An Investigation into the differences in Height to Length Ratio of Patellae vulgata

from different aspects of rock faces along the Eulittoral Coastal Zone

Abstract
This study seeks to explain the effects of aspect-based position of limpets (Patella Spp.) on a
shoreline on both their height and length, represented as a ratio, and should clarify what
differences, if any, this may cause using the hypothesis that seaward facing limpets would
have a higher ratio than landward facing ones on a rocky shore. The experiment involved
using a transect to sample an area and measure the height to length ratio of each of the
limpets in that area on both landward and seaward facing rocks. After that data was
collected the average height length ratio of the seaward facing limpets was indeed higher
than that of the landward facing ones (with values of 2.196mm as opposed to 1.689mm),
supporting my hypothesis that that ratio of seaward facing limpets would be higher,
meaning that the length of the limpet would be greater in comparison to the. This is
consistent with the fact that seaward facing limpets would need a greater amount of contact
with the rock surface in order to prevent being washed away by the sea, as opposed to their
height.

Introduction
The term limpet is the common name used for many different types of saltwater and
freshwater snails with a simple conical shell, all of which are part of the gastropoda class
containing many other kinds of marine snails and sea slugs [1]. This particular creature was
chosen due to its regular occurrence on the coastline studied, meaning that enough data
would be able to be gathered during the short space of time available for data collection at
low tide. The majority of this species, mostly Patella vulgata, are commonly found attached
to hard, smooth surfaces such as rocks or pebbles on exposed rocky shores on which it
moves. This is done through the use of pedal mucus and a muscular foot preventing it from
being torn off [2] due to external forces like strong prevailing winds, and destructive waves
both of which are common on the Pembrookshire coastline sampled due to a 650km fetch.

The ability to remain secured to the rock depends on various factors during its growth, the
most important of which is probably the aspect of the rock on which it resides; those that
seaward facing and those that are landward facing. Theoretically, seaward facing limpets
should have a larger area in contact with the rock since they must resist the hydraulic action
of the sea, whilst land ward facing limpets would not have this problem and so would have a
smaller are in contact with the rock. It is important too, to remember that factors other than
aspect affect the size of limpets – one being the process of desiccation or extreme drying.
This is particular problem for limpets on exposed shores as regular contact with water is
minimal and abiotic factors for instance sunlight accelerate the process. In order to combat
this they clamp tightly to the rock face stopping water escaping from around the rim
however at the same time this causes chemicals to be released that encourage growth of
the shell vertically [3], standing in contradiction to the need for a short shell to reduce the
chances of the limpet being broken away by the force of waves. It is for this reason that both
the height and the length are to be measured of all limpets sampled, and a ratio to then be
calculated.

It is hypothesized (H1) that limpets located on rocks that are seaward facing will have a
higher height to length ratio compared to limpets located on rocks that are landward facing
on an exposed rocky shore. The null hypothesis (H0) for this experiment would be that
limpets located on rocks that are seaward facing will not have a higher height to length ratio
compared to limpets located on rocks that are landward facing on an exposed rocky shore.

Materials and Methods

Andrew Fernandes
L6PA/CL
Biology Extended Project
A ¼m2 quadrat was used in an interrupted belt transect on the exposed rocky shore at a
constant height. This type of quadrat was used as it is of a practical size and removes
human bias from the investigation. An interrupted belt transect was used to give a good
representation of the shoreline, rather than a continuous one which would cover a much
smaller area. The experiment was done at a constant height so that all of the limpets
surveyed would have similar environmental exposure preventing the results from being
affected. The length and heights of all limpets in the quadrat were measured using vernier
calipers, giving reading correct to 0.05 decimal places so as to be precise, and recorded on a
table. A ratio was then calculated along with both a running total and a running mean. Ten
reading were taken and if the running mean stayed within ±2.5% of the boundary, then
enough limpets had been measured – the result was a fair representation of the data.
However if they were not within this range, another 10 reading were to be taken. Abiotic
data was taken at each of the points of sampling at roughly the same time as each other as
light intensity and temperature, which both affect the rate of desiccation. All of the samples
were taken on the lower shore of an exposed rocky shoreline at West Angle Bay during low
tide – from 9:30am to 11:30am on the same day also preventing the results from being
influenced by abiotic factors.

The following table shows a risk assessment of various hazards that would be encountered
when visiting an exposed rocky shore. None of the risk factors are above 10 so they are
considered safe Severi Likeliho Ris
and Hazards ty od k Management
management Wear appropriate
steps are Acutely Steep Rocks 2 2 4 footwear
simple to Unstable Cliffs 2 2 4 Careful footing
follow. The Algae on Rocks 1 4 4 Try not to stand on algae
shore was Wind Chill from SW
given a rating Winds 1 3 3 Take extra clothing
of 3 on the Ballantine scale.

Results
Seaward Facing Limpets:
Height of
Limpet Length of Ratio of Height to Running Running
(mm) Limpet (mm) Length (3 d.p.) Total (3 d.p.) Mean (3 d.p.)
19 38.2 2.011 2.011
19 35 1.842 3.853
8 15.2 1.900 5.753
9.2 18.15 1.973 7.726
16.75 34 2.029 9.756
14.55 29 1.993 11.749
13.75 25.5 1.855 13.603
8.75 17.7 2.023 15.626
16.35 30 1.835 17.461
14.45 30.2 2.089 19.551 1.955
14.75 30.7 2.181 21.632
13.95 30.1 2.158 23.790
12.5 29.9 2.251 26.182
12.7 30.8 2.225 28.607
13.85 29.2 2.148 30.716
13.1 26.5 2.023 32.739
14.25 29.8 2.091 34.829
14.8 32.1 2.169 36.999
15.55 35.15 2.250 39.259
16.55 37.2 2.248 41.507 2.196

Andrew Fernandes
L6PA/CL
Biology Extended Project
Landward Facing Limpets:
Ratio of
Length of Height to Running Running
Height of Limpet Length (3 Total (3 Mean (3
Limpet (mm) (mm) d.p.) d.p.) d.p.)
13.5 22.5 1.667 1.667
12.2 20.15 1.652 3.319
12.8 21.45 1.676 4.994
12.95 22.2 1.714 6.709
11.8 19.95 1.691 8.399
11.15 18.6 1.668 10.07
14.05 24.2 1.722 11.789
15.75 26.6 1.689 13.479
11.9 20.6 1.731 15.209
12.95 21.75 1.679 16.889 1.689

Mean and Standard Deviation:

Seaward Landward
2.196 1.689
SD 0.134 0.0258
Abiotic Factors:
Seawar Landwar
d d
Temperatur
e (°C) 16.4 16.9
Light
Intensity
(Lux) 2.4 1.8
Discussion
The results prove that the average ratio
of limpets is greater on seaward facing rocks than on landward facing rocks. To find out the
statistical significance of this statement, a statistical test must be used to analyse the data –
in this investigation the Standard Error test will be used to find a difference between the
means of data collected from different areas:
• Standard Error =
Where n = Sample Size
And σ = std. deviation
• Standard Error = 0.0432
• Twice Standard Error = 0.0432*2 = 0.0864
• 1 – 2 = 2.196 – 1.689 = 0.507
As the calculated difference in the means is greater than twice the standard error, we reject
H0 (Null Hypothesis) and accept H1 (Alternate Hypothesis) at a 95% confidence level – we can
be 95% certain that there is a significant difference between the height to length ratio of a
limpet and the aspect of the rock to which it is attached.

Limpets measured on seaward facing rocks were found to have a greater length in relation
to its height. This is an adaptation which prevents them from being washed away by waves –
limpets with a larger area in contact with the rock are able to hold onto that piece of rock
with a greater force than those with a smaller surface area in contact with the rock,
consistent with the findings of Roberts [4]. These results also prove that the vertical shell
growth chemical, released by the limpet when external forces such as waves cause it to
move, is a lesser factor than the need for a large height to length ratio in terms of limpet
shell growth due to the relatively high ratio of the shells. It should be noted, though, that
limpets are able to move across surfaces in order to consume algae [5], so a limpet that
seems to be too large or small for an area – an anomaly in the data – may have moved there
Andrew Fernandes
L6PA/CL
Biology Extended Project
from another part of the rock. This movement also occurs as part of the limpet’s life cycle,
with gradual movements up and down the shore – making any comparisons with places such
as the upper shore useless.

The abiotic factors of Temperature and Light Intensity did not vary much; they were both
taken at similar times to each other as a control; in order to make sure weather conditions
were similar for each. This could also be seen as a limitation in the way the results were
taken - the different sampled rock faces were on similar parts of the shoreline the abiotic
data would also be likely to be similar.

Bibliography
1. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gastropoda#encyclopedia
2. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Mollusca#encyclopedia
3. Abbott, R.T. 1991, Seashells of the Northern Hemisphere
4. Roberts, M.F. 2002, The Ecology and Behaviour of Patella Species
5. http://www.pznow.co.uk/marine/limpets.html

Andrew Fernandes
L6PA/CL
Biology Extended Project