Amelia Rogers

BI 357
Barnacle Zone Report
Introduction
Are species only able to live in one area because of adaptations, or are there other factors
involved? One factor to consider is the relationships between species in the same or in neighboring areas.
In this experiment, I examine the intertidal zone of rocky coastlines of Scotland. The intertidal zone is a
good area to study because organisms must adapt to an environment that is constantly fluctuating water
levels and air exposure to marine organisms. Because barnacles live attached to rocks, they are a good
species to study; they dont move to follow the tide. It has been observed that Semibalanus balanoides
covers the rocks below the water and Chthalamus montagui covers the rocks above the water (though
some organisms of each species can be present in small numbers out of these ranges). Joseph Connell
studied these barnacles in the 1960s, and my experiment is a computer simulation of his work. I
hypothesize that Chthalamus is less prone to desiccation compared to Semibalanus, which allows it to
survive on the air-exposed upper part of the rock because Semibalanus excludes it from below water as
Semibalanus is a better competitor.
Methods
I used the SimBio Virtual Biology Lab software to simulate barnacle growth on a rock face with a
5 m height with changing water levels simulating high and low tides. I ran barnacle-growing simulations
for 14 days each. The experiments went as follows: control group (both barnacles present), Semibalanus
only (Chthalamus removed), and Chthalamus only (Semibalanus removed). I took samples using the
sampling tool every 2 days at 4.5 m (drier part of rock) and 1.0 m (wetter part of rock). I repeated each
group at each level twice. I calculated averages per day for the different simulations as well as total
averages, which were used to create Figures 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b.
Results
When allowed to grow in the absence of a presumed competitor Chthalamus at 4.5 m,
Semibalanus had very low average growth, which ended up going to zero by day 10 (see Figure 1a). In
contrast, Chthalamus grown in absence of Semibalanus had very high average growth, which leveled off
around 14 by day 5 (see Figure 1a). At 1.0 m, again grown in absence of eachs respective competitor
Semibalanus had higher average growth than it did at 4.5 m, ending at 27 on day 14. Similarly,
Chthalamus had high average growth, ending at 32 on day 14. In the control group, when both barnacles
were allowed to grow together, Semibalanus outgrew Chthalamus at 1.0 m (see Figure 2b) and
Chthalamus outgrew Semibalanus at 4.5 m (see Figure 2a).
Discussion

If my hypothesis was correct, I expected to find that Chthalamus would have a more successful
growth rate compared to Semibalanus. My hypothesis would be falsified if either barnacle would not
grow well in the other range in absence of its competitor. This would have meant that competition was not
a factor in the ranges and that only adaptations were involved. Fortunately, I found that the results were
more complex. In Figures 1a and 1b, it is clear that Chthalamus always grew more than Semibalanus, no
matter the range, when each was grown alone. This shows that Chthalamus can grow well above or below
the tide. It must be able to better close itself off above the tide, a useful adaptation. In Figures 2a and 2b,
it is evident that Chthalamus grew better in the lower area when Semibalanus was removed, while
Semibalanus grew no better in the upper area when Chthalamus was removed. Semibalanus must
outcompete Chthalamus below the tide. There is no other reason that Chthalamus would not grow there.
These results show the mix between competition and adaptation in determining habitat range. My
hypothesis would be falsified if either barnacle would not grow well in the other range in absence of its
competitor. This would have meant that competition was not a factor in the ranges and that only
adaptations were involved. Fortunately, I found that the results were more complex.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I found that the reasons for habitat separation have to do with both competition and
fitness. This means that when looking at all kinds of species, we must take into account several factors in
conserving habitats. The interactions between species are just as important as adaptations they may have.

Figures

Barnacle Growth at 4.5 m in Absence of Competitor

16
14
12
10
8

Average number of barnacles

6
4
2
0

10

12

14

16

Day
Semibalanus

Chthalamus

Figure 1a. On the upper part of the rock, without a competitor present. The daily averages for the two
trials for each species of barnacle is shown.

Barnacle Growth at 1.0 m in Absence of Competitor

35
30
25
20
Average number of barnacles

15
10
5
0

10

12

Day
Semibalanus

Chthalamus

Figure 1b. On the lower part of the rock, without a competitor present. The daily averages for the two
trials for each species of barnacle is shown.

14

Barnacle Growth at 4.5 m

18
16
14
12
10

Average number of barnacles

8
6
4
2
0

In presence of competitor
Chthalamus

Semibalanus

Figure 2a. On the upper part of the rock. Growth rates for each species, in both presence and absence of
competitor. Total averages over a 14-day period.

Barnacle Growth at 1.0 m

25
20
15

Average umber of barnacles

10
5
0

In presence of competitor
Chthalamus

Semibalanus

Figure 2b. On the lower part of the rock. Growth rates for each species, in both presence and absence of
competitor. Total averages over a 14-day period.