LARGE-SCALE PATTERNS OF SHELL VARIATION IN LITTORINA-STRIATA, A PLANKTONIC DEVELOPING PERIWINKLE FROM MACARONESIA (MOLLUSCA, PROSOBRANCHIA)

Citation
H. Dewolf et al., LARGE-SCALE PATTERNS OF SHELL VARIATION IN LITTORINA-STRIATA, A PLANKTONIC DEVELOPING PERIWINKLE FROM MACARONESIA (MOLLUSCA, PROSOBRANCHIA), Marine Biology, 131(2), 1998, pp. 309-317
Citations number
49
Categorie Soggetti
Marine & Freshwater Biology
Journal title
ISSN journal
00253162
Volume
131
Issue
2
Year of publication
1998
Pages
309 - 317
Database
ISI
SICI code
0025-3162(1998)131:2<309:LPOSVI>2.0.ZU;2-A
Abstract
Littorina striata King and Broderip, 1832 is a strictly Macaronesian, intertidal periwinkle with planktonic development. The species display s a high degree of shell variation involving size and sculpture (nodul ose vs smooth shells). The present work provides a preliminary account of some aspects of this shell variation on wave-exposed shores over t he entire geographical range of the species. Based on morphological pa tterns observed among other prosobranchs it was predicted that souther n specimens of L. littorina should on the average be larger, heavier, more nodulose, and should show more shell repair marks, than northern specimens. These expectations were confirmed for shell size and weight . In contrast, there was no consistent pattern in nodulosity between a rchipelagos, even though there were differences at much smaller scales . Shell repair marks were more prevalent in northern populations, but this trend was only due to a significant N-S difference among nodulose shells. This is surprising as nodulose shells displayed significantly fewer shell repair marks than smooth shells. These observations were tentatively interpreted as a function of presumed differential N-S pat terns of wave action and ambient temperatures. in this context, wave a ction in Macaronesia seems to increase in the south (contrary to what current theories predict). This atypical situation may confound the in terpretation of morphological patterns in L. striata so that firm conc lusions cannot be drawn without further experimental work at different spatial scales, Nevertheless, it seems that generalisations about mac rogeographic shell morphology patterns, based on interspecific compari sons, are not directly applicable to intraspecific patterns, and may s trongly depend on local conditions, which make adequate sampling and d ata treatment very difficult.