Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:32:51.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and the morphology, ecology, and evolution of acorn barnacles: an experimental test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Michael L. Dungan
Michael L. Dungan*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 87521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent ideas about the role of competition in the ecology and evolution of acorn barnacles are based partly on relationships between morphology and the outcome of competition for space. One hypothesis is that present distributions and patterns of evolutionary diversification and decline among acorn barnacles reflect the competitive exclusion and replacement of solid-walled forms by those with tubiferous skeletal structure. An alternate view is that large barnacles generally outcompete smaller ones, independent of differences in skeletal structure, with predation and disturbance favoring the ecological and evolutionary success of small barnacles. Field experiments and observations in the Gulf of California suggested that the small, solid-walled species, Chthamalus anisopoma, competitively exlcudes the larger, tubiferous Tetraclita stalactifera confinis on the lower part of the shore. Greater tolerance to aerial exposure appears to allow Tetraclita to occupy a high intertidal refuge above Chthamalus. A common denominator among several cases of competitive exclusion in acorn barnacles is the greater settlement density of the competitive dominant, not its morphology. Morphological considerations alone are insufficient to predict or explain the outcome of competition between barnacle species.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1985 , pp. 165 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Literature Cited

Benton, M. J. 1983a. Large-scale replacements in the history of life. Nature. 302:16–17.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1983b. Dinosaur success in the Triassic: a noncompetitive ecological model. Q. Rev. Biol. 58:29–55.Google Scholar
Brusca, R. C. 1980. Common Intertidal Invertebrates of the Gulf of California. 513 pp. Univ. Ariz. Press; Tucson.Google Scholar
Cifelli, R. L. 1981. Patterns of evolution among the Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla (Mammalia). Evolution. 35:433–440.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1961. The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology. 42:710–723.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1974. Ecology: field experiments in marine ecology. Pp. 21–54. In: Mariscal, R. N., ed. Experimental Marine Biology. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1975. Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities: a model and evidence from field experiments. Pp. 460–490. In: Cody, M. L. and Diamond, J. M., eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am. Nat. 122:661–696.Google Scholar
Crisp, D. J. 1958. The spread of Elminius modest us Darwin in northwest Europe. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 37:483–520.Google Scholar
Crisp, D. J. 1960a. Factors influencing growth rate in Balanus balanoides. J. Anim. Ecol. 29:95–116.Google Scholar
Crisp, D. J. 1960b. Mobility of barnacles. Nature. 188:1208–1209.Google Scholar
Dayton, P. K. 1971. Competition, disturbance, and community organization: the provision and subsequent utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecol. Monogr. 41:351–389.Google Scholar
Denley, E. J. and Underwood, A. J. 1979. Experiments on factors influencing settlement, survival, and growth of two species of barnacles in New South Wales. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 36:269–293.Google Scholar
Dungan, M. L. 1984. Experimental analysis of processes underlying the structure of a rocky intertidal community in the northern Gulf of California. Ph.D. diss., Univ. Arizona; Tucson.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1982. Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science. 216:380–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. and Calloway, C. B. 1980. Clams and brachiopods—ships that pass in the night. Paleobiology. 6:383–396.Google Scholar
Hines, A. H. 1979. The comparative reproductive ecology of three species of intertidal barnacle. In: Stancyk, S. E., ed. Reproductive Ecology of Marine Invertebrates. Belle W. Baruch Library Mar. Sci. 9:213–234.Google Scholar
Hui, E. and Moyse, J. 1982. Settlement of Elminius modestus cyprids in contact with adult barnacles in the field. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 62:299–306.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. R., Bowman, R. S., Kendall, M. A., and Williamson, P. 1982. Some geographical components in population dynamics: possibilities and realities in some littoral species. Neth. J. Sea Res. 16:18–28.Google Scholar
Luckens, P. A. 1975. Competition and intertidal zonation of barnacles at Leigh, New Zealand. N.Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 9:379–394.Google Scholar
Maluf, L. Y. 1983. Physical oceanography of the Gulf of California. Pp. 26–45. In: Case, T. J. and Cody, M. L., eds. Island Biogeography in the Sea of Cortez. Univ. California Press; Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Malusa, J. R. 1983. The reproductive ecology of two species of rocky intertidal barnacle. M.S. thesis, San Diego State Univ.; San Diego, Calif.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G., Webb, S. D., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Raup, D. M. 1982. Mammalian evolution and the great American interchange. Science. 215:1351–1357.Google Scholar
Newman, W. A. and Ross, A. 1976. Revision of the balanomorph barnacles; including a catalog of the species. Mem. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 9:1–108.Google Scholar
Newman, W. A. and Stanley, S. M. 1981. Competition wins out overall: reply to Paine. Paleobiology. 7:561–569.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100:65–75.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1981. Barnacle ecology: is competition important? The forgotten roles of predation and disturbance. Paleobiology. 7:553–560.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1982. Predation and parallel evolution: recurrent parietal plate reduction in balanomorph barnacles. Paleobiology. 8:31–44.Google Scholar
Reimer, A. A. 1976. Description of a Tetraclita stalactifera panamensis community on a rocky intertidal Pacific shore of Panama. Mar. Biol. 35:225–238.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1969. Biometry. 776 pp. W. H. Freeman; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Sousa, W. P. 1979. Disturbance in marine intertidal boulder fields: the non-equilibrium maintenance of species diversity. Ecology. 60:1225–1239.Google Scholar
Southward, A. J. 1967. Recent changes in the abundance of intertidal barnacles in south-west England: a possible effect of climatic deterioration. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 47:81–95.Google Scholar
Southward, A. J. and Crisp, D. J. 1956. Fluctuations in the distribution and abundance of intertidal barnacles. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 37:483–520.Google Scholar
Southward, A. J. and Newman, W. A. 1977. Aspects of the ecology and biogeography of the intertidal and shallow-water balanomorph Cirripedia of the Caribbean and adjacent sea-areas. FAO Fisheries Rep. 200:407–426 FIR/R(E/Es).Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1982. Species selection involving alternative character states: an approach to macroevolutionary analysis. Proc. 3d N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. 2:505–510.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. and Newman, W. A. 1980. Competitive exclusion in evolutionary time: the case of acorn barnacles. Paleobiology. 6:173–183.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Van Valkenburgh, B., and Steneck, R. S. 1983. Coevolution and the fossil record. Pp. 328–349. In: Futuyma, D. J. and Slatkin, M., eds. Coevolution. Sinauer; Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. A. and Stephenson, A. 1972. Life Between Tide-marks on Rocky Shores. 425 pp. W. H. Freeman; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. A. 1980. Tide Calendar for the Northern Gulf of California. Printing and Reproductions, Univ. Arizona; Tucson.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. A. and Lehner, C. E. 1976. Resilience of a rocky intertidal fish community in a physically unstable environment. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 22:1–29.Google Scholar
Villalobos, C. R. 1980. Variations in population structure in the genus Tetraclita (Crustacea: Cirripedia) between temperate and tropical populations. IV. The age structure of T. stalactifera and concluding remarks. Rev. Biol. Trop. 28:353–359.Google Scholar
Wethey, D. S. 1983. Geographic limits and local zonation: the barnacles Semibalanus (Balanus) and Chthamalus in New England. Biol. Bull. 165:330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wethey, D. S. 1984. Sun and shade mediate competition in the barnacles Chthamalus and Semibalanus: a field experiment. Biol. Bull. 167:176–185.Google Scholar