Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:07:17.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compressive and adhesive strengths of a variety of British barnacles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2009

S. Gubbay
S. Gubbay
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of York, Heslington, York, YO1 5DD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The shell strengths of seven species of barnacle were investigated by carrying out a series of compression and tension experiments. All species were tested under compression as solitary individuals. In addition the shell strength of crowded Semibalanus balanoides was determined. Results of the compression experiments show Balanus balanus and B. perforatus to be the strongest species with Verruca stroemia the weakest. All species were much weaker in tension than compression, particularly those with a calcified base, B. balanus being the weakest of the five species tested in this way.

The possibility of adaptive design of the barnacle shell to withstand wave action and predation techniques is discussed in the light of the results from the compression and tension experiments. Finally the importance of carrying out a wide range of tests of the shells when trying to determine their strength is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , August 1983 , pp. 541 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1983

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., Read, R. & Topinka, J. A., 1970. The behaviour on impaction by solids of some common cirripedes and relation to their normal habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 5, 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourget, E., 1977. Shell structure in sessile barnacles. Naturaliste canadien, 104, 281–323.Google Scholar
Bourget, E., 1980. Barnacle shell growth and its relationship to environmental factors. In Skeletal Growth of Aquatic Organisms: Biological Records of Environmental Change (ed. Rhoads, D. C. and Lutz, R. A.), pp. 469–491. Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, J. A., 1978. Mechanical properties of coral skeleton: compressive strength and its adaptive significance. Paleobiology, 4, 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currey, J. D., 1980. Mechanical properties of mollusc shell. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, no. 34, 75–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Currey, J. D. & Taylor, J. D., 1974. The mechanical behaviour of some molluscan hard tissue. Journal of Zoology, 173, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, M. W., 1982. Forces on intertidal organisms due to breaking ocean waves. Design and application of a telemetry system. Limnology and Oceanography, 27, 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. N., 1972. The vertical distribution and feeding relationships of intertidal fish on the Atlantic coast of France. Journal of Animal Ecology, 41, 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, J., 1976. The effects of exposure and prédation on the shell of two British winkles. Journal of Zoology, 179, 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. N. & Elner, R. W., 1979. Tactics of a predator Carcinus maenas and morphological responses of the prey Nucella lapillus. Journal of Animal Ecology, 48, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R., 1977 a. Effects of sea anemones on the flow forces they encounter. Journal of Experimental Biology, 69, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R., 1977 b. Mechanical diversity of connective tissue of the body wall of sea anemones. Journal of Experimental Biology, 69, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R., 1977 c. Mechanical organization of cantilever-like sessile organisms: sea anemones. Journal of Experimental Biology, 69, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, J. J., 1960. The prédation of oysters and barnacles by crabs of the family Xanthidae. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 34, 199–211.Google Scholar
Magennis, B., 1979. Feeding habits of Marthasterias glacialis (L.). Moderatorship Thesis, University of Dublin.Google Scholar
Murdock, G. R. & Currey, J. D., 1978. Strength and design of shells of the two ecologically distinct barnacles, Balanus balanus and Semibalanus {Balanus) balanoides (Cirripedia). Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 155, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, W. A., Zullo, V. A. & Wainwright, S. A., 1967. A critique on recent concepts of growth in Balanomorpha (Cirripedia, Thoracica). Crustaceana, 12, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, D. & Currey, J. D., 1968. The secretion, structure and strength of echinoderm calcite. In Cell Structure and its Interpretation (ed. McGee-Russell, S. M. and Ross, K. F. A.), pp. 251–261. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R., 1979. Fish prédation and the evolution of gastropod shell sculpture: experimental and geographic evidence. Evolution, 33, 697–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, A. R., 1982. Prédation and parallel evolution: recurrent parietal plate reduction in balanomorph barnacles. Paleobiology, 8, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qasim, S. Z., 1957. The biology of Blennius pholis L. (Teleostei). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 128, 161–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., 1978. Biogeography and Adaptation. Patterns of Marine Life, xi, 332 pp. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vosburgh, F., 1977. Response to drag of the reef coral Acropora reticulata. In Proceedings of the Third International Coral Reef Symposium, vol. 1, Miami, 1977 (ed. Taylor, D. L.), pp. 477–482. Miami: Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.Google Scholar
Wainwright, S. A., Biggs, W. D., Currey, J. D. & Cosline, J. M., 1976. Mechanical Design in Organisms. 423 pp. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Ward, P., 1981. Shell sculpture as a defensive adaptation in ammonoids. Paleobiology, 7, 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipser, E. & Vermeij, G. J., 1978. Crushing behaviour of tropical and temperate crabs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology, 31, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar