University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Spring 2004 Factors restricting recruitment of Ascophyllum nodosum L (Le Jolis) Paula K B Philbrick University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Philbrick, Paula K B, "Factors restricting recruitment of Ascophyllum nodosum L (Le Jolis)" (2004). Doctoral Dissertations. 215. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/215 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FACTORS RESTRICTING RECRUITMENT OF ASCOPHYLLUMNODOSUM h. (LE JOLIS) BY PAULA K. B. PHILBRICK B.A. University of California at Santa Barbara, 1975 DISSERTATION Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Plant Biology May, 2004 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3132796 Copyright 2004 by Philbrick, Paula K. B. All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform 3132796 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED c 2004 Paula K. B. Philbrick Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ph. D. DISSERTATION This dissertation has been examined and approved. Arthur C. Mathieson, Professor of Plant Biology i M E. Crow, Professor of Plant Biology Alan L*; Baker, Asserciate Professor of Plant Biology Thom^ D. L^e, Associate Professor of Forest Ecology CImstopher D/ Neefus, Associate Professor of Plant Biology and Biometrics 1 9 , 2 0 0 ^ Date ' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION I dedicate this work to the memories of my father, Kenneth J. Busse, a man of great ability and incredible focus, and to Dr. Warren, an inspiring statistician and teacher at UNH. Completion is dedicated to the vision and support of Dr.’s Mathieson and Crow, and the understanding of Dean Richards. IV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support of two Central University Research Fund grants (1982, 1983) and a Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship (1983-4) are gratefully acknowledged. Support, space and supplies through the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (Dr. A. C. Mathieson) made a critical difference. The loving support of my mother and my family were true gifts. The many discussions and sage advice of my advisor. Dr. Arthur C. Mathieson, were invaluable. He has been a tremendous role model and valued friend. The time and effort of my committee is gratefully acknowledged. My earnest thanks are extended for Dr. Garrett Crow’s many comments on several longer versions. Dr. Thomas D. Lee’s willingness to discuss methods and results on the spot as well as his help in the field, and the carefiil explanations of appropriate analysis by Dr. Christopher Neefus. Much of the field work was accomplished with the help of C. Thomas Philbrick, then a fellow graduate student and now an authority on aquatic plants and my husband. Thank you all. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION..............................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT................................................................................................................xii CHAPTER PAGE INTRODUCTION............................................................. 1 I. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ..................................................................................... 2 II. SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF DEVELOPING PLANTS......................................23 III. ANIMAL IMPACT DIFFERS WITH SPECIES AND SIZE.....................................64 IV. SAFE SIZE AND A TEMPORAL REFUGE.............................................................94 V. CANOPY REGULATES RECRUITMENT OF ASCOPHYLLUM. ..........................116 LIST OF REFERENCES................................................................................................. 146 VI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES 1). Table I - 1. Totals by Shore Level. Propagules (dm^) by shore level, collection time and overall .............................................................................................................. 19 2). Table I - n. Settlement Statistics. Results from analyses of settlement by environment (a) and by collection time (b) ............................................................20 3). Table II - L Experimental Design. Allocation of replicates to treatment groups for the experiments on survival and growth .............................................................. 48 4). Table II - H. Animal Impact Statistics. Results from 2-Way ANOVA tests on the effect of environment on impact 1982-3 and 1983-4 (a), and mean survival differences (b) ........................................................................................................ 51 5). Table BE - DL Survival Statistics. Results from analyses of environment on survival................................................................................................................... 54 6). Table II - IV. Survival Projections. Survival times estimated from the 1983-4 experiments ...............................................................................................56 7). Table n - V. Growth Statistics. Results from statistical tests on the effect of environment on growth ..........................................................................................59 8). Table II - VI. Growth Rates. Mean growth rates by environment for both sets of plants, with an estimate for growth in one year .....................................................60 9). Table II - VH. Damaged Plants. Numbers of damaged Ascophyllum observed during1983-4, by environment ..................... 63 10). Table HI - L Abundance. Numbers of grazing animals (m^) by shore level during the exclusion experiment .......................................................................................85 11). Table HI - n. Exclusion Statistics. Results from an ANOVA test on the effect of mesh opening size on animal impact .....................................................................87 12). Table m - m . Size. Length and weight of the animals used in the inclusion experiments ............................... 88 13). Table ID - IV. Adult Inclusion Statistics. Results from ANOVA tests on the effect of inclusion treatments, and the impact of adults of each species .............. 90 Vll Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES (continued) 14). Table i n - V. Small Snail Inclusion Statistics. Results from an ANOVA test on the impact of small snails (a), and the effect of mesh size on impact of adult Littorina littorea....................................................................................................91 15). Table HI -VI. Ranks. Impact compared with size (length, width) ........................ 92 16). Table HI - VBL Size Predictors. Results from a regression analysis on the relationship between body weight and length ....................................................... 93 17). Table IV - 1. Abundance Statistics. Results from statistical analyses on the effect of season on the abundance of grazing animals for the whole shore (a) and for +2.0 m (b) ............................................................................................................ 109 18). Table IV - n . Size. Length of Littorina littorea (a) and the abundance (m^) of snails >1.4 cm in length by shore level and through the year (b) ........................110 19). Table IV - DI. Larger Snail Statistics. Results from statistical analyses of the effect of season