Surveying macro algae and gastropods on a moderately sheltered rocky

shore
Introduction
A rocky shore is an intertidal area of the coastline where the bedrock is exposed. There are often small
rock pools present and they are a great habitat to survey due to their massive abundance of flora and
fauna in a reasonably confined space (Young People's Trust for the Environment, 2016). Rocky shores
can be either exposed of sheltered and are split into 3 zones, the upper shore, the mid shore and the
lower shore. Animals found on rocky shores include gastropods, crustaceans, echinoderms and small
fish trapped in tidal rock pools. The flora of a rocky shore is made up of macro algae.

Plants and animals present on the shore are likely to show distinct zonation according to their
preferred conditions. These conditions include sun exposure, time under the tide for the seaweeds
and the animals are grouped along with the species they graze on. Species such as Pelvetia
canaliculata can survive very well on the upper shore spending large amounts of time out of the water
because they retain a lot of water to stop them drying out (Seaweed.ie, 2016). This is the complete
opposite in species such as Laminaria digitata which have long flexible fronds that allow them to twist
and bent as the waves come in as they spend the majority of their life cycle submerged (Seaweed.ie,
2016).

The aims of the survey on the rocky shore at Finevarra was to compare and contrast the difference in
species and abundance at the upper and lower shores. The aim of the visit to black head was to
compare a sheltered shore to an exposed shore.

Methods
Upon arriving at the shore in Finevarra, Co. Clare we took a while to go over everything that needed
to be done and made sure everyone knew how to do it, and had the necessary equipment. We also
did a risk assessment. In the risk assessment we acknowledged thats rocks may be slippery due to
algae or possibly have jagged edges, and there may be a danger of wave action if there is a lack of
concentration. There were 3 transects sampled, east, mid and west. This report will be focused on
mainly the west transect.

Shore Profile

The first task that was done was the start of the shore profile. The tripod and level were set up approx.
30m down the shore from the high tide line. The staff was then sighted through the level and the
height was recorded. The staff was then moved down the shore until the height dropped by 0.4m.
Every drop of 0.4m was a stratum. Each strata was 20m wide, 10m each side of the transect line. This
kept going on until low tide when we started from the bottom up to get an accurate measure of low
tide.

Biodiversity estimation - CPUE

Catch per unit effort or CPUEs were started soon after the shore profile. This involves the group
separating in to groups of 2, one searcher and one recorder. The recorder would time 5 minutes for
the searcher to search for as many different species as possible and count the numbers out to the
recorder. The recorder would note all species and numbers and write up labels for samples of each
species taken by the searcher. This was done as many times as possible in the upper shore and then
when the shore profile was being done at low tide the lower shore was sampled as well.
Algal Abundance

Once 4 strata were laid out algal abundance was recorded. This was recorded by eye using a scale to
show the percentage cover of the shore.

Gastropod distribution & abundance

Gastropod abundance was started with the algal cover. This was done as a stratified random survey.
In each stratum 3 sets of coordinates were read off a random number sheet. A 0.25m 2 quadrat was
used and flipped to the side, downwards, then back to under where the first sample was taken to
make a 1m2 square. 5 species were recorded, Patella vulgata, Littorina saxatilis, Littorina littorea,
Littorina obtusata and Littorina mariae.

Upon arrival at Black head, Co. Clare the group gathered again and a risk assessment was done, wave
action was acknowledged as a serious hazard and a crustos likin on the surface of the rocks can be
extremely slippy when wet. Habitat characteristics such as stunted growth in seaweed and more
limpets and barnacles on the rocks instead of gastropods that graze on seaweed.

Results
Shore profile
Table 1: Shore profile data
Station Zone Staff Staff Height Height Height Mid Distance Cumulative Comments
reading reading (m) (m) (m) (m) zone between distance
(m) (Tripod II) change above above height stations down
(Tripod I) between low Chart (m) (m) shore (m)
stations water data above
(CD) CD
HW - 0.05 0.35 5.11 5.51 0.00 0.0 depositied algae
1 1 0.40 0.40 4.76 5.16 5.34 2.40 2.4 large Stoney
substrate
2 2 0.80 0.40 4.36 4.76 4.96 4.10 6.5 large stony
substrate
3 3 1.20 0.40 3.96 4.36 4.56 4.30 10.8 large stoney
substrate
4 4 1.60 0.40 3.56 3.96 4.16 8.50 19.3 fine sand mixed
w/large stones
5 5 2.00 0.41 3.16 3.56 3.76 7.30 26.6
6 6 2.41 1.03 0.42 2.75 3.15 3.36 7.10 33.7 bedrock erosion
7 7 1.45 0.45 2.33 2.73 2.94 7.20 40.9
8 8 1.9 0.56 1.88 2.28 2.51 14.00 54.9
9 9 2.46 0.08 1.32 1.72 2.00 7.78 62.7 Staff on bedrock
between
boulders/ rock
platform from 7-
8, 8 onwards is
all boulders
10 10 2.54 0.38 1.24 1.64 1.68 8.12 70.8
11 11 2.92 0.40 0.86 1.26 1.45 9.83 80.6 Start of
Laminaria
digitata
12 12 3.32 0.46 0.46 0.86 1.06 9.15 89.8
13 13 3.78 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.63 7.43 97.2
Low tide on the day of the survey, 19th October 2016, was at 13:50 and was 0.4m above C.D.
Fig. 1: Shore profile at Finevarra with tidal phases

Shore profile for Finevarra

6.00
Height(m) above C.D.

4.00

2.00

0.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Distance(m) downshore
Shore profile MHWS MHWN MSL MLWN MLWS

Biodiversity estimation CPUE

Table 2: Upper shore biodiversity results

Sample no.
of Sample sp.
size
sp. Diversity Evenness Richness
1 29 5 1.100 0.474 1.188
2 195 6 1.083 0.326 1.663
3 32 4 1.387 0.418 1.623
4 11 4 1.624 0.489 1.523
5 101 3 1.544 0.465 1.463
6 10 3 1.613 0.466 1.620
7 73 3 1.623 0.469 1.583
8 58 3 1.640 0.474 1.559
9 64 3 1.628 0.471 1.535
10 1 2 1.624 0.469 1.524
11 4 2 1.631 0.472 1.523
12 3 1 1.629 0.471 1.522
13 31 2 1.738 0.470 1.815
14 42 3 1.872 0.492 1.950
15 4 2 1.883 0.482 2.098
Fig. 2: Upper shore biodiversity results

Biodiversity- upper shore west transect

Diversity Evenness sp. Richness

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
cumulative sample size
Table 3: Lower shore biodiversity results from all 3 transects

Sample no. of sp.

Sample size sp. Diversity Evenness Richness
1 19 3 2.544 0.475 0.679
2 4 4 0.753 0.326 1.914
3 1 1 0.916 0.0481 2.203
4 0 0 1.43 0.481 2.203
5 10 4 1.585 0.458 2.836
6 11 5 1.757 0.45 3.678
7 5 5 2.001 0.48 4.346
8 4 1 1.899 0.455 4.262
9 1 1 1.995 0.46 4.492
10 0 0 1.995 0.46 4.492
Fig. 3: Lower shore biodiversity results

Biodiversity- Lower shore west transect

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
cumulative sample size

Algal abundance
Table 4: Macro algae abundance down the shore

Brown Algae 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Pelvittia canaculata NS NS NS R S C abs abs abs abs abs abs abs
Fucus spiralis NS NS NS abs abs F A A F R abs abs abs
Fucus vesiculosis NS NS NS abs R R A A O abs abs abs abs
ascophyllum nodosum NS NS NS abs abs abs A A S abs abs abs abs
Fucus serratus NS NS NS abs abs abs abs abs abs S S S C
Lamanaria digitata NS NS NS abs abs abs abs abs abs abs R C S
Fig. 4: macro algae Distribution down the shore

Algal Distribution
Pelvittia canaculata
6.00
Fucus spiralis

5.00 Fucus vesiculosis

Mid zone height above CD

ascophyllum nodosum
4.00 Fucus serratus

Lamanaria digitata
3.00
MHWS

2.00 MHWN

MSL
1.00
MLWN

MLWS
0.00

Gastropod distribution & abundance

Table 5: Patella vulgata Abundance and distribution down the shore

Mid zone height Patella vulgata (no. per 0.25m2)

Zone (m) above CD A B C Mean Std. Dev
1 5.34 - - - - -
2 4.96 - - - - -
3 4.56 - - - - -
4 4.16 - - - - -
5 3.96 1 0 0 0.33 0.58
6 3.36 18 52 27 32.33 17.62
7 2.94 29 38 2 23.00 18.73
8 2.72 39 10 17 22.00 15.13
9 2.00 60 44 50 51.33 8.08
10 1.68
11 1.45
12 1.06 28 27 13 22.67 8.39
13 0.63 2 1 2 1.67 0.58
Table 6: Littorina saxatalis abundance and distribution down the shore

Mid zone
height (m) Littorina saxatilis (no. per 0.25m2)
Zone above CD A B C Mean Std. Dev
1 5.34 - - - - -
2 4.96 - - - - -
3 4.56 - - - - -
4 4.16 - - - - -
5 3.96 1 4 6 3.67 2.52
6 3.36 0 6 2 2.67 3.06
7 2.94 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
8 2.72 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
9 2.00 0 1 0 0.33 0.58
10 1.68
11 1.45
12 1.06 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
13 0.63 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Table 7: Littorina littoreaabundance and distribution down the shore

Mid zone
height (m) Littorina littorea(no. per 0.25m2)
Zone above CD A B C Mean Std. Dev
1 5.34 - - - - -
2 4.96 - - - - -
3 4.56 - - - - -
4 4.16 - - - - -
5 3.96 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
6 3.36 26 49 30 35.00 12.29
7 2.94 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
8 2.72 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
9 2.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
10 1.68
11 1.45
12 1.06 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
13 0.63 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Table 8: Littorina obtusata abundance and distribution down the shore

Mid zone Littorina obtusata(no. per

height (m) 0.25m2)
Zone above CD A B C Mean Std. Dev
1 5.34 - - - - -
2 4.96 - - - - -
3 4.56 - - - - -
4 4.16 - - - 0 -
5 3.96 20 14 13 15.67 3.79
6 3.36 0 7 4 3.67 3.51
7 2.94 7 0 21 9.33 10.69
8 2.72 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
9 2.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
10 1.68
11 1.45
12 1.06 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
13 0.63 0 0 0 0 0.00
Table 9: Littorina mariae abundance and distribution down the shore

Mid zone Littorina mariae(no. per

height (m) 0.25m2)
Zone above CD A B C Mean Std. Dev
1 5.34 - - - - -
2 4.96 - - - - -
3 4.56 - - - - -
4 4.16 - - - - -
5 3.96 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
6 3.36 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
7 2.94 1 0 0 0.33 0.58
8 2.72 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
9 2.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
10 1.68
11 1.45
12 1.06 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
13 0.63 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Fig. 5: Gastropod abundance and distribution down the shore

Gastropod distribution & abundance

6.00

Patella vulgata
5.00
Littorina saxatilis
Littorina littorea
4.00
Littorina obtusata
Height (m) above CD

Littorina mariae
3.00
MHWS
MHWN
2.00
MSL
MLWN
1.00
MLWS

0.00
Discussion
Throughout the survey there were many things that could be improved on. In the shore profile there
is massive room for human error when sighting the staff, all of the markings are very similar so it is
possible a reading could have been taken wrongly, also, the staff wasnt always held straight up which
can cause minor errors. In the CPUEs labelling was a major downfall, not all samples were correctly
marked which may have caused samples from the upper shore being put down as lower shore and
vice versa. As well as this it was noted that searchers fixated on species of more personal interest such
as crabs or fish rather than fully searching for the whole five minutes. The Macro algae sampling
method is quite accurate but it is very subjective and two different people could come back with
different results, as well as this species can easily be overlooked if there are very few specimens or if
two similar species are in the same stratum they may be classed as the same species. The gastropod
abundance sampling method is very accurate although, towards the end of the day as the work rate
was falling people werent properly searching through the seaweed and more so just scanning to count
any gastropods on the top layer. Also people werent able to identify the species properly which lead
to very low numbers of most species being found.

The shore profile was done well and came out as expected with very few discrepancies as did the
macro algal distribution. The biodiversity data get from the CPUEs was off for the first couple of tests
but once the sample size got bigger the deviation got much lower. The gastropod results are quite
inaccurate due to such low numbers of some species being found, this is completely down to human
error in not searching correctly and not including all individuals found because of poor identification
skills and fatigue throughout the day.

The differences seen between the exposed shore at Blackhead and the sheltered shore at Finevarra
were huge, there was a massive abundance of seaweed at Finevarra compared to an almost bare
shore at Blackhead with some small stunted individual plants in some sheltered areas. As well as this
there were very little gastropods present other than dogwelks feeding on limpets.

References
Young People's Trust for the Environment. (2016). Seashore. [Online] Available at:
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/seashore/the-rocky-shore [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].
Seaweed.ie. (2016). Pelvetia canaliculata. [Online] Available at:
http://www.seaweed.ie/descriptions/Pelvetia_canaliculata.php [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].
Seaweed.ie. (2016). Laminaria digitata. [online] Available at:
http://www.seaweed.ie/descriptions/Laminaria_digitata.php [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].