Barren littoral coarse sand

10-11-2004
Researched byGeorgina Budd Refereed byDr John Fish
EUNIS CodeA2.221 EUNIS NameBarren littoral coarse sand

Summary

UK and Ireland classification

EUNIS 2008A2.221Barren littoral coarse sand
EUNIS 2006A2.221Barren littoral coarse sand
JNCC 2004LS.LSa.MoSa.BarSaBarren littoral coarse sand
1997 BiotopeLS.LGS.S.BarSndBarren coarse sand shores

Description

Freely-draining coarse sandy beaches, particularly on the upper shore, which lack a macrofaunal community due to their continual mobility. Trial excavations are unlikely to reveal any macrofauna in these typically steep beaches on exposed coasts. Burrowing amphipods Bathyporeia spp. or Pontocrates spp. and the isopod Eurydice pulchra may be found in extremely low abundances, but if present in any quantity should be classed as LGS.AEur. Other species that may be found in low abundance may be left behind by the ebbing tide. (Information taken from the Marine Biotope Classification for Britain and Ireland, Version 97.06: Connor et al., 1997a, b).

Recorded distribution in Britain and Ireland

LGS.BarSnd is a common biotope that occurs on coasts of Britain and Ireland, where the hydrodynamic regime and underlying topography and geology allow accumulation of sandy substrata that is subject to redistribution by tide and currents. The biotope is found particularly at the entrance of the coastal inlets of the south west and is notably absent in the south east of England.

Depth range

Lower shore, Mid shore, Strandline, Upper shore

Additional information

The barren shingle/gravel shore biotope (LGS.BarSh) is also represented by this review. In Britain and Ireland the status of the LGS.BarSh biotope is listed as 'uncommon' (Connor et al., 1997b ) and it is differentiated from the LGS.BarSnd biotope solely on the basis of particle size (typically from 4 - 256 mm). LGS.BarSh shores have little associated fine sediment and owing to the mobility of the substratum the biotope does not support macrofauna. Furthermore, trial excavations are unlikely to reveal macroscopic infauna. Any species that are found, such as the occasional amphipod or small polychaete have probably been left stranded by the ebbing tide.

Listed By

Further information sources

Search on:

JNCC

Habitat review

Ecology

Ecological and functional relationships

Community and population patterns of distribution and abundance in exposed sandy beaches have been assumed to be primarily controlled by specific species responses to the hydrodynamic climate and sediment characteristics which are intimately linked, a scenario where biological interactions do not appear to play a critical role (McLachlan, 1983). Furthermore, there is a conspicuous lack of information concerning the effects of biotic factors e.g. competition, on the structure and distribution of sandy beach populations, as it is likely that detection of intra- and interspecific competition in such a dynamic environment is very complex (Branch, 1984). However, competition for space and food is unlikely to be a limiting feature in this high energy environment, as the faunal population of mobile amphipods and isopods is extremely small and they swim in the water column at high tide in search of food, only sheltering temporarily in the sediment at low tide (Peterson, 1991). Consequently, no single species can be considered a keystone species whose activity is essential to the structure of the community.

Seasonal and longer term change

The LGS.BarSnd and LGS.BarSh biotopes will be sensitive to seasonal changes in the hydrodynamic regime, and as a result of increased wave action and water movement, sedimentary disturbance is likely.

Habitat structure and complexity

  • The hydrodynamic regime (tides, waves and residual currents) together with the underlying physiography and geology create the conditions for a given substrata to develop.
  • Grain size, shape and degree of sorting are most important in determining porosity and permeability which influence drainage. Drainage is critical in determining the moisture content, oxygen saturation, organic content and the depth of the reducing layer (if present). Permeability increases with coarse substrate and better sorting, and drainage also increases on steeper beaches. Consequently, the sediment diameter of the coarse sand of this biotope (0.25 - 2 mm diameter) ensures that it is freely-draining.
  • In the LGS.BarSnd biotope a macrophyte community is absent owing to the lack of stable substrata. However, in the LGS.BarSh biotope a temporary covering of the green algae Ulva may develop (via attachment to larger pebbles and cobbles) during the period of relative stability in the summer.

Productivity

Macroalgal productivity within the LGS.BarSnd biotope is likely to be very low. Macroalgae (if present) occur in extremely low abundance and is typically absent owing to the lack of a stable substratum. Therefore the benthic microalgae (microphytobenthos e.g. diatoms, flagellates and euglenoides) are probably the most significant primary producers of the depositing shore and are confined to the interstices of the illuminated sediment surface. The phytoplankton of the sea also becomes a temporary part of the sandy beach ecosystem when the tide is in and primary producers from other environments may appear on the shore. These are invariably macroalgae that have become detached from rocky substrata and have been washed up. Eventually they decompose on the beach and contribute to the energy budget of the shore system. Consequently, most productivity on the mobile sandy shore may be categorized as secondary, derived from detritus and allochthonous organic matter. In the LSG.BarSh biotope also represented by this review, a temporary covering of the green algae Ulva sp. may develop during periods of relative stability during the summer and consequently contribute to the productivity of the biotope.

Recruitment processes

The burrowing amphipods Bathyporeia pelagica and Pontocrates arenarius and the isopod Eurydice pulchra may occur in the LGS.BarSnd and LGS.BarSh biotopes at extremely low abundance. If these species are found in any greater abundance the biotope should be classed as LGS.AEur. However, the recruitment processes of these species may be summarized as follows:
  • Eurydice pulchra breeds between April and August once sea temperatures rise above 10°C, and the highest number of juveniles occurs around the periods of maximum summer temperatures. Males and females pair during their nightly swimming on falling spring tides and mating occurs in the sand once the female has completed her moult. Incubation of the embryos in the brood pouch takes some 7-8 weeks and after release of the young the female returns to the non-breeding condition (J. Fish, pers. comm.). Juvenile Eurydice pulchra first appear in July, the minimum length being 1.7 mm (J. Fish, pers. comm.). Although the first juveniles may reach sexual maturity before the onset of winter, they begin breeding in the following spring and die during their second autumn after a total life span of approximately 15 months. Mid-summer juveniles also mature to breed the following summer and only reached 12 months of age before dying. In contrast, the last broods appearing as late as October, do not mature until late the following summer. They breed in their second October and then over-winter for a second time, producing a second brood in the spring before dying of at 18-20 months old (Fish, 1970; Jones, 1970; Hayward, 1994).
  • Bathyporeia pelagica may breed throughout the year, but the greatest reproductive activity occurs during spring and late summer/autumn. Males and females pair whilst swimming and mate on the night-time ebb tides following each new and full moon. Development of an egg to the stage when it is released as a juvenile takes just 15 days to complete. The over-wintering population of Bathyporeia pelagica consists largely of juvenile animals. These mature in spring to form the majority of the next breeding population and eventually die in June and July, after a life span of about one year (Fish & Preece, 1970). Bathyporeia pilosa has a similar recruitment cycle.
  • In Pontocrates arenarius from Irish Sea coasts, breeding has been recorded throughout the year (Fish & Fish, 1996).)

Time for community to reach maturity

Beaches are dynamic environments, even when they are neither gaining nor losing sediment they are subject to short-term changes in response to wave regimes and weather conditions. Beach profiles show alteration as beach-face sands are re-cycled and decline as the component sand grains are reduced in calibre by attrition and weathering. In some locations these trends are marked by accretion as new sandy sediment arrives and the coastline advances. Whilst in other locations there is a loss of sandy sediment, marked by diminishing beach volumes and coastline retreat (Bird, 1983). As a consequence of the dynamic nature of the habitat the faunal component of the biotope is very sparse and low in species richness. Therefore, the community might be considered 'mature' only a few days or weeks after the last spring tide or drying event, as the mobile species migrate into the biotope from adjacent areas carried in as surf plankton.

Additional information

No text entered.

Preferences & Distribution

Recorded distribution in Britain and IrelandLGS.BarSnd is a common biotope that occurs on coasts of Britain and Ireland, where the hydrodynamic regime and underlying topography and geology allow accumulation of sandy substrata that is subject to redistribution by tide and currents. The biotope is found particularly at the entrance of the coastal inlets of the south west and is notably absent in the south east of England.

Habitat preferences

Depth Range Lower shore, Mid shore, Strandline, Upper shore
Water clarity preferences
Limiting Nutrients Field unresearched
Salinity Full (30-40 psu)
Physiographic Open coast
Biological Zone Eulittoral, Supralittoral
Substratum Coarse clean sand, Medium clean sand
Tidal
Wave Exposed, Moderately exposed
Other preferences

Additional Information

The species that occur are typical of unconsolidated coarse sediments that are re-mobilized as a result of strong tidal streams or wave action.

Species composition

Species found especially in this biotope

    Rare or scarce species associated with this biotope

    -

    Additional information

    No text entered.

    Sensitivity reviewHow is sensitivity assessed?

    Explanation

    It should be emphasised that the LGS.BarSnd and LSG.BarSh biotopes are primarily identified by the type of the substratum rather than the biological community, which may be absent, or if present, occur in extremely low abundance. This is because the biotopes are found on open wave exposed coasts and the continual mobility of the substratum inhibits the development of a permanent community. The mobile species that may be found in the LGS.BarSnd biotope occur throughout the littoral zone and are not dependent specifically on this biotope. Therefore the substratum type has been used primarily to indicate the sensitivity of this biotope and no species indicative of sensitivity were chosen.

    Species indicative of sensitivity

    Community ImportanceSpecies nameCommon Name

    Physical Pressures

     IntoleranceRecoverabilitySensitivitySpecies RichnessEvidence/Confidence
    High Very high Low Decline Moderate
    The biotopes represented by this key information review are characterized primarily by the type of substratum present. In the event that all of the substratum occupied by the biotope under consideration was removed, the biotope would no longer be identified and therefore intolerance has been assessed to be high. The amphipod and isopod species that may occur in the biotope would also be removed along with the substratum, so species richness would decline. The biotope is likely to recover from substratum removal. For instance, at Village Bay on St Kilda, an island group far out into the Atlantic west of Britain, an expanse of sandy beach was removed offshore as a result of winter storms to reveal an underlying rocky shore (Scott, 1960). Yet in the following summer the beach was gradually replaced when wave action was less severe. Eurydice pulchra was a species reported to be a frequent member of the re-colonizing fauna, its recovery being aided by the ability to survive in the shallow sublittoral zone where substrata may be deposited. In view of such observations, that many sandy beaches disappear in winter and reappear in spring, it is likely that recovery would occur in less than a year or six months. Therefore recoverability has been assessed to be very high assuming that sand remains available to be deposited.
    Land claim could impact upon this biotope. In the event that the biotope was covered/claimed by construction it would not recover.
    Tolerant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Very low
    Smothering by a sediment that is atypical for the biotope would alter the composition of the surface substratum but owing to the hydrodynamic regime and mobility of the substrata, atypical materials are likely to be readily dispersed and the biotope remain unaffected. Also species present could probably escape readily. Therefore the biotope has been assessed to be not sensitive. A higher intolerance would be expected for viscous material such as oil. Oil penetrating coarse sands would destabilise the sediment and produce an oxygen demand where oxygen is available but degradation at depth would be minimal where aeration does not occur (Elliott et al., 1998).
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Increased suspended sediment (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not sensitive* Not relevant
    Decreased suspended sediment (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Desiccation (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    High High Moderate Rise Very low
    An increase in the emergence period of this biotope would make it even more inhospitable to marine invertebrates. Where the biotope occurs in the supralittoral zone, a reduction in saline spray and splash may favour the colonization of terrestrial plants, which if able fully to establish over the period of one year will have a stabilising effect on the substratum. Consequently, this factor has the potential to alter the LGS.BarSnd biotope so that its starts to become another biotope. The LGS.BarSnd biotope would not be recognized and intolerance has therefore been assessed to be high. On return to the prior emergence regime plants that may colonized the substratum and which are intolerant to saline splash and spray will probably decline. Therefore recoverability has been assessed to be high but variable (see additional information below).
    High Very high Low Rise Very low
    An increase in the immersion period of this biotope may favour establishment of a less transient biological community of amphipods, as the increased water content of the substratum (and probable concomitant changes in the water table) would make conditions more hospitable. Consequently, this factor has the potential to alter the LGS.BarSnd biotope so that its starts to become another (but probably closely related) biotope. The LGS.BarSnd biotope would not be recognized and intolerance has therefore been assessed to be high. On return to prior conditions the abundance of amphipod species would probably decline and the biotope be easily identified as the barren sand biotope. Recovery has been assessed to be very high but variable (see additional information below).
    High Very high Low Decline Low
    The nature of the substratum is, in part, determined by the hydrodynamic regime including water flow rate. However, the major hydrodynamic force is wave action and tidal flow will have a lesser effect. An increase in water flow rate may contribute to the redistribution or reduction of the coarse sandy substratum and, as a consequence, the biotope may not be recognized in a location where it was previously recorded. Therefore intolerance has been assessed to be high. The substratum is likely to be deposited on return to prior conditions, so intolerance has been assessed to be very high (see additional information below).
    High Very high Low Rise Low
    The nature of the substratum is, in part, determined by the hydrodynamic regime including water flow rate. A decrease in water flow rate is likely to effect the composition of the substratum by allowing deposition of finer grade material and stability would increase. The biotope would become more hospitable for colonization. Consequently, this factor has the potential to alter the LGS.BarSnd biotope so that its starts to become another (but probably closely related) biotope. The LGS.BarSnd biotope would not be recognized and intolerance has therefore been assessed to be high. On return to prior conditions the abundance of amphipod species would probably decline and the biotope be easily identified as the barren sand biotope. Recovery has been assessed to be very high (see additional information below).
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Increased temperature (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not sensitive* Not relevant
    Decreased temperature (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Increased turbidity (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. Macroalgae are absent and the substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not sensitive* Not relevant
    Decreased turbidity (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. Macroalgae are absent and the substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    High Very high Low Decline Low
    The LGS.BarSnd biotope typically occurs in moderately exposed to exposed locations. An increase in exposure at the benchmark level would subject the biotope to extreme wave exposure for a period of one year. Such wave action is likely to have a destructive effect on the biotope causing loss and redeposition of substrate. Consequently, the biotope may not be recognized in a location where it was previously recorded. Therefore intolerance has been assessed to be high. The substratum is likely to be deposited on return to prior conditions and recolonization by immigration is likely to be rapid, so intolerance has been assessed to be very high (see additional information below).
    High Very high Low Rise Low
    The LGS.BarSnd biotope typically occurs in moderately exposed to exposed locations. A decrease in exposure at the benchmark level would change conditions to sheltered for a period of one year. The substratum would become less mobile and sorting of the particles may become less defined causing concomitant changes in the drainage of the beach. Alterations of the shore gradient would also be expected. Increased water content of the substratum and decreased mobility would make the biotope more hospitable for colonization hence species richness may rise. Consequently, this factor has the potential to alter the LGS.BarSnd biotope so that its starts to become another (but probably closely related) biotope. The LGS.BarSnd biotope would not be recognized and intolerance has therefore been assessed to be high. On return to prior conditions the abundance of amphipod species would probably decline and the biotope be easily identified as the barren sand biotope. Recovery has been assessed to be very high (see additional information below).
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Noise (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Visual presence (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Low Very high Very Low No change High
    Barren coarse sand shores are naturally dynamic habitats subject to considerable physical disturbance due to wave action. The resident species and probably adapted to the conditions found in mobile sediments, and adapted to physical disturbance. The highly mobile species present in this biotope may only be found in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope. Therefore, an overall biotope intolerance of low has been recorded with a very high recoverability.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Displacement (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope. These species are highly mobile and capable of rapid reburying if displaced.

    Chemical Pressures

     IntoleranceRecoverabilitySensitivityRichnessEvidence/Confidence
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Synthetic compound contamination (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Heavy metal contamination
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Heavy metal contamination (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Hydrocarbon contamination
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    The effects that oil may have upon sediment stability have been considered under smothering (above). This factor (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Radionuclide contamination
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Radionuclide contamination (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Changes in nutrient levels
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Nutrient enrichment (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the intolerance assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Increased salinity (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not sensitive* Not relevant
    Decreased salinity (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Oxygenation (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.

    Biological Pressures

     IntoleranceRecoverabilitySensitivityRichnessEvidence/Confidence
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Introduction of microbial pathogens or parasites (as described in the benchmark) was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of this biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    No non-native species currently resident in the British Isles are likely to colonize the biotope and change its character.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
    Species that may be recorded within this biotope are not targeted for extraction, therefore the factor was not considered relevant to the sensitivity assessment of the biotope. The substratum type has been used to assess intolerance rather than the highly mobile species which may only be found in this biotope in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope.
    Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

    Additional information

    Assessment of intolerance
    It should be reiterated that the LGS.BarSnd and LGS.BarSh biotopes are primarily identified by the type of the substratum rather than the biological community, which may be absent, or if present, occur in extremely low abundance. This is because the biotopes are found on open wave exposed coasts and the continual mobility of the substratum inhibits the development of a permanent community. The mobile species that may be found in the LGS.BarSnd biotope occur throughout the littoral zone and are not dependent on this biotope. Therefore the substratum type has been used to indicate the intolerance of this biotope and no species indicative of intolerance were chosen. If amphipod or isopod crustaceans are found in any greater abundance, especially in the eulittoral zone, identification of the barren sand biotope should be reconsidered and it may be likely that reference to the £LGS.AEur£ (burrowing amphipods and Eurydice pulchra in well-drained clean sand shores) biotope intolerance assessment may be more appropriate.

    Recoverability
    Recovery of this biotope is wholly dependent on the physical processes of the hydrodynamic regime which are location specific, but owing to the dynamic nature of the habitat recovery would be expected. For instance, at Village Bay on St Kilda, an island group far out into the Atlantic west of Britain, an expanse of sandy beach was removed offshore as a result of winter storms to reveal an underlying rocky shore (Scott, 1960). In the following summer the beach was gradually replaced when wave action was less severe. Eurydice pulchra was a species reported to be a frequent member of the re-colonizing fauna, its recovery being aided by the ability to survive in the shallow sublittoral zone where substrata may be deposited. In view of such observations, that many sandy beaches disappear in winter and reappear in spring, it is likely that recovery would occur in less than a year or six months. Therefore recoverability has been assessed to be very high assuming that sand remains available to be redeposited.

    Importance review

    Policy/Legislation

    Habitats Directive Annex 1Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

    Exploitation

    The biotope is not targeted for commercial exploitation, but upper shore facies are likely to be used for recreational purposes in popular tourist areas.

    Additional information

    -

    Bibliography

    1. Bird, E.C.F., 1983. Factors influencing beach and accretion: a global review. In Sandy beaches as ecosystems(ed. A. McLachlan & T. Erasmus), pp. 709-717. The Hague: Dr W. Junk Publishers.
    2. Branch, G.M., 1984. Competition between marine organisms: ecological and evolutionary implications. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 22, 429-593.
    3. Connor, D.W., Brazier, D.P., Hill, T.O., & Northen, K.O., 1997b. Marine biotope classification for Britain and Ireland. Vol. 1. Littoral biotopes. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, JNCC Report no. 229, Version 97.06., Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, JNCC Report No. 230, Version 97.06.
    4. Davidson, N.C., Laffoley, D., Doody, J.P., Way, L.S., Key, R., Drake, C.M., Pienkowski, M.W., Mitchell, M.R. & Duff, K.L., 1991. Nature Conservation and Estuaries in Great Britain. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.
    5. Davies, C.E. & Moss, D., 1998. European Union Nature Information System (EUNIS) Habitat Classification. Report to European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, Cambridgeshire. [Final draft with further revisions to marine habitats.], Brussels: European Environment Agency.
    6. Elliot, M., Nedwell, S., Jones, N.V., Read, S.J., Cutts, N.D. & Hemingway, K.L., 1998. Intertidal sand and mudflats & subtidal mobile sandbanks (Vol. II). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity for conservation management of marine SACs. Prepared by the Scottish Association for Marine Science for the UK Marine SACs Project.
    7. Fish, J.D. & Fish, S., 1996. A student's guide to the seashore. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    8. Fish, J.D. & Preece, G.S., 1970. The annual reproductive patterns of Bathyporeia pilosa and Bathyporeia pelagica (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 475-488.
    9. Fish, S., 1970. The biology of Eurydice pulchra (Crustacea: Isopoda). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 753-768.
    10. Hayward, P.J. 1994. Animals of sandy shores. Slough, England: The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd. [Naturalists' Handbook 21.]
    11. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 1999. Marine Environment Resource Mapping And Information Database (MERMAID): Marine Nature Conservation Review Survey Database. [on-line] http://www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid,
    12. Jones, D.A., 1970. Population densities and breeding in Eurydice pulchra and Eurydice affinis in Britain. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 635-655.
    13. McLachlan, A., 1983. Sandy beach ecology - a review. In Sandy beaches as ecosystems (ed. A. McLachlan & T. Erasmus), pp.321-381. The Hague: Dr W. Junk Publishers.
    14. Peterson, C.H., 1991. Intertidal zonation of marine invertebrates in sand and mud. American Scientist, 79, 236-249.
    15. Scott, A., 1960. The fauna of the sandy beach, Village Bay, St. Kilda. A dynamical relationship. Oikos, 11, 153-160.
    16. UK Biodiversity Group, 1999. UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans - vol. V: maritime species and habitats. Peterborough: English Nature.

    Citation

    This review can be cited as:

    Budd, G.C. 2004. Barren littoral coarse sand. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/16

    Last Updated: 10/11/2004