1978
DOI: 10.1016/0022-0981(78)90065-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors controlling the upper limits of fucoid algae on the shore

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

8
111
0
1

Year Published

1990
1990
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 193 publications
(120 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
8
111
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Holdfast and stipes are not subject to temporal changes and frond length does not show a clear seasonal pattern. Seemingly, other factors such as extreme desiccation (Schonbeck & Norton 1978, Druehl & Green 1982, Hawkins & Hartnoll 1985, Cheshire & Hallam 1988a or mechanical damage during low tide could cause losses in the distal parts of the thallus. Another alternative explanation comes from recent studies on infection by slime moulds.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Holdfast and stipes are not subject to temporal changes and frond length does not show a clear seasonal pattern. Seemingly, other factors such as extreme desiccation (Schonbeck & Norton 1978, Druehl & Green 1982, Hawkins & Hartnoll 1985, Cheshire & Hallam 1988a or mechanical damage during low tide could cause losses in the distal parts of the thallus. Another alternative explanation comes from recent studies on infection by slime moulds.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…spread around all over the F, nteromorpha-zone showing that Fucus spp. is able to withstand constant stress caused by abiotic factors (see also Schonbeck & Norton, 1978, but dominance of Bnteromorpha spp. restricts the distribution of fucoids.…”
Section: Competition For Spacementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dayton 1971Dayton , 1975Chapman 1973Chapman , 1974Paine 1974;Lubchenco 1980;Underwood 1991). Although factors that influenced the upper (Schonbeck and Norton 1978;Maberly and Madsen 1990;Norton 1991) or lower (Suchanek 1978;Schonbeck and Norton 1980) limit of species were surveyed, no integrating model had been developed, until Chapman (1995) suggested that the 'competitive hierarchy model' of Keddy (1989aKeddy ( , 1990 could serve as an explanation for the observed patterns. One prediction of Keddy's model is that all species along a resource or environmental gradient are arranged with the best competitor occupying the most benign end of the gradient, the second best competitor occupying the zone next to the top-dominant species and less competitively dominant species following towards the unfavourable end of the gradient.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%