Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:58:08.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional adaptation for unique habitats in the species of intertidal limpets Patelloida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2011

Shizuko Nakai ,
Norio Wakayama  and
Satoshi Chiba
Shizuko Nakai*
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Science and Resources, College of Bioresource Sciences Nihon University, 1866 Kameino Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252–0880Japan
Norio Wakayama
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Integrated Science, Kanagawa University, 2946 Tsuchiya Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259–1293Japan
Satoshi Chiba
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Graduate School of Life Sciences University of Tohoku, Aobayama, Sendai, 980–8578Japan
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: S. Nakai, Department of Marine Science and Resources, College of Bioresource Sciences Nihon University, 1866 Kameino Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252–0880Japan email: nakai.shizuko@nihon-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies have shown that physical environmental factors cause phenotypic diversity in limpets. However, no studies have documented how substrate conditions (surface shape and topology) affect adhesive force and how they regulate shell morphology in limpets. The intertidal limpet Patelloida pygmaea, having a flat shell, is found exclusively on oyster shells, while P. conulus, with an extremely high shell, is found on Batillaria cumingi. The adhesive force on the B. cumingi was significantly greater in P. conulus than in P. pygmaea, whereas the force on the oyster shell showed no significant difference between these species. On the B. cumingi, a significantly positive correlation was found between adhesive force and volume in P. conulus, and no significant correlation was found in P. pygmaea. In contrast, on the oyster shell, a significant positive correlation was found between adhesive force and volume in both of the two species. These results suggest that the shell of P. conulus becomes higher with increasing own shell size by keeping aperture area relative to body size as small as possible. These morphological differences are most likely due to an adaptation to utilize different habitats and adhere to substrates with different structure and topology.

Keywords

shell morphologyadhesive forcelimpet
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , May 2012 , pp. 547 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2011

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

Boaventura, D., Da Fonseca, L.C. and Hawkins, S.J. (2002) Analysis of competitive interactions between the limpets Patella depressa Pennant and Patella vulgate L. on the northern coast of Portugal. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 271, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boaventura, D., Da Fonseca, L.C. and Hawkins, S.J. (2003) Size matters: competition within populations of the limpet Patella depressa. Journal of Animal Ecology 72, 435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branch, G.M. (1975) Mechanisms reducing intraspecific competition in Patella spp. migration, differentiation and territorial behaviour. Journal of Animal Ecology 44, 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branch, G.M. (1976) Interspecific competition experienced by South African Patella species. Journal of Animal Ecology 45, 507–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branch, G.M. (1981) The biology of limpets: physical factors, energy flow and ecological interactions. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 19, 235–380.Google Scholar
Branch, G.M. and Cherry, M.I. (1985) Activity rhythms of the pulmonate limpet Siphonaria capensis Q. & G. as an adaptation to osmotic stress, predation and wave action. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 87, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlton, J.T., Vermeij, G.J., Lindberg, D., Carlton, D.A. and Dudley, E.C. (1991) The first historical extinction of a marine invertebrate in an ocean basin: the demise of the eelgrass limpet Lottia alveus. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 180, 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, M.W. (1988) Biology and the mechanics of the wave-swept environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, M.W. (2000) Limits to optimization: fluid dynamics and the evolution of shape in limpet shells. Journal of Experimental Biology 203, 2603–2622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denny, M.W. and Blanchette, C.A. (2000) Hydrodynamics, shell shape, behavior and survivorship in the owl limpet Lottia gigantea. Journal of Experimental Biology 203, 2623–2639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunker, W. (1860) Neue japanische Mollusken. Malakozoologische Blätter 6, 221–240.Google Scholar
Dunker, W. (1861) Mollusca japonica descripta et tabulis tribus iconum illustrate. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart.Google Scholar
Ellem, G.K., Furst, J.E. and Zimmerman, K.D. (2002) Shell clamping behaviour in the limpet Cellana tramoserica. Journal of Experimental Biology 205, 539–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glesel, J.T. (1969) Factors influencing the growth and relative growth of Acmaea digitalis, a limpet. Ecology 50, 1084–1087.Google Scholar
Hahn, T. and Denny, M. (1989) Tenacity-mediated selective predation by oystercatchers on intertidal limpets and its role in maintaining habitat partitioning by ‘Collisella’ scabra and Lottia digitalis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 53, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowell, R.B. (1985) Selection for increased safety factors of biological structures as environmental unpredictability increases. Science 228, 1009–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowell, R.B. (1986) Crab predation on limpets: predator behavior and defensive features of the shell morphology of the prey. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 171, 577–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowell, R.B. (1987) Safety factors of tropical versus temperate limpet shells: multiple selection pressures on a single structure. Evolution 41, 638–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakai, S., Miura, O., Maki, M. and Chiba, S. (2006) Morphological and habitat divergence in the intertidal limpet Patelloida pygmaea. Marine Biology 149, 515–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okutani, T. (2000) Marine mollusks in Japan. Tokyo: Tokai University Press.Google Scholar
Okutani, T. (2004) Encyclopedia of shellfish. Tokyo: Sekaibunka-sya.Google Scholar
Sasaki, T. and Okutani, T. (1994) An analysis on Collisella heroldi complex (Gastropoda: Lottiidae), with description of three new species. Venus 53, 251–285.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. (1970) Territorial behaviour of the owl limpet, Lottia gigantea. Ecology 51, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R.C., Jenkins, S.R. and Bussell, J.A. (2000) A method for recording predator–prey encounters between crabs and limpets using wax replicas. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 80, 633–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G.J. (1971) Substratum relationships of some tropical Pacific intertidal gastropods. Marine Biology 10, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G.J. (1993) A natural history of shells. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar