An investigation into biological zonation, interactions and biodiversity on rocky shores

1. Introduction:
A rocky shore is an intertidal region of a coastline consisting mainly of solid, weathered rock.
‘Depending on local geology they can range from steep, overhanging cliffs to wide, gently
shelving platforms, from smooth uniform slopes to highly irregular masses or even extensive
boulder beaches’ (Lewis, 1977). Rocky shores are very much a boundary zone between the
terrestrial and marine environments and therefore exhibit sharp environmental gradients.
Rocky shores, like all shores, are characterised as an ecotone, which is a transitional zone
between two different types of habitats, displaying characteristics of both. A number of
environmental parameters and biological interactions determines the zonation and
distribution of intertidal species and communities. Biological zonation is the distribution of
flora and fauna into specific and distinct zones according to species composition and
environmental parameters. Zonation in particular is extremely prominent on both sheltered
and exposed rocky shores.
Most rocky shores include zonation patterns determined by the length of time an area is
immersed or exposed by the tide, and is also known as the vertical immersion-emersion
gradient from land to sea. Species in the eulittoral are ordered along this gradient according
to their differing abilities to cope with physical factors and the variation in the response to
biological factors. The immersion time decreases as one progresses up the shore, and
similarly, the emersion time increases as one progresses up the shore. This influence results
in the occurrence of different communities of organisms in distinct bands on the littoral. The
majority of shore organisms are marine and they respond to an environmental gradient of
increasingly harsh physical conditions from low water to the limit of the seas influence. The
upper region of the littoral (intertidal) zone is primarily a highly variable semi-terrestrial
environment and is characterised by longer periods of emersion. Marine organisms on the
upper shore are exposed to more variable and extreme air temperatures and large changes
in salinity (very apparent in rock pools). Organisms are variously adapted to deal with
emersion stresses and their distribution is determined by stresses such as desiccation and a
decrease in time available for respiration and feeding (because of water being absent for up
to ~12hours). Generally, organisms on the upper shore tend to be slower growing and
exhibit adaptations to cope with environmental stresses, e.g. Pelvitia canaliculta &
Chthamalus spp. Few littoral organisms of terrestrial origin exist in the supralittoral such as
lichens and arthropod insects. These organisms can partly tolerate exposure to the marine
environment and are restricted to the upper shore. Progressing towards the lower shore
shows a drastic change in the community composition with competition for space increasing
leading to faster growing species, such as F. serratus, becoming dominant. Higher shore
algal species can survive lower down on the shore but are majorly out-competed by faster
growing algal species. Along the vertical immersion-emersion gradient, upper shore
distributions tend to be regulated by physical stress factors, while lower shore distributions
tend to be regulated by biological interactions.
Zonation on rocky shores is also affected by the increased effects of wave action on the
shore. The degree of exposure experienced on the shore is a major influence on the
biological communities living on the shore. There are biological benefits and restraints to
exposure. Organisms on rocky exposed shores encounter problems in adhering and avoiding
dislodgement and impairment of foraging abilities. However, there are benefits to exposure
such as more highshore wetting, more food for suspension feeders, a greater oxygen and
nutrient supply and a greater larval supply which may increase the abundance of different
species. On the other hand, organisms on sheltered shores experience greater siltation,
restricted supply of oxygen and nutrients and larval recruitment may be a problem.
Sheltered rocky shores are dominated by large fucoid algae, such as Ascophyllum, from the
mid – low shore. Higher shore species such as Pelvitia and Fucus spiralis inhabit higher
regions because of their adaptation to withstand longer exposure periods and desiccation.
These large fucoids do not inhabit exposed shores as they would be too easily damaged or
broken. Instead, extreme exposed shores are often dominated by barnacles and mussels in
the eulittoral zone. Stunted growth forms of fucoids inhabit the mid – low shore due to the
high wave action. William Ballantine devised a simple scale to gauge the level of exposure of
any shore based on the abundance and levels of growth of certain species, for the reason
that species are adapted to exist in different levels of exposure. This scale can be used to
categorise the type and exposure of a rocky shore in terms of species composition (see 6.
Appendix I, Figure 6.3). The scale is slightly circular: a shore is exposed because it has a
certain community pattern and it has this pattern because it is exposed (Ballantine, 1961).
Species inhabiting the intertidal/eulittoral zone are often adapted to living in both marine
and terrestrial conditions. Biodiversity generally decreases with increased distance from the
sea and it is directly related to the vertical immersion-emersion gradient of exposure.
The shoreline selected for carrying out the sampling investigation was the Flaggy Shore,
Finavarra in north Co. Clare. The Flaggy Shore is located in the south-west of Galway Bay at
coordinates 53.1583˚N, 9.0909˚W. The Flaggy Shore is one of the most northerly reaches of
Co. Clare and is part of the vast limestone landscape of the region known as the Burren.
Evidence of ancient glaciation exist on the shore such as glacial striations and moraines. The
shore is an example of a semi-exposed shore being exposed to some degree to the large
fetch of the Atlantic Ocean. It is protected to some degree by being located within Galway
Bay and being periodically in the shadow of Black Head a few miles due west. Semi-exposed
shores tend to be patchy and highly variable exhibiting communities from both sheltered
and exposed shores. The various biological interactions are delicately poised and
fluctuations in physical conditions and recruitment can push the community one way or the
other.
Aims:
 To construct a shore profile of the Flaggy Shore, a semi-exposed shore, and to
examine its morphology.
 To characterise the shores exposure according to Ballantine’s species composition
exposure scale.
  To analyse the abundance and distribution of algal and gastropod communities on
the shore and to examine their zonation in relation to environmental stresses and
biological interactions.
 To interpret and the contrast the upper and lower shore in terms of various
biodiversity indices and species composition.
 To investigate and interpret the relationship between vertical zonation, exposure
and species composition of the shore.

2. Methodology:
Refer to handout ‘3rd Yr. Rocky Shore Field Trip, Autumn 2017’. Also refer to brief
methodology and conditions contained in Section i & ii) of 6. Appendix I below.

3. Results:
i) Shore Profile:

Fig 3.1. Constructed Shore Profile of Flaggy Shore, Finavarra E transect. November 2017.

The shore profile in Figure 3.1 shows the longitudinal visualisation of the shore morphology
of the Flaggy Shore down to 0.4m above LW (see 6. Appendix I, figure 6.4 for shore
measurements). On the day of the sampling survey (9th Nov), the low water of the spring
tide was scheduled to fall to 1.1m above CD at 14:42pm. This was an unusually weak spring
tide for reasons unknown. Sampling ceased 1.5m above CD, 0.4m above LW. This level was
estimated to be above 1m above the MLWS. The highest measurement of the shore
sampling was 5.4m above CD and was calculated to be 0.4m above MHWS. The slope of the
shore dropped very steeply at first up to the start of Zone 4, at 4.2m above CD, where is
levelled off and the slope became more gentle. The first three zones were the narrowest
because of the steeper slope. Discontinuities existed in this upper region in the form of
dead, decaying seaweed lying in disturbed piles on the extreme upper shore, around the
MHWS mark. This extensive belt of decaying organic matter indicated a large disturbance
such as a storm event in the recent past. The shore slope followed a uniform, gradual slope
up until Zone 7, 3m above CD. In Zone 7 the slope actually began to gradually rise by about
0.2m before falling away sharply in the form of a sheer terrace. Sediments and rock pools
 remained in the depression where the ground began to rise. From Zone 8 (3.1m above CD)
the shore slope gradually fell to 1.5m above chart datum where the measurements ceased.
Various discontinuities in the form of algal belts existed along the entire vertical length of
the shore. In Zone 5 there was a region on the shore where there was an absence of algal
cover, being replaced with a bare chaos of elaborately weathered boulders for roughly 10m.
Gastropod species such as P. vulgata and L. littorea where very prominent in this belt where
they were not obscured by the limb algae and grazed on the biofilm on the boulders. Algal
cover became extremely dense and dominated the lower region of the shore, right up to the
LW mark (please refer to 6. Appendix I, Figure 6.1 for vertical profile of the shore).

ii) Algal cover and community:

Height above
Pelvitia canaliculta Fucus spiralis Fucus vesiculosus Ascophylum nodosum Fucus serratus Laminaria digitata
CD (m) [mid
Zone zone height] MHWS
1 4.8
2 4.4
3 4 MHWN
4 3.6
5 3.2
6 3.05
MSL
7 2.9
8 2.5
9 2.1
10 1.7 MLWN

11 1.5

MLWS

Fig 3.2. Kite Diagram showing zonation and abundance (% cover) of Phaeophyceae species down the
shore terminating at 0.4m above LW & 1.5m above CD. Also legend for % cover.

