Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper shore rock

18-01-2005
Researched byFrances Perry & Jacqueline Hill Refereed byAdmin
EUNIS CodeA1.121 EUNIS NameFucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper eulittoral rock

Summary

UK and Ireland classification

EUNIS 2008A1.121Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper eulittoral rock
EUNIS 2006A1.121Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper eulittoral rock
JNCC 2004LR.HLR.FR.FdisFucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper shore rock
1997 BiotopeLR.ELR.FR.FdisFucus distichus subsp. anceps and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper eulittoral rock

Description

Extremely exposed gently or steeply sloping upper shore bedrock may support a mixture of Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana, the latter often at the top of the zone. This biotope is rare and restricted to the far north and west coasts. This mixed band is generally found between the Verrucaria maura and Porphyra zone (LR.Ver.Por) above, and the Mytilus edulis and barnacle zone below (ELR.MytB). Although it may occur above a red algal zone (MLR.Mas), as recorded on Barra or above a Porphyra and sparse barnacle zone (LR.Ver.Por) as on St Kilda. (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

This biotope is rare and is only found on the coasts of the far north and west of Scotland including Shetland, Orkney, the Outer Hebrides and St. Kilda.

Depth range

Mid shore, Upper shore

Additional information

-

Listed By

Further information sources

Search on:

JNCC

Habitat review

Ecology

Ecological and functional relationships

  • In general exposed conditions favour the growth of barnacles, limpets and mussels rather than fucoid algae. However, the ELR.Fdis biotope includes seaweeds that are able to tolerate the extreme conditions of wave exposed rocky shores, primarily the physical stresses caused by wave action. The strong holdfast and short tufted structure of Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana allow these fucoids to survive on extremely exposed shores in the north and north-west. Other seaweeds able to tolerate the wave-wash are the red encrusting algae Hildenbrandia rubra and seasonally occurring Porphyra spp.
  • In Britain and Ireland, Fucus distichus has only been recorded attached to bedrock in the mid to upper eulittoral zone on exposed rocky shores in northern Scotland and Ireland. It is thought to be prevented from growing further south due to its poor tolerance of desiccation and inability to compete with plants growing further down the shore. However, on the east coast of North America, Fucus distichus is only found in rock pools and is incapable of growing on emergent rock surfaces in the mid to upper eulittoral. The isolated and dispersed occurrence of Fucus distichus together with a greater abundance on more northerly shores of the North Atlantic suggest that it may be a relic form surviving only in habitats which are unsuitable for the main fucoids found at these latitudes (Lewis, 1964). A critical factor in the distribution of Fucus distichus is probably day length. Short day lengths stimulate the onset of receptacle formation (Bird & McLachlan, 1976).
  • Grazing on rocky shores can exert significant controlling influences on the algal vegetation, particularly by patellid limpets and littorinid snails which are usually the most prominent grazers. There may also be effects caused by 'mesograzers' - amphipods such as Hyale prevostii and isopods, which are much smaller but can occur in high densities.
  • The surf-swept conditions under which both Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana occur are not always conducive to the formation of well-defined zones. Scattered plants or thick ankle-deep carpets can often lie somewhat randomly placed (Lewis, 1964).
  • The presence of a fucoid canopy inhibits the settlement of barnacles by blocking larval recruitment mainly by 'sweeping' the rock of colonizers. However, the canopy offers protection against desiccation which promotes the clumping of adults and the recruitment of young in several species of mobile animals. The number of limpets increases with maturing fucoid clumps.

Seasonal and longer term change

Rocky shore communities are often highly variable in time, due to the combined influences of physical disturbance, competition, grazing, predation and variation in recruitment. However, the communities on wave exposed shores tend to be less variable than on moderately exposed shores and are therefore more stable. The wave exposed conditions in this biotope seems to favour the development of a relatively stable covering of wave tolerant fucoids plus a patchy covering of barnacles and limpets. However, seasonal changes are apparent on rocky shores with seasonal variation in growth and recruitment. For example, Fucus distichus plants lose fronds in the autumn after reproducing and are then removed from the rock by wave action during their third winter.

