spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online June 15, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 2420-2431 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02258
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Denny, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Harley, C. D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Denny, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Harley, C. D. G.

Thermal stress on intertidal limpets: long-term hindcasts and lethal limits

Mark W. Denny1,*, Luke P. Miller1 and Christopher D. G. Harley1,2

1 Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, USA
2 Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada


Figure 1
View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. (A) A schematic depiction of a planar substratum showing its altitude ({theta}) and azimuth ({varphi}) angles. N, north. (B) For a limpet on a vertical planar substratum, lines of sight (depicted by the broken arrow) within arc S end at the sky, whereas lines of sight within arc O end at the ocean (which in this hypothetical case extends to infinity in a horizontal plane). Because arc S and arc O each account for half the `visual field' of the limpet, each has a view factor of 0.5. The fraction of the view factor allocated to sky and ocean depends on the altitude angle of the substratum (see text, Eqn 1 and 2).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Measured survivorship of L. gigantea as a function of temperature. The curve is drawn according to Eqn 4. Error bars are 95% confidence limits.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (30K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Five years of predicted body temperatures (A,B) and measured air (C) and sea-surface (D) temperatures. (A) A horizontal surface 1.5 m above mean lower low water (MLLW), protected from waves. Note that the temperature spike near day 1400 is actually two spikes on sequential days. (B) A wave-exposed horizontal surface 0.5 m above MLLW.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Maximum body temperature as a function of shoreline elevation and substratum orientation on (A) wave-exposed and (B) wave-protected shores. MLLW, mean lower low water.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. The predicted fraction of limpets surviving the acute maximum temperatures shown in Fig. 4 for (A) wave-exposed and (B) wave-protected shores. Survivorship is low on horizontal and west-facing angled surfaces, but high elsewhere. MLLW, mean lower low water.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Exposure to waves reduces the time spent out of water for shoreline elevations between 0 and +3 m. The difference in emersion fraction (closed circles) is greatest at +1.25 m, whereas the difference in maximum temperatures (open circles, horizontal surfaces; open squares, angled, west-facing surfaces) is greatest lower on the shore. MLLW, mean lower low water.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Five-year cumulative survivorship as a function of shoreline elevation and substratum orientation on (A) wave-exposed and (B) wave-protected shores. MLLW, mean lower low water.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Environmental characteristics of the three potentially lethal days (A+B, C+D, E+F) in the 5-year time series. Tb, body temperature; Ta, air temperature; To, ocean temperature.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (38K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9. (A) Daily maximal air temperature (Ta) accurately predicts daily maximal body temperatures (Tb), including the three potentially lethal body temperatures (circled). (B) Daily maximal solar irradiance also predicts maximal body temperature, but with less accuracy.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 10. Low in the intertidal zone (+0.5 m; A,B), maximal body temperature is typically reached at the end of a heating interval (Type A). Higher in the intertidal zone (+1.5 m; C,D), maximal body temperature may occur at the end of a heating interval, but occurs commonly near the middle of the interval (Type G). Potentially lethal temperatures are circled.

 

Figure 11
View larger version (30K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 11. Maximal body temperature increases with the length of time a limpet is exposed to temperatures above 20°C. (A) High in the intertidal zone (+1.5 m). (B) Low in the intertidal zone (+0.5 m).

 





© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2006