Figure 3.2 shows a visual representation of the distribution and zonation of brown algae
species along the shore (refer to 6. Appendix I, fig 6.1). Environmental stresses and
biological interactions determine this zonation and the variability of algal communities along
the vertical profile of the shore. P.canaliculta and F.spiralis was dominant on the higher
shore, near the littoral fringe, with larger fucoids becoming increasingly dominant further
down towards the sublittoral.
 iii) Gastropod abundance and distribution:

Fig 3.3. Distribution and abundance of P. vulgata Fig 3.4. Distribution and abundance of L. obtusata

Fig 3.5. Distribution and abundance of L. littorea Fig 3.6. Distribution and abundance of M. neritoides

Fig. 3.7. Distribution and abundance of L. saxatalis

The above figures (Fig 3.3 – 3.7) show the abundance and distribution of 5 gastropod
species individually along the vertical length of the shore. P. vulgata was most abundant in
Zone 9, roughly 2.1m above CD and exhibited a mean density of 28.7 ± 25.32 individuals per
m2 in that zone. Likewise, L. obtusata was most abundant in Zone 9 roughly 2.1m above Cd,
but it was also similarly abundant in Zone 8, 2.5m above CD. The gastropod exhibited a
mean density of 6.3 ± 3.51 individuals per m2 in Zone 9. L. littorea was most abundant in
Zone 7, roughly 2.9m above CD and exhibited a mean density of 28.0 ± 19.97 individuals per
m2 in Zone 7. M. neritoides was exceedingly abundant in Zone 5, 3.2m above CD and
exhibited a mean density of 38.3 ± 31.56 individuals per m2. L. saxatalis was most abundant
in Zone 7, roughly 2.9m above CD and exhibited a mean density of 13.7 ± 11.68 individuals
per m2. P. vulgata, L. littorea and M. neritoides exhibited the highest abundance throughout
the shore. M. neritoides was observed slightly higher on the shore in the Pelvitia belt,
perhaps because of its greater resistance to longer emersion periods and perhaps because
of its preference for grazing on Pelvitia. It also could have been forced further up the shore
because of competitive interactions with larger gastropods. The remaining four gastropod
species occurred slightly lower on the shore where emersion times were less and where a
high quantity of algae were available for grazing. The standard deviation for all mean
densities was noticeably of a high magnitude because of the high variability of gastropod
distribution and the fact that populations were clumped according to habitat and food
preference.
 iv) Biodiversity:

Taxa Number
Gastropoda
Patella vulgata 75
Littorina obtusata 21
Littorina neritoides 12
Littorina saxitalis 4
Monodonta lineata 179
Gibbula umbilicalis 4
Bivalvia
Amphipoda
Gammarus sp 213
Sea slater 4
Crusatcea
Carcinus maenas 2
Sample total (N) 514
Table 3.1. List of taxa and corresponding abundances
found the upper shore of Flaggy Shore.

Upper Lower
Shore Shore
Sample Total (N) 514 1098
No. of species 9 33
No. of individulas 514 1098
Diversity (H´) 1.3579 2.094
Evenness (J) 0.4284 0.4151
Species Richness (SR) 1.2824 4.5706
Table 3.3. Biodiversity indices for upper and
lower shore of Flaggy Shore.

From examining tables 3.1 & 3.2, it was clear that there were a
higher number of species observed in the lower shore compared
with the upper shore. This indicated a higher biodiversity in the
lower shore. There was a total of 1098 individuals observed in
the lower shore, starkly contrasting to 514 observed individuals
in the upper shore. The Simpsons Diversity Index (H’) was
calculated to 1.3579 on the upper shore and 2.094 on the lower
shore. A higher biodiversity index figure indicates a higher
biodiversity. This index suggests that there was a higher
biodiversity on the lower shore. Both the upper and lower shores
show a similar Pielou’s species evenness figure at 0.4284 and
0.4151 respectively. This index indicated that no one species
dominated numerically. The upper shore had a Margalefs species
richness index of 1.2824 in comparison to the lower shore of
4.5706. Both regions of the shore did not have a low enough
evenness value to indicate that only one species dominated. Table. 3.2. List of taxa and corresponding
However, the lower shore had a higher richness value which abundances found on the lower shore of Flaggy
indicates a higher number of species diversity with little Shore.
dominance.
 Fig 3.8. Effect of increasing sample size on the Simpsons
Diversity Index (H’), Flaggy Shore.

The Simpsons Diversity Index was calculated to be 1.3579 on the upper shore and 2.094 on the lower shore. This indicates a
higher biodiversity on the upper shore. Fig. 3.8 shows the effects of sample size on the biodiversity index for the upper and
lower shore. A sample size of roughly 27 was required to give an accurate biodiversity index estimate on the lower shore. A
smaller sample size of 15 was estimated to give an accurate biodiversity for the upper shore. The graph is still rising
however indicating that more samples are needed to give a truly accurate estimate. The CPUE was similar for both areas for
the first 10 samples, with the upper shore continuing to increase up to 27 samples.

Fig 3.9. Effect of increasing sample size on

Pielou’s evenness index (J), Flaggy Shore.

The upper and lower shore received an evenness index of 0.4284 and 0.4151 respectively. These value were quite similar
and indicated that no one species dominated the habitat and resources in each of the readings (does not include brown
algae however). The evenness gradually increased with sample size for the upper shore, in contrast to the lower with
exhibited fluctuations with increased sample size, before levelling off at 21 samples – an appropriate sample size to give
an accurate evenness index.

Fig 3.10. Effect of increasing sample size on

Margalef’s species richness index (SR), Flaggy Shore.

The species richness for the lower shore (4.5706) was considerably higher than the species richness for the upper shore
(1.2824). A total of 33 species were observed on the lower shore with only 9 species being observed on the upper shore.
This signified a larger diversity and number of species existing lower down the shore towards low water. The reasons for
this included longer emersion times on the upper shore, hasher environmental conditions and ecological stresses leading
to only adapted and resilient species living there. A sample size of 12 was required to give an accurate species richness
on the upper shore. To give an accurate and representative species richness value for the lower shore, an appropriate
sample size of 30 was required.

Note: Brown algae species were not included in counts and identification for the biodiversity indices.
4. Discussion & Conclusion:
Biologically, the intertidal zone is dominated by marine organisms. These organisms,
especially those residing on the high shore, must be resistant to extreme physical
conditions. Because marine organisms tolerate aerial exposure to varying degrees, species
progressively replace each other along the marine –terrestrial gradient, or vertical
immersion-emersion gradient. This results in vertical zonation where each species is
typically most abundant within a particular zone where conditions favour its survival. Above
and below this optimal zone abundance declines, either as the physical environment
becomes less suitable, or because the species interacts less favourably with other species.
Zoned distributions are primarily created by the varying responses of marine organisms to
environmental stressors, which is linked to the tidal environment. At high tide, organisms
are subjected to a relatively uniform temperature, there is no risk of desiccation and oxygen
and food are readily available. At low tide, intertidal organisms are exposed to the full
rigours of the terrestrial environment.
Brown algae exhibit a distinct pattern of zonation according to the vertical immersion-
emersion gradient and biological stressors on North Atlantic coasts. High shore species such
as P. canaliculta show particular adaptations which enable them to survive longer periods
out of water, such as channelled waxy fronds and the ability to lose substantial amounts of
water with little ill effect. P. canaliculta can reside at any level on the shore but it is
restricted to higher regions due to its slow growth and the fact that it is quickly out-
competed for space by faster growing fucoids e.g F. vesiculosus. Such elaborate, faster-
growing species are unable to reside on the high shore because of the risk of desiccation.
This creates distinct zones to the distribution of algae on the shore. On exposed shores,
these large fucoids are replaced by M. edulis and barnacles as they have higher resilience to
high wave action. The mid-low shore is overwhelmingly dominated by large fucoids such as
A. nodosum and F. serratus, covering most of the available space and creating a dense
blanket over the substrate at low tide. This dense covering can affect the communities of
animals and other plants residing there. Algal cover creates cracks and obscure areas for
biota to live and hide and a suitable habitat for species vulnerable to desiccation to seek
shelter. Algal smothering can also affect other plant species in that it decreases the light
availability underneath. Typically, lower shore organisms are much faster growing than
upper shore organisms.
Algal sweeping is also a major factor regulating the distribution of other species. Sweeping is
an element of disturbance and affected organism often exhibit adaptations in order to cope
with such disturbance such as flattened bodies and secure methods of adhesion. Similarly,
large algae themselves are subject to disturbance in the form of wave action, sometimes to
a large degree. Most species are secured securely to the rock substrate via a secure holdfast
and have flexible stipes to reduce to reduce the effect of high wave action. As visually
represented in fig 3.2, there is a clear pattern of zonation in brown algae species as one
progresses down the shore. Distinct zones are populated and dominated by particular algal
species with species interaction being one of the major drivers of this zonation. F.
vesiculosus and A. nodosum inhabit the same region on the shore and both species are
unable to live in the high shore because of the threat of desiccation. Both species have the
ability to live further down the shore and, in fact, they do reside lower down in low
abundance. However, the fast and dominating growth of F. serratus on the low shore
prevents F. vesiculosus and A. nodosum from growing lower down. A. nodosum is often
observed with the red algae Polysiphonia, visible as a red convoluted mass emerging from
the stipe. L. digitata is exclusively found at the extreme low shore because of its very low
tolerance to any sustained period of emersion. The grazing of gastropods can also be a
major determinant of the distribution and abundance of brown algae species. P. vulgata is
known for grazing on algal sporlings and this grazing activity can also be a major factor
contributing to algal zonation.
The distribution and zonation of grazing gastropods is more determined by biological
interactions and less so by environmental gradients. These gastropods can survive sustained
desiccation periods and cope with extremes of temperature because of their calcium
carbonate shell. Snails such as L. littorea have a horny, calcareous operculum to avoid
desiccation. Small grazing gastropods such as M. neritoides are one of the most resistant
gastropods to heat stress and can exist well above the littoral fringe. P. vulgata reduces
water loss by returning to a homoscar where the shell neatly fits into the contours of the
rock forming an effective seal against desiccation during emersion periods. During the
course of the investigation, the abundance and distribution of 5 gastropod species: P.
vulgata, L. littorea, L. obtusata, M. neritoides and L. saxatalis. M. neritoides was the most
abundant gastropod living in the upper region of the shore among the cracks and Pelvitia
fronds themselves. Because their apparent abundance reduced lower down the shore, it
was hypothesised them their preferred habitat was further up the shore, 3-4m above CD. M.
neritoides has the ability to inhabit all regions of the shore including entering the fully
terrestrial environment to some degree. Reasons for this selective abundance could include
that its grazing preferences existed at that particular level on this particular shore. Another
reason for this could be predator related. It is possible that a particular predator of M.
neritoides is inhibited by prolonged tidal emersion. Consequently, for the prey species the
high shore, although possibly a suboptimal habitat, constitutes an effective spatial refuge in
which the survival may be greatly enhanced. This interaction is a major factor in the
preference of some species to reside on the upper shore.
The abundance for the remaining 4 grazing gastropods reached a peak in Zone’s 7-8, with
the abundance considerably decreasing towards the low water mark. Reasons for this
reduced abundance could have to do increased algal cover and the fact that the gastropods
became increasingly cryptic and hard to find and observe. At low tide, most of the
observable gastropods, especially P. vulgata, were observed as taking shelter in the crevices
between rocks and underneath the algae in order to shelter from extremes of the
environment. The communities and distribution of grazing gastropods was particularly
clumped. This clumped distribution indicated that the gastropods resided in individual
optimal feeding or breeding areas, avoiding those areas which were devoid of either. It was
also noticed that L. littorea specimens were increasingly large moving down the shore. This
suggested that specimens further down the shore were threatened by a particular stimulus
for longer because of the sustained immersion time and therefore where required to have a
larger, thicker shell. One possible stimulus that could cause this is predation or perhaps
wave action. The presence and distribution of grazing gastropod species is a major
contributing factor in the zonation of algae. Some algae inhabit further up the shore to
escape the attention of grazing gastropods, which are restricted to the upper shore by
threats of desiccation. Algal sweeping may also have a significant effect on the distribution
of gastropods. In exposed situations and when the algae are being swept by wave action,
gastropods and other organisms must have sufficient adhesion methods in order to remain
attached in an optimal position. Certain littorinids have evolved brooding strategies in their
reproduction to ensure that their newly hatched young emerge in a food rich environment.
A downfall of this is that there is increased competition leading to some mortality in young
and smaller littorinds.
The biodiversity of the lower shore is much greater than the biodiversity of the upper shore.
This has majorly to do with the ability of organisms to withstand longer emersion periods.
Organisms on the upper shore are variously adapted to cope with extremes of environment,
such as a hard exoskeleton to avoid desiccation. The distribution and communities of
organisms in the lower shore depends on physical stressors, but is influenced by biological
interactions by a greater degree. Diversity index readings differed greatly between the two
regions of the shore. The Shannon Weiner diversity index was considerably higher in the
lower shore. This indicates that the lower shore had a high variety of species present in high
abundance, in comparison to the upper shore. Pielou’s evenness was similar in both the
upper and lower shore communities and was also quite low in both communities. This
indicated that both regions of the shore were not dominated by one resource consuming
species. The species richness was significantly larger in the lower shore community, in
comparison to the upper shore. A high richness value indicates a diverse and large quantity
of species (see results part iv for species list and biodiversity indices interpretation). The
most abundant taxa in the upper shore was gastropoda, with Monodonta lineata occurring
in the highest abundance. The most abundant taxa in the lower shore was also gastropoda,
with Patella vulgata making up the majority of gastropod observations. There were also
high quantities of crustacean such as Carcinus maenas, and fish species such as blennies and
gobies.
In conclusion, rocky shores are extremely diverse and complex ecosystems with varying
physical and biological factors affecting the communities of organisms living there. Intertidal
communities are the most accessible marine habitats for humans to study which is why
there is a wide and intuitive understanding of the ecology, biological interactions and
determinants of zonation. Sadly, however, intertidal habitats are the most at risk of
anthropogenic impacts because of their close proximity to industrial coastal activities.
5. Bibliography:

Hawkins, S.J., Jones, H.D. (1992) Marine Field Course Guide: Rocky Shores. London: IMMEL
Publishing.

Lewis, J.R. (1977) Rocky Foreshores. In the coastline, Barnes, R.S.K, (ed.), Wiley, London

Coughlan, J. & Crowe, T. (2014) ‘A brief introduction to rocky shores and their biota’, Rocky Shore
Survey: The Institute of Biology of Ireland. Vol. 1, pp 1-9. Available at:
www.ibioli.net/education/Rocky_shores_-_background_notes_for_IBIOLI_trip-1.pdf [Accessed 20th
November 2017]

Basic Biology (2017) Rocky Shores. Available at:

https://basicbiology.net/environment/marine/rocky-shore/ [Accessed 24th November 2017]

Dinneen, P. (2017) Rocky Shore ecology and zonation [Lectures to BSc Applied Freshwater & Marine
Biology], EAE41780: Ecology of Aquatic Environments. Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology. 17th
October.

Ballantine, W.J. (1961) ‘A Biologically-Defined Exposure Scale for the Comparative Description of
Rocky Shores’, Zoology Dept., Queen Mary College, London. Vol.1, pp1-19. Available at:
https://www.tcd.ie/Zoology/assets/pdf/.../Ballantine%20exposure%20paper.pdf [Downloaded 23rd
November 2017]

Boeden, P.J.S., Seed, R (1985). An Introduction to Coastal Ecology. New York: Blackie & Son Limited.

Boeventura, D., Rѐ, P., Cancela da Fonseca, L., Hawkins, S.J. (2002) ‘Intertidal Rocky Shore
Communities of the Continental Portugese Coast: Analysis of Distribution Patterns’, marine ecology,
vol. 23. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0485.2002.02758.x/full
[Accessed 2nd December 2017]

6. Appendix I

i): Field Log: The survey and investigation of the Flaggy Shore, Finavarra was carried out on
the 9th of November 2017 between the hours of 10:00am & 15:00pm. Conditions on the day
were bright and sunny with temperatures ranging from 5°C - 11°C in the daytime. The time
of the year was winter so the light began to fade not long after the investigation was
complete. Visibility was very good with the expanse of the shoreline and the fa side of
Galway bay being clearly visible.
An intermediate strength tide was occurent on the day. Day high water was scheduled to
occur at 08:29am and was 4.7m above CD. Day low water (relevant to investigation)
occurred at 14:42pm and was 1.1m above CD. The MHWS, MHWN, MSL, MLWN & MLWS
were the same heights as Galway tide heights.
Various medium – low risk hazards were identified before starting the survey. There is
always a mild risk of inclement weather in the region. Waterproofs were advised as a
precautionary measure. There was also a hazard of slippery rocks & algae and jagged
uneven terrain presenting slipping and falling risks. Strong good grip footwear was
recommended with due care taken when walking. There was a low risk of high wave action
at the Flaggy Shore on the day because of the fine weather, but this aspect is always
unpredictable. Precautionary measures were taken including working facing the sea and
keeping vigilant.

ii) Using levelling equipment, a transect belt was constructed from the lower edge of the
most recent wrack line to just above the low water mark (0.4m above LW, 1.5m above CD).
This transect was split into zones defined by vertical drops of 0.4m, defining the lower limits
of the zones. Each subsequent stratum was set at 0.4m vertical drops. The transect width
was defined as 10m wide. The transect belt survey defined a series of zones across The
height and length of each zone was measured and recorded and subsequently used to
construct a shore profile. Obvious discontinuities were also recorded. Within each zone, the
% cover of brown algae species were recorded using 0.25m2 quadrats. The quadrat was
moved to allow a sample coverage of 1m2. These recordings were replicated 3 times in each
zone. The same procedure was carried out when recording the abundance of 5 grazing
gastropod species: P. vulgata, L. obtusata, L. littorea, M. neritoides & L. saxatalis. The
abundance of each species was recorded for 1m2 and replicated 3 times in each zone. The
biodiversity was sampled on the upper and lower shores using the CPUE method. The
species and abundance of each animal species encountered was sampled and recorded in
precise 5 minute intervals, for the upper and lower shore communities separately. These
communities would later be compared. A number of specimens were removed from the
shore because of problems with identification. They were put in labelled bags and brought
back to the lab for identification. The results were compiled and used to calculate
appropriate biodiversity indices. Analysis was undertaken for all the results and
subsequently used to construct appropriate tables, graphs and conclusions.
There were a few sources of error observed throughout the investigation. Firstly, problems
were observed when trying to identify brown algae and gastropod species despite the fact
that keys were used. To improve this aspect in the future, the practise of better
identification skills and general knowledge of the species morphology should be followed. A
problem with observing and recording the gastropod abundance was also observed after
the sampling took place. M. neritoides was is high abundance in the P. canaliculta zone.
However, upon closer inspection it was observed that these gastropods were extremely
cryptic, hiding in large numbers among the fronds of the Pelvitia and in obscure places
among the boulders. This observation led to the belief that a large proportion of the M.
neritoides were missed and not recorded which would have affected their abundance and
mean density estimates. In future investigations, closer examination of the Pelvitia zone
should be carried out if repeat abundance samplings of M. neritoides were being
investigated.
iii)
1.

Figure 6.1. Vertical profile of Flaggy Shore, Finavarra showing zonation and morphology.
 2.

Fig 6.2 (a): Labelled diagram of Carcinus maenas

(shore crab)

Fig 6.2 (b): Labelled diagram of Asterina gibbosa

(cushion star)

3.

Fig 6.3: Ballantines exposure scale for defining the exposure and communities inhabiting a rocky shore
(Ballantine, 1961)
 4.
Staff Staff Height
Height
reading reading (m) Height Height Distance Cumulative
(m)
Zone (m) (m) change (m) (m) (m) distance (m)
above
(Tripod (Tripod between above above between down shore
CD
I) II) station LW CD stations MHSW MHWN MSL MLWN MLWS
HW - 1.14 0.4 3.9 5.4 0 0 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
1 4.8 1.54 0.4 3.5 5.00 1.84 1.84 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
2 4.4 1.94 0.4 3.1 4.60 2.54 4.38 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
3 4 2.34 0.4 2.7 4.20 3.67 8.05 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
4 3.6 2.74 0.4 2.3 3.80 12.22 20.27 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
5 3.2 3.14 0.4 1.9 3.40 18.29 38.56 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
6 3.05 3.54 0.4 2 3.00 11.43 49.99 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
7 2.9 3.94 0.4 1.6 3.10 10.34 60.33 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
8 2.5 4.34 0.4 1.2 2.70 6.28 66.61 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
9 2.1 4.74 1.58 0.4 0.8 2.30 6.05 72.66 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
10 1.7 1.98 0.4 0.4 1.90 10.87 83.53 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6
11 1.5 2.38 0 0.4 1.50 4.7 88.23 5.1 3.9 2.9 2 0.6

Fig 6.4: Levelling measurements for construction of shore profile for Flaggy Shore, Finavarra,
9th November 2017.