Habitat structure and complexity

The ELR.Fdis biotope provides a variety of habitats and refugia for other species. Macroalgae increases the structural complexity of the habitat providing a variety of resources that are not available on bare rock. Algal fronds provide space for attachment of encrusting or sessile epifauna and epiphytic algae and give shelter from wave action, desiccation and heat for invertebrates. Empty barnacle shells can shelter small littorinids such as Littorina neglecta and Littorina saxatilis. If present mussels can increase habitat complexity and species diversity because the gaps between interconnected mussels form numerous interstices for a variety of organisms. The barnacles may be covered by Porphyra sp. on the upper shore although few other species can attach to them.

Productivity

Rocky shore communities are highly productive and are an important source of food and nutrients for members of neighbouring terrestrial and marine ecosystems (Hill et al., 1998). Macroalgae exude considerable amounts of dissolved organic carbon which are taken up readily by bacteria and may even be taken up directly by some larger invertebrates. Only about 10% of the primary production is directly cropped by herbivores (Raffaelli & Hawkins, 1996). Dissolved organic carbon, algal fragments and microbial film organisms are continually removed by the sea. This may enter the food chain of local, subtidal ecosystems, or be exported further offshore. Rocky shores make a contribution to the food of many marine species through the production of planktonic larvae and propagules which contribute to pelagic food chains.

Recruitment processes

Many rocky shore species, plant and animal, possess a planktonic stage: gamete, spore or larvae which float in the plankton before settling and metamorphosing into adult form. This strategy allows species to rapidly colonize new areas that become available such as in the gaps often created by storms. For these organisms it has long been evident that recruitment from the pelagic phase is important in governing the density of populations on the shore (Little & Kitching, 1996). Both the demographic structure of populations and the composition of assemblages may be profoundly affected by variation in recruitment rates.
  • Receptacles of Fucus distichus are initiated in December, they become ripe in April and gametes are released from April to August. The species produces gametes of both sexes within each conceptacle. When released, ova can survive and disperse for several days. Antherozoids can only live for several hours. Self-fertilization is thought to be high in the species and once a zygote is formed it can only be dispersed over limited distances (Rice et al., 1985).
  • Fucus spiralis is also hermaphroditic. Receptacles are initiated during late January to February, gametes discharged during July and August, and the receptacles shed by November, although exact timing of reproduction depends on location and the form of the plant.
  • Among sessile organisms, patterns fixed at settlement, though potentially altered by post settlement mortality, obviously cannot be influenced by dispersal of juveniles or adults. Some of the species that may be found living in the biotope, such as amphipods, do not have pelagic larvae, but instead have direct development of larvae producing their offspring as 'miniature adults'.

Time for community to reach maturity

The time for the biotope to reach maturity should be relatively rapid because recruitment of key species is good. For example, Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis have been observed to readily recruit to cleared areas (Ang, 1991) and have fast growth rates, so recovery rates are expected to be high. Fucus distichus has a lifespan of about 3 years. Colonization by other species found in the biotope, such as Littorina neglecta and Melarhaphe neritoides, is also likely to be quite rapid. Therefore, it seems likely that the biotope should reach maturity within a few years.

Additional information

-

Preferences & Distribution

Recorded distribution in Britain and Ireland

This biotope is rare and is only found on the coasts of the far north and west of Scotland including Shetland, Orkney, the Outer Hebrides and St. Kilda.

Habitat preferences

Depth Range Mid shore, Upper shore
Water clarity preferences
Limiting Nutrients Nitrogen (nitrates), Phosphorus (phosphates)
Salinity Full (30-40 psu)
Physiographic Open coast
Biological Zone Lower littoral fringe, Mid eulittoral, Upper eulittoral
Substratum Bedrock
Tidal Moderately Strong 1 to 3 knots (0.5-1.5 m/sec.), Very Weak (negligible), Weak < 1 knot (<0.5 m/sec.)
Wave Extremely exposed
Other preferences

Additional Information

Species composition

Species found especially in this biotope

  • None

Rare or scarce species associated with this biotope

-

Additional information

Sensitivity reviewHow is sensitivity assessed?

Sensitivity characteristics of the habitat and relevant characteristic species

Resilience and recovery rates of habitat

Hydrological Pressures

 ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 

Chemical Pressures

 ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 

Physical Pressures

 ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 

Biological Pressures

 ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 
Q: 
A: 
C: 

Importance review

Policy/Legislation

Habitats Directive Annex 1Reefs

Exploitation

It is unlikely that species in this biotope will be exploited. The biotope occurs on remote and dangerously wave exposed shores.

Additional information

-

Bibliography

  1. Lewis, J.R., 1968. Water movements and their role in rocky shore ecology. Sarsia, 34 (1), 13-36.
  2. Menge, B.A., 1976. Organization of the New England rocky intertidal community: role of predation, competition, and environmental heterogeneity. Ecological Monographs, 46 (4), 355-393.
  3. Sideman, E. & Mathieson, A., 1983a. Ecological and genecological distinctions of a high intertidal dwarf form of Fucus distichus (L.) Powell in New England. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 72 (2), 171-188.
  4. Sideman, E.J. & Mathieson, A.C., 1983b. The growth, reproductive phenology, and longevity of non-tide-pool Fucus distichus (L.) powell in New England. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 68 (2), 111-127.
  5. Ang, P., 1992a. Cost of reproduction in Fucus distichus. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Oldendorf, 89 (1), 25-35.
  6. Hawkins, S.J., Hartnoll, R.G., Kain, J.M. & Norton, T.A., 1992. Plant-animal interactions on hard substrata in the North-east Atlantic,  Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  7. Berndt, M.-L., Callow, J.A. & Brawley, S.H., 2002. Gamete concentrations and timing and success of fertilization in a rocky shore seaweed. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 226, 273-285.
  8. Bokn, T.L., Duarte, C.M., Pedersen, M.F., Marba, N., Moy, F.E., Barrón, C., Bjerkeng, B., Borum, J., Christie, H. & Engelbert, S., 2003. The response of experimental rocky shore communities to nutrient additions. Ecosystems, 6 (6), 577-594.
  9. Middelboe, M. & Jørgensen, N.O., 2006. Viral lysis of bacteria: an important source of dissolved amino acids and cell wall compounds. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 86 (03), 605-612.
  10. Schagerl, M. & Möstl, M., 2011. Drought stress, rain and recovery of the intertidal seaweed Fucus spiralis. Marine Biology, 158 (11), 2471-2479.
  11. Abou-Aisha, K.M., Kobbia, I., El Abyad, M., Shabana, E.F. & Schanz, F., 1995. Impact of phosphorus loadings on macro-algal communities in the Red Sea coast of Egypt. Water, air, and soil pollution, 83 (3-4), 285-297.
  12. Airoldi, L. & Hawkins, S.J., 2007. Negative effects of sediment deposition on grazing activity and survival of the limpet Patella vulgataMarine Ecology Progress Series, 332, 235-240.
  13. Ang, P. & De Wreede, R., 1992. Density-dependence in a population of Fucus distichus. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 90, 169-181.
  14. Ang, P.O., Jr., 1991. Natural dynamics of a Fucus distichus (Phaeophyta, Fucales) population: reproduction and recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 78, 71-85.
  15. Arévalo, R., Pinedo, S. & Ballesteros, E., 2007. Changes in the composition and structure of Mediterranean rocky-shore communities following a gradient of nutrient enrichment: descriptive study and test of proposed methods to assess water quality regarding macroalgae. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55 (1), 104-113.

  16. Archambault, P., Banwell, K. & Underwood, A., 2001. Temporal variation in the structure of intertidal assemblages following the removal of sewage. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 222, 51-62.
  17. Beer, S. & Kautsky, L., 1992. The recovery of net photosynthesis during rehydration of three Fucus species from the Swedish West Coast following exposure to air. Botanica Marina, 35 (6), 487-492.
  18. Bennell, S.J., 1981. Some observations on the littoral barnacle populations of North Wales. Marine Environmental Research, 5, 227-240.
  19. Berger, R., Bergström, L., Granéli, E. & Kautsky, L., 2004. How does eutrophication affect different life stages of Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic Sea? - a conceptual model. Hydrobiologia, 514 (1-3), 243-248.

  20. Berger, R., Henriksson, E., Kautsky, L. & Malm, T., 2003. Effects of filamentous algae and deposited matter on the survival of Fucus vesiculosus L. germlings in the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Ecology, 37 (1), 1-11.
  21. Bergström, L., Berger, R. & Kautsky, L., 2003. Negative direct effects of nutrient enrichment on the establishment of Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic Sea. European Journal of Phycology, 38 (1), 41-46.
  22. Bird, N.L. & McLachlan, J., 1976. Control of the formation of receptacles in Fucus distichus L. ssp. Distichus (Phaeophyceae: Fucales). Phycologia, 15, 79-84.
  23. Bird, N.L. & McLachlan, J., 1976. Control of the formation of receptacles in Fucus distichus L. ssp. Distichus (Phaeophyceae: Fucales). Phycologia, 15, 79-84.
  24. Bixler, H.J. & Porse, H., 2010. A decade of change in the seaweed hydrocolloids industry. Journal of Applied Phycology, 23 (3), 321-335.
  25. Blanchette, C.A., 1997. Size and survival of intertidal plants in response to wave action: a case study with Fucus gardneri. Ecology, 78 (5), 1563-1578.
  26. Bokn, T.L., Moy, F.E., Christie, H., Engelbert, S., Karez, R., Kersting, K., Kraufvelin, P., Lindblad, C., Marba, N. & Pedersen, M.F., 2002. Are rocky shore ecosystems affected by nutrient-enriched seawater? Some preliminary results from a mesocosm experiment. Sustainable Increase of Marine Harvesting: Fundamental Mechanisms and New Concepts: Springer, pp. 167-175.
  27. Brawley, S.H. & Johnson, L.E., 1991. Survival of fucoid embryos in the intertidal zone depends upon developmental stages and microhabitat. Journal of Phycology, 27 (2), 179-186.
  28. Brawley, S.H., Johnson, L.E., Pearson, G.A., Speransky, V., Li, R. & Serrão, E., 1999. Gamete release at low tide in fucoid algae: maladaptive or advantageous? American Zoologist, 39 (2), 218-229.
  29. Bricker, S.B., Clement, C.G., Pirhalla, D.E., Orlando, S.P. & Farrow, D.R., 1999. National estuarine eutrophication assessment: effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation's estuaries. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD, 71 pp.
  30. Bricker, S.B., Longstaff, B., Dennison, W., Jones, A., Boicourt, K., Wicks, C. & Woerner, J., 2008. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation's estuaries: a decade of change. Harmful Algae, 8 (1), 21-32.
  31. Brosnan, D.M. & Crumrine, L.L., 1994. Effects of human trampling on marine rocky shore communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 177, 79-97.
  32. Bryan, G.W. & Gibbs, P.E., 1983. Heavy metals from the Fal estuary, Cornwall: a study of long-term contamination by mining waste and its effects on estuarine organisms. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [Occasional Publication, no. 2.]
  33. Bunker, F., Maggs, C., Brodie, J. & Bunker, A., 2012. Seasearch Guide to Seaweeds of Britain and Ireland. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye.

  34. Chapman, A.R.O., 1990. Effects of grazing, canopy cover and substratum type on the abundances of common species of seaweeds inhabiting littoral fringe rock pools. Botanica Marina, 33, 319-326.
  35. Cole, S., Codling, I.D., Parr, W., Zabel, T., 1999. Guidelines for managing water quality impacts within UK European marine sites [On-line]. UK Marine SACs Project. [Cited 26/01/16]. Available from: http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/pdfs/water_quality.pdf

  36. Coles, J.W., 1958. Nematodes parasitic on sea weeds of the genera Ascophyllum and Fucus. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 37 (1), 145-155.
  37. Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. & Reker, J.B., 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland. Version 04.05. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification,
  38. 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.
  39. Davies, A.J., Johnson, M.P. & Maggs, C.A., 2007. Limpet grazing and loss of Ascophyllum nodosum canopies on decadal time scales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 339, 131-141.
  40. Denny, M., Gaylord, B., Helmuth, B. & Daniel, T., 1998. The menace of momentum: dynamic forces on flexible organisms. Limnology and Oceanography, 43 (5), 955-968.
  41. Devinny, J. & Volse, L., 1978. Effects of sediments on the development of Macrocystis pyrifera gametophytes. Marine Biology, 48 (4), 343-348.

  42. Dıez, I., Santolaria, A. & Gorostiaga, J., 2003. The relationship of environmental factors to the structure and distribution of subtidal seaweed vegetation of the western Basque coast (N Spain). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 56 (5), 1041-1054.

  43. Dıez, I., Santolaria, A. & Gorostiaga, J., 2003. The relationship of environmental factors to the structure and distribution of subtidal seaweed vegetation of the western Basque coast (N Spain). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 56 (5), 1041-1054.

  44. Ekaratne, S.U.K. & Crisp, D.J., 1984. Seasonal growth studies of intertidal gastropods from shell micro-growth band measurements, including a comparison with alternative methods. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 64, 183-210.
  45. Engel, C., Daguin, C. & Serrao, E., 2005. Genetic entities and mating system in hermaphroditic Fucus spiralis and its close dioecious relative Fucus vesiculosus (Fucaceae, Phaeophyceae). Molecular Ecology, 14 (7), 2033-2046.

  46. Eriksson, B.K. & Johansson, G., 2003. Sedimentation reduces recruitment success of Fucus vesiculosus (Phaeophyceae) in the Baltic Sea. European Journal of Phycology, 38 (3), 217-222.

  47. Fletcher, H. & Frid, C.L.J., 1996a. Impact and management of visitor pressure on rocky intertidal algal communities. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 6, 287-297.

  48. Fletcher, R.L., 1996. The occurrence of 'green tides' - a review. In Marine Benthic Vegetation. Recent changes and the Effects of Eutrophication (ed. W. Schramm & P.H. Nienhuis). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. [Ecological Studies, vol. 123].
  49. Garrity, S. & Levings, S., 1983. Homing to scars as a defense against predators in the pulmonate limpet Siphonaria gigas (Gastropoda). Marine Biology, 72 (3), 319-324.

  50. Gollety, C., Migne, A. & Davoult, D., 2008. Benthic metabolism on a sheltered rocky shore: Role of the canopy in the carbon budget. Journal of Phycology, 44 (5), 1146-1153.

  51. Hammann, M., Buchholz, B., Karez, R. & Weinberger, F., 2013. Direct and indirect effects of Gracilaria vermiculophylla on native Fucus vesiculosus. Aquatic Invasions, 8 (2), 121-132.

  52. Hariot, M.P., 1909. Sur la crissance des Fucus. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des seances de l'Academie des sciences Paris, 149, 352 - 354.
  53. Hartnoll, R.G. & Hawkins, S.J., 1985. Patchiness and fluctuations on moderately exposed rocky shores. Ophelia, 24, 53-63.
  54. Hawkins, S.J. & Hartnoll, R.G., 1985. Factors determining the upper limits of intertidal canopy-forming algae. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 20, 265-271.
  55. Hawkins, S.J. & Southward, A.J., 1992. The Torrey Canyon oil spill: recovery of rocky shore communities. In Restoring the Nations Marine Environment, (ed. G.W. Thorpe), Chapter 13, pp. 583-631. Maryland, USA: Maryland Sea Grant College.
  56. Hawkins, S.J., Proud, S.V., Spence, S.K. & Southward, A.J., 1994. From the individual to the community and beyond: water quality, stress indicators and key species in coastal systems. In Water quality and stress indicators in marine and freshwater ecosystems: linking levels of organisation (individuals, populations, communities) (ed. D.W. Sutcliffe), 35-62. Ambleside, UK: Freshwater Biological Association.
  57. Henry, B.E. & Van Alstyne, K.L., 2004. Effects of UV radiation on growth and phlorotannins in Fucus gardneri (Phaeophyceae) juveniles and embryos. Journal of Phycology, 40 (3), 527-533.
  58. Hill, S., Burrows, S.J. & Hawkins, S.J., 1998. Intertidal Reef Biotopes (Volume VI). An overview of dynamics and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine Special Areas of Conservation. Oban: Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project)., Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project).

  59. Hoare, R. & Hiscock, K., 1974. An ecological survey of the rocky coast adjacent to the effluent of a bromine extraction plant. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 2 (4), 329-348.

  60. Holt, T.J., Hartnoll, R.G. & Hawkins, S.J., 1997. The sensitivity and vulnerability to man-induced change of selected communities: intertidal brown algal shrubs, Zostera beds and Sabellaria spinulosa reefs. English Nature, Peterborough, English Nature Research Report No. 234.
  61. Hurd, C.L., 2000. Water motion, marine macroalgal physiology, and production. Journal of Phycology, 36 (3), 453-472.
  62. Hurd, C.L. & Dring, M., 1991. Desiccation and phosphate uptake by intertidal fucoid algae in relation to zonation. British Phycological Journal, 26 (4), 327-333.

  63. Husa, V., Kutti, T., Ervik, A., Sjøtun, K., Hansen, P.K. & Aure, J., 2014. Regional impact from fin-fish farming in an intensive production area (Hardangerfjord, Norway). Marine Biology Research, 10 (3), 241-252.
  64. Jenkins, S., Coleman, R., Della Santina, P., Hawkins, S., Burrows, M. & Hartnoll, R., 2005. Regional scale differences in the determinism of grazing effects in the rocky intertidal. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 287, 77-86.
  65. Johnson, W., Gigon, A., Gulmon, S. & Mooney, H., 1974. Comparative photosynthetic capacities of intertidal algae under exposed and submerged conditions. Ecology, 55: 450-453.

  66. Johnston, E.L. & Roberts, D.A., 2009. Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: a review and meta-analysis. Environmental Pollution, 157 (6), 1745-1752.

  67. Jonsson, P.R., Granhag, L., Moschella, P.S., Åberg, P., Hawkins, S.J. & Thompson, R.C., 2006. Interactions between wave action and grazing control the distribution of intertidal macroalgae. Ecology, 87 (5), 1169-1178.
  68. Josefson, A. & Widbom, B., 1988. Differential response of benthic macrofauna and meiofauna to hypoxia in the Gullmar Fjord basin. Marine Biology, 100 (1), 31-40.
  69. Kõuts, T., Sipelgas, L. & Raudsepp, U., 2006. High resolution operational monitoring of suspended matter distribution during harbour dredging.  EuroGOOS Conference Proceedings, pp. 108-115.

  70. Karez, R., Engelbert, S., Kraufvelin, P., Pedersen, M.F. & Sommer, U., 2004. Biomass response and changes in composition of ephemeral macroalgal assemblages along an experimental gradient of nutrient enrichment. Aquatic Botany, 78 (2), 103-117.

  71. Karsten, U., 2007. Research note: salinity tolerance of Arctic kelps from Spitsbergen. Phycological Research, 55 (4), 257-262.

  72. Kautsky, H., 1992. The impact of pulp-mill effluents on phytobenthic communities in the Baltic Sea. Ambio, 21, 308-313.
  73. Kautsky, N., 1981. On the trophic role of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) in a Baltic coastal ecosystem and the fate of the organic matter produced by the mussels. Kieler Meeresforschungen Sonderheft, 5, 454-461.
  74. Kautsky, N., Kautsky, H., Kautsky, U. & Waern, M., 1986. Decreased depth penetration of Fucus vesiculosus (L.) since the 1940s indicates eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 28, 1-8.
  75. Kinne, O. (ed.), 1970. Marine Ecology: A Comprehensive Treatise on Life in Oceans and Coastal Waters. Vol. 1 Environmental Factors Part 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
  76. Kinne, O. (ed.), 1972. Marine Ecology: A Comprehensive, Integrated Treatise on Life in Oceans and Coastal Waters,Vol.1, Environmental Factors, part 3. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  77. Kraufvelin, P., 2007. Responses to nutrient enrichment, wave action and disturbance in rocky shore communities. Aquatic Botany, 87 (4), 262-274.
  78. Kraufvelin, P., Moy, F.E., Christie, H. & Bokn, T.L., 2006. Nutrient addition to experimental rocky shore communities revisited: delayed responses, rapid recovery. Ecosystems, 9 (7), 1076-1093.
  79. Kraufvelin, P., Ruuskanen, A., Nappu, N. & Kiirikki, M., 2007. Winter colonisation and succession of filamentous algae and possible relationships to Fucus vesiculosus settlement in early summer. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 72, 665-674.
  80. Lüning, K., 1990. Seaweeds: their environment, biogeography, and ecophysiology: John Wiley & Sons.

  81. Ladah, L., Feddersen, F., Pearson, G. & Serrão, E., 2008. Egg release and settlement patterns of dioecious and hermaphroditic fucoid algae during the tidal cycle. Marine Biology, 155 (6), 583-591.
  82. Lewis, J., 1961. The Littoral Zone on Rocky Shores: A Biological or Physical Entity? Oikos12 (2), 280-301.
  83. Lewis, J.R., 1964. The Ecology of Rocky Shores. London: English Universities Press.
  84. Lewis, J.R., 1986. Latitudinal trends in reproduction, recruitment and population characteristics of some rocky littoral molluscs and cirripedes. Hydrobiologia, 142, 1-13.
  85. Lilley, S.A. & Schiel, D.R., 2006. Community effects following the deletion of a habitat-forming alga from rocky marine shores. Oecologia, 148 (4), 672-681.
  86. Little, C. & Kitching, J.A., 1996. The Biology of Rocky Shores. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  87. Little, C., Morritt, D. & Stirling, P., 1992. Changes in the shore fauna and flora of Lough Hyne. The Irish Naturalists' Journal, 87-95.
  88. Littler, M. & Murray, S., 1975. Impact of sewage on the distribution, abundance and community structure of rocky intertidal macro-organisms. Marine Biology, 30 (4), 277-291.

  89. Lubchenco, J., 1980. Algal zonation in the New England rocky intertidal community: an experimental analysis. Ecology, 61, 333-344.
  90. Madsen, T.V. & Maberly, S.C., 1990. A comparison of air and water as environments for photosynthesis by the intertidal alga Fucus spiralis (Phaeophyta). Journal of Phycology, 26 (1), 24-30.

  91. Malm, T., Kautsky, L. & Engkvist, R., 2001. Reproduction, recruitment and geographical distribution of Fucus serratus L. in the Baltic Sea. Botanica Marina, 44 (2), 101-108.
  92. Newey, S. & Seed, R., 1995. The effects of the Braer oil spill on rocky intertidal communities in south Shetland, Scotland. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 30, 274-280.
  93. Niemeck, R.A. & Mathieson, A.C., 1976. An ecological study of Fucus spiralis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 24, 33-48.
  94. Olsenz, J.L., 2011. Stress ecology in Fucus: abiotic, biotic and genetic interactions. Advances in Marine Biology, 59 (57), 37.

  95. Pearson, G.A. & Brawley, S.H., 1996. Reproductive ecology of Fucus distichus (Phaeophyceae): an intertidal alga with successful external fertilization. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Oldendorf, 143 (1), 211-223.
  96. Pearson, G.A. & Davison, I.R., 1994. Freezing stress and osmotic dehydration in Fucus distichus (Phaeophyta): evidence for physiological similarity. Journal of Phycology, 30, 257-267.
  97. Pearson, G.A., Lago‐Leston, A. & Mota, C., 2009. Frayed at the edges: selective pressure and adaptive response to abiotic stressors are mismatched in low diversity edge populations. Journal of Ecology, 97 (3), 450-462.

  98. Powell, H.T., 1957. Studies on the genus Fucus L. II. Distribution and ecology of Fucus distichus L. emend Powell in Britain and Ireland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 36, 663-693.
  99. Quadir, A., Harrison, P. & DeWreede, R., 1979. The effects of emergence and submergence on the photosynthesis and respiration of marine macrophytes. Phycologia, 18 (1), 83-88.
  100. Raffaelli, D. & Hawkins, S., 1999. Intertidal Ecology 2nd edn.. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  101. Rice, E.L. & Chapman, A.R.O., 1985. A numerical taxonomic study of Fucus distichus (Phaeophyta). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 65, 433-459.
  102. Rice, E.L., Kenchington, T.J. & Chapman, A.R.O., 1985. Intraspecific geographic-morphological variation patterns in Fucus distichus and F. evanescens. Marine Biology, 88, 207-215.
  103. Rohde, S., Hiebenthal, C., Wahl, M., Karez, R. & Bischof, K., 2008. Decreased depth distribution of Fucus vesiculosus (Phaeophyceae) in the Western Baltic: effects of light deficiency and epibionts on growth and photosynthesis. European Journal of Phycology, 43 (2), 143-150.

  104. Roleda, M.Y., Wiencke, C., Hanelt, D. & Bischof, K., 2007. Sensitivity of the early life stages of macroalgae from the Northern Hemisphere to ultraviolet radiation. Photochemistry and photobiology, 83(4), 851-862.

  105. Schiel, D.R., Wood, S.A., Dunmore, R.A. & Taylor, D.I., 2006. Sediment on rocky intertidal reefs: effects on early post-settlement stages of habitat-forming seaweeds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 331 (2), 158-172.
  106. Schonbeck, M.W. & Norton, T.A., 1979. An investigation of drought avoidance in intertidal fucoid algae. Botanica Marina, 22, 133-144.
  107. Scott, G., Hull, S., Hornby, S., Hardy, F.G. & Owens, N., 2001. Phenotypic variation in Fucus spiralis (Phaeophyceae): morphology, chemical phenotype and their relationship to the environment. European Journal of Phycology, 36 (1), 43-50.

  108. Serrão, E.A., Kautsky, L. & Brawley, S.H., 1996a. Distributional success of the marine seaweed Fucus vesiculosus L. in the brackish Baltic Sea correlates with osmotic capabilities of Baltic gametes. Oecologia, 107 (1), 1-12.
  109. Smith, J.E. (ed.), 1968. 'Torrey Canyon'. Pollution and marine life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  110. Southward, A.J., Hawkins, S.J. & Burrows, M.T., 1995. Seventy years observations of changes in distribution and abundance of zooplankton and intertidal organisms in the western English Channel in relation to rising sea temperature. Journal of Thermal Biology, 20, 127-155.
  111. Staehr, P.A., Pedersen, M.F., Thomsen, M.S., Wernberg, T. & Krause-Jensen, D., 2000. Invasion of Sargassum muticum in Limfjorden (Denmark) and its possible impact on the indigenous macroalgal community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 207, 79-88.
  112. Stagnol, D., Renaud, M. & Davoult, D., 2013. Effects of commercial harvesting of intertidal macroalgae on ecosystem biodiversity and functioning. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 130, 99-110.
  113. Stephenson, T.A. & Stephenson, A., 1972. Life between tidemarks on rocky shores. Journal of Animal Ecology, 43 (2), 606-608.

  114. Subrahmanyan, R., 1961. Ecological studies on the Fucales. II. Fucus spiralis L. . Journal of the Indian Botanical Society, 40, 335-354.

  115. Thompson, G.A. & Schiel, D.R., 2012. Resistance and facilitation by native algal communities in the invasion success of Undaria pinnatifida. Marine Ecology, Progress Series, 468, 95-105.
  116. Torchin, M., Lafferty, K. & Kuris, A., 2002. Parasites and marine invasions. Parasitology, 124 (07), 137-151.
  117. Tyler-Walters, H., 2005. Laminaria hyperborea with dense foliose red seaweeds on exposed infralittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]: Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 2015(20/05/2015). http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsbasicinfo.php?habitatid=171&code=1997

Citation

This review can be cited as:

Perry, F. & Hill, J.M., 2015. Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper shore rock. 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/234

Last Updated: 13/10/2015