Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T08:48:08.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition For Space Between the Epiphytes of Fucus Serratus L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A. R. D. Stebbing
A. R. D. Stebbing
Affiliation:
The Plymouth Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Competition for space between sessile animals on the seashore and sublittorally is an important factor in their ecology. This is partly because of their density, but also because competition for space between sessile animals is of a more severe kind than occurs between free-living ones, for they cannot move away from their competitors.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , May 1973 , pp. 247 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1973

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

Barnes, H., 1969. Some aspects of littoral ecology: the parameters of the environment, their measurement; competition, interaction and productivity. American Zoologist, 9, 271–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnet, F. M., 1971. ‘Self-recognition’ in colonial marine forms and flowering plants in relation to the evolution of immunity. Nature, London,232, 230–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiba, Y. & Kato, M., 1966. Interspecific relation in the colony formation among Bougainvillia sp. and Cladonema radiatum (Hydrozoa, Coelenterata). Science Reports of the Tohoku University, Ser. 4 (Biol.)j 32, 201–6.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H., 1961 a. The 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., 1961 b. The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology, 42, 710–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, J. L., 1946. Season of attachment and growth of sedentary marine organisms at Lamoine, Maine. Ecology 27, 150–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautier, Y. V., 1962. Recherches ecologiques sur les Bryozoaires Chilostomes en Mediterranee occidentale. Recueil des travaux de la Station marine d'Endoume, 38, 1–434.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. P., 1972. Biological relationships of an intertidal bryozoan population. Journal of Natural History, 6, 503–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, P. J., 1972. Preliminary observations on settlement and growth in populations of Alcyonidium hirsutum(Fleming). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Bryozoa. Durham: I.B.A. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Hincks, T., 1880. A History of British Marine Polyzoa, vol. I, cxli, 601 pp; vol. 11, 83 pi. london: Van Voorst.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M., Hirai, E. & Kakinuma, Y., 1963. Further experiments on the interspecific relation in the colony formation among some hydrozoan species. Science Reports of the Tohoku University, Ser. 4 (Biol.), 29, 317–25.Google Scholar
Kato, M., Hirai, E. & Kakinuma, Y., 1967. Experiments on the coaction among hydrozoan species in the colony formation. Science Reports of the Tohuku University, Ser. 4 (Biol.), 33, 359–73Google Scholar
Kato, M., Nakamuramura, K., Hirai, E. & Kakinuma, Y., 1961. The distribution pattern of Hydrozoa on seaweed with some notes on the so-called coaction among hydrozoan species. Bulletin of the Biological Station of Asamushi, Tohoku University, 10, 195–202.Google Scholar
Knight-Jones, E.W., Bailey, J. H. & Isaac, M. J., 1971. Choice of algae by larvae of Spirorbis, particularly Spirorbis spirorbis. In Fourth European Marine Biology Symposium, Bangor (ed.D.J, Crisp), pp. 89–104. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knight-Jones, E. W. & Moyse, J., 1961. Intraspecific competition in sedentary marine animals. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 15, 72–95.Google Scholar
Lang, J., 1971. Interspecific aggression by scleractinian corals. 1. The rediscovery of Scolymia cubensis (Milne-Edwards & Haime). Bulletin of Marine Science, 21, 952–9.Google Scholar
Laubier, L., 1966. Le coralligene des Alberes. Monographie biocenotique, 316 pp. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Mcdougall, K. D., 1943. Sessile marine invertebrates of Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecological Monographs, 13, 323–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, E., 1926. Beobachtungen und Versuche an Lebendum Meeresbryozoen ZoologischeJahrbucher, Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 52, 1–102.Google Scholar
Meadows, P. S. & Campbell, J. I., 1972. Habitat selection by aquatic invertebrates. Advances in Marine Biology, 10, 271–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, J. E. & Miller, M., 1968. The New Zealand Sea Shore, 638pp. London: Collins. 260Google Scholar
Oka, H., 1970. Colony specificity in compound ascidians. In Profiles of Japanese Science and Scientists (ed.H, Yukawa), pp. 195–206, Tokyo: Kodansha.Google Scholar
Pinter, P., 1969. Bryozoan-algal associations in southern California waters. Bulletin of the Southern California Acadewy of Sciences, 68, 199–218.Google Scholar
Rutzler, K., 1965. Substratstabilitat im marinen Benthos als okologischer Factor, Dargestellt am Beispiel adriatischer Porifera. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie u. Hydrographie, 50, 281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutzler, K., 1970. Spatial competition among Porifera: solution by epizoism. Oecologia, 5, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryland, J. S. 1959. Experiments on the selection of algal substrates by polyzoan larvae. Journal of Experimental Biology, 36, 613–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryland, J. S., 1972 a. The analysis of pattern in communities of bryozoa. I. Discrete sampling methods. Journal of experimental marine Biology and Ecology, 8, 277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryland, J. S., 1972 b. The analysis of spatial distribution patterns. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Bryozoa. Durham: I.B.A. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Ryland, J. S. & Stebbing, A. R. D., 1971. Settlement and orientated growth in epiphytic and epizoic bryozoans. In Fourth European Marine Biology Symposium (ed.D.J, Crisp), pp. 105–23. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sara, M., 1970. Competition and co-operation in sponge populations. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 25, 273–84.Google Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D., 1971 a. Growth of Flustra foliacea (Bryozoa). Marine Biology, 9, 267–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D., 1971 b. The epizoic fauna of Flustra foliacea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 51, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D., 1972 a. Preferential settlement of a bryozoan and serpulid larvae on the younger parts of Laminariafronds.Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 52, 765–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D., 1972 b. Some observations on colony overgrowth and spatial competition. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Bryozoa. Durham: I.B.A. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Thompson, T. E., 1958. The natural history, embryology, larval biology and post-larval development of Adalaria proxima (Alder and Hancock) (Gastropoda Opisthobranchia). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 242, 1–58.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. M., 1948. The seasonal occurrence of sedentary marine organisms in Biscayne Bay, Florida. Ecology, 29, 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar