholar
Jackson, J.B.C., 1977. Competition on marine hard substrata: the adaptive significance of solitary and colonial strategies. American Naturalist, 111, 743–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.B.C., 1979a. Overgrowth competition between encrusting cheilostome ectoprocts in a Jamaican cryptic reef environment. Journal of Animal Ecology, 48, 805–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.B.C., 1979b. Morphological strategies of sessile animals. In Biology and systematics of colonial organisms (ed. G., Larwood and B.R., Rosen), pp. 499–555. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, J.B.C. & Buss, L., 1975. Allelopathy and spatial competition among coral reef invertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 72, 5160 5163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jebram, D., 1973. Preliminary observations on the influences of food and other factors on the growth of Bryozoa. With the description of a new apparatus for cultivation of sessile plankton feeders. Kieler Meeresforschungen, 29, 50–57.Google Scholar
Kay, A.M. & Keough, M.J., 1981. Occupation of patches in the epifaunal communities on pier pilings and the bivalve Pinna bicolor at Edithburgh, South Australia. Oecologia, 48, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowlton, N. & Jackson, J.B.C., 1994. New taxonomy and niche partitioning on coral reefs: jack of all trades or master of some? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liddell, W.D. & Brett, C.E., 1982. Skeletal overgrowths among epizoans from the Silurian (Wenlockian) Waldron Shale. Paleobiology, 8,67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, F.K. & Jackson, J.B.C., 1989. Bryozoan evolution. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
O'connor, R.J., Seed, R. & Boaden, P.J.S., 1979. Effects of environment and plant characteristics on the distribution of Bryozoa in a Fucus serratus L. community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 38, 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, S., 1984. Bryozoan interactions: observations on stolonal outgrowths. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35, 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, R.W. & Haugsness, J.A., 1981. Mutualism among sessile invertebrates: a mediator of competition and predation. Science, New York, 211, 846–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paine, R.T., 1984. Ecological determinism in the competition for space. Ecology, 65, 1339–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petraitis, P.S., 1979. Competitive networks and measures of intransitivity. American Naturalist, 114, 921–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J.F. Jr, 1982. Competitive hierarchies in marine benthic communities. Oecologia, 54, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, J.A., 1982. The degree of intransitivity and its measurement in an assemblage of encrusting cheilostome Bryozoa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 60, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russ, G.R., 1982. Overgrowth in a marine epifaunal community: competitive hierarchies and competitive networks. Oecologia, 53, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebens, K.P., 1986. Spatial relationships among encrusting marine organisms in the New England subtidal zone. Ecological Monographs, 56, 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seed, R. & O'connor, R.J., 1981. Community organization in marine algal epifaunas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 12, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, A.R.D., 1973. Competition for space between the epiphytes of Fucus serratus L. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 53, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.D., 1979. Palaeoecology of the encrusting epifauna of some British Jurassic bivalves. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology, 28, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, C.D. & Turner, S.J., 1986. Ecology of intertidal and sublittoral cryptic epifaunal assemblages. I. Experimental rationale and the analysis of larval settlement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 99, 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, C.D. & Turner, S.J., 1988. Ecology of intertidal and sublittoral cryptic epifaunal assemblages. II. Nonlethal overgrowth of encrusting bryozoans by colonial ascidians. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 115, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S.J. & Todd, C.D., 1991. The effects of Gibbula cineraria (L.), Nucella lapillus (L.) and Asterias rubens L. on developing epifaunal assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 154, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vail, L.L. & Wass, R.E., 1981. Experimental studies on the settlement and growth of Bryozoa in the natural environment. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 32, 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, L.J. & Wethey, D.S., 1986. Surface topography influences competitive hierarchies on marine hard substrata: a field experiment. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 170, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, J.E. & Jackson, J.B.C., 1984. Ecology of cryptic coral reef communities. IV. Community development and life histories of encrusting cheilostome Bryozoa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 76, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yodzis, P., 1986. Competition, mortality, and community structure. In Community ecology (ed. J., Diamond and T.J., Case), pp. 480–491. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar