Is the Flamborough Head No-take Zone protecting rocky shore intertidal communities?

Is the Flamborough Head No-take Zone protecting rocky shore intertidal communities?

Jonathan Holt & Bryce D. Stewart

Marine Ecosystem Management Report no. 3, University of York

May 2012

Flamborough Head No-take Zone and rocky shore intertidal communities

2

J Holt & BD Stewart, University of York

To be cited as: Holt J & Stewart BD (2012) Is the Flamborough Head No-take Zone protecting rocky shore intertidal communities? Marine Ecosystem Management Report no. 3, University of York, 50pp.


3


Table Of Contents Section Page no.

Abstract 2

Introduction 3

Methods

Study sites

Data collection

Data analysis

7

10

13

Results

Comparison of species composition between the No-take Zone (NTZ)

and control site at Flamborough Head

Comparison of the abundance and distribution of key species of flora

and fauna, between the NTZ and control site at Flamborough Head.

Comparison of the population structure of key species of fauna

between the NTZ and control site at Flamborough Head.

Human depreciative behaviour at the intertidal zone in the study areas.

Investigate the extent to which visitors are aware of the No-take Zone.

15

19

25

28

29

Discussion 33

Conclusion 40

Study Limitations 41

Further Study 41

Acknowledgements 42

References 43

Appendices 48


4


List of Figures

Figure 1 Map of the NTZ and the control site at Flamborough

Head on the North Yorkshire Coast, England.

8

Figure 2 View of the Intertidal zone at the NTZ, facing east

towards the control site.

9

Figure 3 View of the control site from the access point at South

Landing.

10

Figure 4 Mussel bed at the NTZ. 11

Figure 5 Mean percentage cover of algae species at each

sampling site comparing the NTZ and control sites.

17

Figure 6 Mean density of animal species at each sampling site

comparing the NTZ and control site

18

Figure 7 (a - e) Vertical distribution of key flora species, along the

intertidal zone.

20

Figure 8 (a – e) Mean density of the key animal species and their

distribution down the shore.

23

Figure 9 (a – d) Population structure. Shell length composition within

the NTZ and control sites of key fauna species.

25

Figure 10 (a – b) Depreciative behaviour at the study sites 28

Figure 11 (a – d) Characteristics of visitors at the NTZ 29 - 31

Figure 12 (a – d) Awareness and support for the NTZ 31 - 32

List of Tables

Table 1 Algae species ranked according to species abundance 16

Table 2 Animal species ranked according to species

abundance.

18

Table 3 Comparison of mean percentage cover of key algae

species using One-way ANOVA

19

Table 4 Comparison of mean density of key animal species

using One-way ANOVA.

20

Table 5 Comparison of mean shell size of key animal species

using One-way ANOVA.

27



5

Abstract

Improved management approaches are needed for our coastal and ocean

environments and marine protected areas are being increasingly promoted as

a possible solution. In the UK there are three No-take Zones (NTZ’s). This

study focused on the latest one established in July 2010 at Flamborough

Head on the North Yorkshire Coast. The extent to which the NTZ at

Flamborough Head has protected intertidal communities from human activities

and the extent to which visitors are aware and comply with the No-take Zone

regulations were assessed between August and September 2011.

Although the community composition of the two sites was broadly similar,

there were some significant differences. Overall there was significantly higher

mean algae cover at the control site, whereas there was significantly less

mean density of animals. Both sites had similar key species. However, the

mussel Mytilus edulis was an important species in the NTZ and the protection

of the mussel beds was one of the key reasons why the NTZ at Flamborough

Head was situated in that location. Not only was the density of M. edulis at the

NTZ found to be significantly higher, but they were also found to be

significantly larger in size. The study also found an increased abundance of

Semibalanus balanoides Mytilus edulis Littorina littorea & obtusata and

Nucella lapillus at the NTZ.

Both sites experienced very similar patterns of human visitation behaviour;

this means that many of the visitors to the NTZ site were either not aware or

did not comply with the NTZ regulations. The findings from the questionnaire

survey showed that by raising people’s awareness it is possible to develop

public support and therefore commitment to marine protected areas.

It is too soon to attribute any of the differences between the two sites to the

effects of protection but this study should serve as a very useful baseline

upon which to monitor future changes.



6

1 Introduction

1.1 The Intertidal Zone

The intertidal zone (also called the littoral zone) is a band of land between the

limits of high and low tides (JNCC, 1989), and forms a link between marine

and terrestrial environments. Rocky shores are variable coastal habitats that

are often intrinsically rich in both species richness and habitat diversity

(Brehaut, 1982), with species from many genera present. Diversity is further

enhanced by the presence of microhabitats such as rock pools, boulders and

fissures (Raffaelli and Hawkins, 1996).

Due to the rise and fall of the tide a gradient of submergence and exposure is

created along a vertical slope (Lewis, 1964). This determines the ecology of

the intertidal zone as species occupy different levels depending on their

tolerance to physical processes such as wave action, temperature and salinity

and biological processes that may include settlement, recruitment, predation

and competition (Terlizzi et al., 2002). It is these differences in physical and

biological processes that are the main cause of variation in intertidal

communities (Paine and Levin, 1981; Sousa, 1984).

In the UK the intertidal region is extensive and important. As well as providing

shelter and food for marine species the zone is extremely important for birds

(Stockdale, 2007). Migrating birds and wading birds that feed at low tide are

dependant on intertidal communities for food and nutrients. It is also a popular

recreational area and is therefore of considerable value to the local economy

(Addison et al., 2008).

1.2 Anthropogenic Impacts

Many intertidal zones are substantially affected by a variety of stresses

caused by human activity (Crowe et al., 2000). Intertidal communities and

species are sensitive to both acute and chronic human activity. The extent to

which they are a threat depends on their magnitude, duration and frequency

(Menge and Branch, 2001).



7

High intensity (acute) impacts, such as the aftermath from oil spills, show the

vulnerability of intertidal communities. The time scale of recovery from such

events can be slow (between 10 – 15 years) this can potentially affect

community structure. The risk of invasion from non-native species may also

have a significant impact (Hill et al., 1998). However, the main causes of

impact are those sustained over a period of time (chronic) such as low

intensity pollution, sea level rise and recreational activity (Keough and Quinn,

1998).

The coast, including the intertidal zone, appeals to many people. As no one in

the UK lives more than 73 miles from the coast and with many people

choosing to live or spend their holidays near the coast, the area has now

become the UK’s greatest leisure resource. Inevitably the habitats and

communities of the intertidal region are at risk from high recreational pressure,

and the large numbers of tourists visiting during the holiday season only

increases this pressure. Trampling, rock pooling, littering and the collection of

organisms are major threats for the wildlife of rocky intertidal shores (Brosnan

and Crumrine, 1994). There have been several studies that have focused on

how human impacts can reduce biodiversity, and alter community structure

(Brosnan and Crumrine, 1994; Keough and Quinn, 1998).

1.3 Marine Protected Areas and No-take Zones

The protection and conservation of marine environments is becoming

increasingly important to society. The World Summit on Sustainable

Development (2002) required the development of Marine Protected Areas

(MPAs). An MPA can be defined as:

‘Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and

associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been

reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed

environment’ (IUCN, 1999).



8

Although, MPA’s are protected by law, the level of protection is determined by

the type of designation. A No-take Zone (NTZ) is a type of MPA that offers a

high level of protection and potentially offers long-term benefits due to the

restriction and prohibition of damaging human activities (Natural England,

2011).

Marine Conservation Zones are a new designation introduced through the UK

Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009). By June 2012, the Marine

Conservation Zone Project (MCZ), led by Natural England and the Joint

Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) will recommend to the government a

network of MCZs around the UK. This will include sites identified by the Net

Gain Project, in the North Sea. It is expected that one of the sites selected for

inclusion in the MCZ will be that of the Flamborough NTZ.

Although NTZs are recognised globally as an important tool for managing

human impacts on the marine environment (Halpern and Warren, 2002), in

the UK NTZs are at an early stage, with only three areas designated at the

moment; these are Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel, Lamlash Bay on the

Isle of Arran and Flamborough Head on the Yorkshire Coast. The NTZ at

Flamborough Head uses a more integrated approach by being the first to

incorporate the intertidal habitat, thereby protecting the littoral chalk

communities. Also, by adopting the Ecosystem Approach the NTZ can offer

protection for commercial species and their habitats as well as non-

commercial species, by prohibiting all extractive and damaging activities.

There is very little ecological data available for this area; however, a Phase 1

level study did take place well before the NTZ existed. Howson (2001)

conducted an intertidal mapping survey at Flamborough Head. Two transects

used in his survey were in the NTZ and were used again in this study. Even

though there were additional studies of some species such as Fucus spiralis,

Scott et al., (2001) and Littorina saxatilis, Wood et al., (2008) at Flamborough

Head, they did not take place within this study area. Therefore there is

insufficient quantitative data available to use for monitoring (Thomson et al.,

2009). There has been no investigation in the UK into the extent to which the

No-take Zone is helping to protect the intertidal zone from the levels of



9

disturbance arising from human activity. It is clear that as a pilot NTZ area an

investigation needs to take place, in order to assess the effectiveness of using

the NTZ as a management tool for marine environmental conservation.

1.4 Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which the No-take Zone at

Flamborough Head has protected intertidal communities from human

activities, using species composition, and abundance, size, and distribution

data.

We also aim to assess the extent to which visitors were aware and comply

with the No-take Zone Regulations.

It is expected that this study will be the first in a time series so that the

effectiveness of NTZs can be measured into the future.

To meet these aims the following objectives will be followed:

Objectives

Compare the species composition of intertidal communities between

the protected and non-protected sites at Flamborough Head.

Quantify and compare the abundance and distribution of key species of

flora and fauna at the study sites.

Quantify and compare the population structure of key species of fauna

at the study sites.

Record human depreciative behaviour in the intertidal zone in the study

sites.

Investigate the extent to which visitors are aware of the No-take Zone.



10

2 Study Site

2.1 Flamborough Head

Flamborough Head on the East coast of Yorkshire is of national, European

and international importance due to the extensive chalk sea cliffs providing

habitats for important species of breeding seabirds. It is the most northerly

location at which you can find coastal chalk cliffs in the UK (Yorkshire Wildlife

Trust, 2006). Coastal chalk is a rare and unusual marine habitat and yet

Flamborough Head accounts for 9% of all European coastal chalk.

As well as vertical cliffs, extensive horizontal wave cut chalk platforms support

a wide range of diverse plants and animals that are not common elsewhere.

Furthermore, because the headland is also a biogeographic boundary it is an

area where certain marine species reach their southern and northern

distributional limits (JNCC, 2004).

Due to its important wildlife, outstanding landscape and heritage value the

area is protected by many nature conservation designations. As well as

having the status of Heritage Coast the area is designated as an SSSI,

SAC and SPA, because the marine site has both these designations the area

was termed a European Marine Site in 1992. Danes Dyke and South Landing

are both LNRs. On 21/7/2010 a byelaw formally established a No-take Zone

at Flamborough Head. A huge amount of tourists are attracted to the area

throughout the year and potentially this may cause a huge amount of

recreational stress on the biota. At the moment there is not enough

knowledge to predict the outcomes of No-take Zones therefore it is necessary

to carry out further research in order to establish the ecological effects of

protection.



11

2.2 Location

The No-take Zone runs from Sewerby steps (54o 06.00’N, 000o 09.85’W) to

Danes Dyke (54o 06.21’N, 000o 08.62’W) for 1000m. The control site runs

from Danes Dyke (54°06.242'N, 000°08.327'W) to South Landing

(54°06.232'N, 000°07.191'W) for 1000m (Figure 1). A buffer zone of

approximately 109m separated the two sites. In order to be comparable both

sites are in close proximity to each other. This was a necessary restriction

because the shelter provided by the headland influences the character of both

sites. Outstanding natural features and the close proximity to the tourist

resorts of Bridlington, Filey and Scarborough means the area attracts both

locals and tourists, especially during July and August. A further attraction is

the internationally important sea bird colony at Bempton and the exposure of

fossils.

Figure 1 Map of the NTZ and the control site at Flamborough Head on the North

Yorkshire Coast, England.



12

2.3 Site description

The gently sloping intertidal chalk platforms interspersed with gullies and

crevices are able to support unique communities of algae and invertebrates.

The area has strong tides and the water is generally turbid, due to the

presence of the ‘Flamborough front’. This offshore frontal system is formed

when the cold, deeper stratified waters of the Northern North Sea mix with the

warm shallower, waters of the Southern North Sea, resulting in a nutrient

upwelling (Thomson et al., 2009). The movement of the seawater therefore

keeps the surface of the rocks clear from sediment, which allows algae and

specialised invertebrates to burrow into the soft chalk and colonise the

surface. Steep vertical chalk cliffs surround the rocky shore so access to the

coastal sites is by steps at Sewerby and via minor roads at Danes Dyke and

South Landing.

Figure 2. View of the Intertidal zone at the NTZ, facing east towards the control site.



13

Figure 3. View of the control site from the access point at South Landing.

3 Method

3.1 Data collection and sampling methods.

Eight vertical transects were set up at 100 metre intervals, perpendicular to

the coast, at each site. Surveys began on August 14th, 2011 and continued

until September 28th, 2011 (tide permitting). At the NTZ site (Sewerby) the two

fixed transects already established by Natural England were included in this

scheme (Thomson et al., 2009). These transects were subdivided into six

sampling points which were arranged evenly along the tidal range. GPS was

used to identify the location of all the sampling points and to measure the

elevation at the start and along each transect. Large deep fissures and rock

pools were avoided. The survey was repeated at each site 3 times giving a

total of 288 quadrats. To compensate for any changes over the summer the

surveys were carried out in stages.

In order to determine the abundance of algae the percentage cover of all

species present was estimated by using a 1m2 quadrat that was subdivided

into 4 % subsections. Photographs were taken of the quadrat to allow for

reference at a later stage.



14

All fauna at each sampling site along the transects were also sampled in a

non-destructive way in situ by counting the number of individuals present in a

0.25m2 (50cm x 50cm) quadrat, which was placed randomly alongside the

1m2 quadrat. Certain species (e.g. mussels and barnacles) were highly

abundant and it would have been extremely time consuming to have counted

all the individuals. Therefore in this situation the number of individuals were

counted within each of the four corner squares (5 x 5cm) and added together

and scaled up to give an estimate of the total abundance within the 0.25m2

quadrat.

Following this callipers were used to measure the height and circumference of

10 individual organisms such as limpets, mussels and periwinkles (key

species), that were randomly distributed along each transect. Identification of

species was done in situ, however when there was uncertainty photographs

were taken so that recognition could be made later by a marine expert.

Sampling focussed on key species. Species that were difficult to differentiate

were identified to the genus only. Figure 4 shows the mussel bed (key

species) located at the No-take Zone. (Pre-survey work, see appendices).

Figure 4. Mytilus edulis (mussel bed) at the NTZ.



15

3.2 Organism Surveys

The intertidal zone could only be accessed during limited periods of the day

when the tide was low, usually that was one hour either side of the low water

time. The height to which the tide rises and falls varies from day to day as

does the time of day. A local tide table was used to plan a fieldwork calendar.

Great care was taken to include a variety of visitation times, sampling varied

in terms of times, days, weekends, months and public holidays.

3.3 Human Surveys

Human disturbance was recorded by observing depreciative behaviour when

surveying each transect. The number of people present at each transect were

counted and their behaviour monitored. These human surveys took place at

the same time as the ecological surveys. Depreciative behaviour recorded

included:

Trampling - Randomly walking on flora and fauna

Handling - Overturning rocks.

Extracting - Collecting flora and fauna

3.4 Questionnaire Surveys

One hundred questionnaires were conducted in situ at the access points to

the study sites. At Sewerby 33 questionnaires were completed, at Danes

Dyke 34 were completed and at South Landing 33 were completed. The

questionnaires took place on August 27th and August 28th. To overcome time

constraints a questionnaire was developed that encouraged a structured

response to particular issues regarding the NTZ. (Questionnaire, see

appendices).



16

4 Data Analysis

The mean total percentage cover of algae at each study site from all surveys

was calculated and the mean total density of individual animals at each study

site from all surveys was calculated. This abundance data was used for the

overall comparison between sites and displayed in a table using rank order.

Trends were displayed as a line graph and tables displayed the results of

community composition for comparison between control and NTZ sites.

Abundance data of key species was used to plot bar graphs using ± Standard

Error bars to illustrate any variation around the mean. Abundance data and

shell size data were used to display bar graphs. These were used to depict

any trends allowing for easier comparison.

Inferential statistics were then applied. Any differences between sites were

tested for significance through a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

One-way ANOVA was considered a suitable and robust test for these

comparisons because of a balanced design as there were an equal number of

observations in each group. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the

species composition and community structure between control and NTZ sites

to see if protection will be effective. All analyses were performed using IBM

SPSS Statistics v. 19.0.

The abundance data of mussels were transformed prior to one-way ANOVA

being applied. This was done due to heterogeneous variances and so that the

data could fit more closely the underlying assumptions of the statistical test.

The number of people engaged in depreciative behaviour was calculated and

displayed as pie charts. The pie charts act as a visual aid and allow any

similarities or differences between behaviour, to be seen clearly.

Questionnaires were conducted and analysed. The data was displayed in

various descriptive graphs to allow clear understanding of peoples’

characteristics and their awareness of the NTZ.



17

5 Results

5.1 Comparison of species composition between the NTZ and control site at

Flamborough Head

Total mean percentage cover of algae at study sites.

Algae species at each sampling site were compared between the NTZ and

the control site. Total mean percentage cover was lowest in the NTZ (100%),

whereas the control site had the highest (122%). At the NTZ 17 out of 40

species at the sample sites showed 0% cover, whereas at the control site 25

out of 40 species showed 0% cover (Table 1). Therefore, although there was

a higher mean percentage cover of algae at the control site, there was 20%

more species present at the NTZ

Table 1. The mean percentage cover of species of algae observed inside

(NTZ) and outside (Control) the No-take Zone at Flamborough Head

NTZ Control

Rank Mean

% cover Rank Mean

% cover

Fucus serratus Toothed Wrack 1 20 1 29

Enteromorpha (Ulva) intestinalis Gut Weed 2 19 3 19

Fucus vesiculosis Bladderwrack 3 19 2 25

Ceramium rubrum (sp.) 4 7 5 7

Rhodothsmniella floridula Sand Binder 5 7 4 8

Ulva lactuca Sea Lettuce 6 5 9 5

Chondrus crispus Carragheen / Irish Moss 7 5 8 5

Laurencia (Osmundea) sp. Pepper Dulse 8 4 17 0

Cladophora rupestris (sp.) Common Green Branch Weed 9 3 7 6

Lithothamnion sp.(Paint like red) 10 3 6 7

Petalonia fascia Broad Leaf Weed 11 2 16 0

Cladostephus spongiosus Hairy Sand Weed 12 2 10 3

Mastocarpus stellatus 13 1 29 0

Corrallina officinalis (sp.) Coralline Red 14 1 14 1

Enteromorpha (Ulva) linza 15 1 30 0

Encrusting Brown 16 1 27 0

Laminaria digitata Oarweed 17 1 21 0

Fucus spiralis Spiral Wrack 18 1 13 1



18

Meembranoptera alata Winged Weed 19 0 19 0

Desmarestia aculeata Desmartest's Prickly Weed 20 0 15 1

Laminaria hyperborea Cuvie 21 0 31 0

Halidryas siliquosa Sea Oak 22 0 26 0

Saccharina latissima Sugar Kelp 23 0 12 1

Alaria esculenta Dabberlocks 24 0 32 0

Ascophyllum nodosum Egg Wrack 25 0 33 0

Bifurcaria bificurcata 26 0 22 0

Cliona celatal Yellow Sponge 27 0 23 0

Enteromorpha (Ulva) muscoides 28 0 34 0

Fucus ceranoides 29 0 11 2

Heterosiphonia plumosa Siphoned Feather Weed 30 0 18 0

Himanthalia elongata Thongweed 31 0 35 0

Laminaria saccharina Sea Belt 32 0 36 0

Lomentaria articulata 33 0 37 0

Pelvetia canaciculata Channelled Wrack 34 0 28 0

Phycodrys rubens 35 0 38 0

Polysiphonia lanosa 36 0 39 0

Porphyra umbilicalis (sp.) 37 0 24 0

Saccorhiza polyschides Furbelows 38 0 40 0

Sargassum muticum Wireweed 39 0 25 0

Orange Sponge 40 0 20 0

Total 100 122

Figure 5. Algae species. A comparison of mean percentage cover between the NTZ

and control site, showed consistently higher algae cover at the control site.

Figure 5 indicates a trend that showed the control site consistently had a

higher cover of algae when compared to the NTZ. Mean algae cover ranged



19

from 64% (quadrat 1) to 116% (quadrat 6) for the NTZ, whereas at the control

site the range was from 87% (quadrat 1) to 157% (quadrat 6). The highest

difference was quadrat 6.

There was a considerable difference in total mean algae cover between the

study sites with the control site showing a higher percentage (121.84%

compared to 99.82%). The control site showed a significant difference of (F =

10.45, p = 0.002).

Total mean density of individual animals at study sites.

Animal species at each sampling site were compared between the NTZ and

the control site. Total mean density was over two and half times greater at the

NTZ with 5532 per transect compared to 2041 per transect at the control site.

This was due mainly to the high mean density of barnacles at 5264 per

transect and mussels at 257 per transect in the NTZ (Table 2).

Table 2. Animal species. Overall community compositions from mean density

estimates (no. / transect) of individual animals within the NTZ and control sites.

Species were ranked according to species abundance. Key species are indicated in

red.

Genus Common Name

NTZ Control

Rank Mean

Density Rank Mean

Density Semibalanus balanoides

Barnacle 1 5264 1 2066

Mytilus edulis Common mussel 2 257 4 0 Littorina littorea & obtusata

Common & Flat periwinkle 3 7 3 1

Patella vulgata Common limpet 4 3 2 3

Nucella lapillus Dog whelk 5 0 6 0 Carcinus maenas Green Shore crab 6 0 8 0

Cancer pagurus Edible Crab 7 0 9 0 Actinia equina Beadlet anemone 8 0 7 0 Plomatoceros lamarcki

Kneelworm 9 0 5 0

Total 5532 2071



20

Figure 6. Animal species. Mean density of animal species at each sampling site comparing the NTZ and control site.

Figure 6 indicated a trend that showed the NTZ consistently had a higher

mean density of animals when compared to the control site. At the NTZ

quadrat 3 showed significant variation with a minimum variation (5000), this

was 4 times lower than the maximum (20000).

The data were analyzed for differences in abundance between sites. The NTZ

showed a significantly higher density (5532.58 per transect) compared to

(2071.40 per transect), a significant difference of (F = 4.76, p = 0.034).

5.2 Comparison of the abundance and distribution of key species of flora and

fauna, between the NTZ and control sites at Flamborough Head.

The species rank order of algae and their abundance at each study site is

depicted in Table 1. The rank order showed key species were in the top five,

and in terms of their abundance showed both sites had similar species but the

order was dis-similar.

The species rank order of animals and their mean density (no. / transect) at

each study site is depicted in Table 2. The rank order showed key species

were in the top five, except for Nucella lapillus at the control site, which had a

ranking of 6. Other species although present at both sites, were ranked

differently.



21

Inferential statistical assessment was carried out to determine the significance

of differences of abundance of key species at the study sites. Table 3

indicated there was no significant difference in mean percentage cover of the

key algae species, Ceramium rubrum, Enteromorpha (Ulva) intestinalis, Fucus

serratus and Rhodothsmniella floridula, however there was a significantly

higher mean difference at the NTZ of Fucus vesiculosis (F = 6.02, p = 0.018).

Table 3 Comparison of mean percentage cover of key algae species between sites

using One-way ANOVA. Non-significant results (p < 0.05) are denoted as NS.

Genus Common Name

Mean

F. Ratio P- Value NTZ Site

Control Site

Ceramium rubrum 7.05 7.34 0.012 0.911 NS

Enteromorpha (Ulva) intestinalis Gut weed 19.42 18.76 0.29 0.866 NS

Fucus serratus Toothed wrack 19.71 29.40 3.88 0.055 NS

Fucus vesiculosis Bladder wrack 18.69 27.06 6.02 0.018 S

Rhodothsmniella floridula

Sand Binder 6.95 8.29 0.28 0.598 NS

Table 4. Comparison of mean density (no. / m2) of key animal species between sites

using One-way ANOVA. Non-significant results (p < 0.05) are denoted as NS.

Genus Common Name

Mean


Control Site

Littorina littorea and obtusata

Common and Flat periwinkle 3.73 0.78 10.30 0.002 S

Mytilus edulis Common mussel 1.93 0.75 11.62 0.001 S

Nucella lapillus Dog whelk 0.16 0.28 4.19 0.46 NS

Patella vulgata Common limpet 2.76 3.29 0.59 0.447 NS

Semibalanus balanoides

Barnacle 4183.58 2290.28 1.52 0.224 NS

Table 4 indicates there was no significant difference in mean density (no. / m2)

of the key animal species Nucella lapillus, Patella vulgata and Semibalanus



22

balanoides, however, there was a significant difference for Littorina littorea

and obtusata (F = 10.30, p = 0.002) and Mytilus edulis (F = 11.62, p= 0.001).

Figure 7a. Fucus serratus

Figure 7b. Enteromorpha (Ulva) intestinalis



23

Figure 7c. Fucus vesiculosis

Figure 7d. Ceramium rubrum (sp.)

Figure 7e. Rhodothsmniella floridula

Figures 7a – 7e. Comparison, of vertical distribution of key flora species along the

intertidal zone, between the NTZ and the control site. Species showed typical

zonation patterns.

Figures 7a – 7e show the mean percentage cover of key algae species and

vertical distribution along the intertidal zone. The patterns of zonation at both

sites were generally similar but there was consistently less algae cover at the

NTZ.



24

Enteromorpha (Ulva) intestinalis (Figure 7b) and Fucus vesiculosis (Figure

7c) were found more frequently on the upper shore, whereas Fucus serratus

(Figure 7a) Ceramium rubrum (Figure 7d) and Rhodothsmniella floridula

(Figure 7e) were found more frequently on the lower shore.

Figure 7d suggested Ceramium Rubrum was more abundant in the NTZ

though there was a large degree of variation. Fucus serratus was more

abundant in the upper shore at the control site, otherwise both sites showed a

similar distribution pattern (Figure 7a).

Figures 8a – 8e illustrates the mean density of key animal species and their

vertical distribution along the intertidal zone. All species showed a distinct

zonation pattern along the shore but the NTZ showed more abundance of


Nucella lapillus at the NTZ.

Figure 8a. Semibalanus balanoides



25

Figure 8b. Mytilus edulis

Figure 8c. Littorina littorea & obtusata



26

Figure 8d. Patella vulgate

Figure 8e. Nucella lapillus

Figures 8a – 8e. Mean density of the key animal species and their distribution down

the shore.

There was a similar pattern of distribution of Semibalanus balanoides (Figure

8a) and Patella vulgate (Figure 8d) at both sites. Both species were more

frequently found on the upper shore.

There were considerable differences between the NTZ and the control site.

Figure 8b showed no Mytilus edulis at the control site whereas at the NTZ

there was a high abundance on the lower shore.

Figure 8c showed Littorina littorea & obtusata was present across the upper,

middle and lower shore but was significantly more abundant at the NTZ

especially in the middle and lower shore.

Figure 8e showed there was a low abundance of Nucella lapillus at both sites

but particularly at the control site. It was difficult to accurately compare

distribution when the abundance of species was so low.



27

5.3 Comparison of the population structure of key species of fauna between

the NTZ and control site at Flamborough Head

As a key characteristic of population structure the shell size of Nucella lapillus,

Littorina littorea and obtusata (periwinkle sp.), Mytilus edulis and Patella

vulgate were measured and compared.

Figures 9a – 9d show population structure - shell length composition within NTZ and

control sites of key fauna species. Most individuals had a larger shell size at the NTZ.

Figure 9a. Nucella lapillus

Figure 9b. Littorina littorea and obtusata (periwinkle sp.)



28

Figure 9c. Mytilus edulis

Figure 9d. Patella vulgate

Figure 9a showed a very low abundance of Nucella lapillus at the control site,

there were too few individuals to compare sites.

Figure 9c showed there was a significant increase in size of Mytilus edulis at

the NTZ compared to the control site. Mytilus edulis was uncommon in the

control site with just a few small individuals but at the NTZ there was a stable

population with many more individuals, ranging from 0.8mm to 5mm.

Littorina littorea and obtusata (periwinkle sp.) and Patella vulgate (figure 9b

and figure 9d) showed the population structure to be similar at both sites.



29

Littorina littorea and obtusata had a range of sizes from 0.4 to 3.2mm and

Patella vulgate had a range of sizes from 0.8 to 6mm with most individuals in

the mid range.

Table 5. Comparison of mean shell size of key animal species between sites using

One-way ANOVA. Non-significant results (p < 0.05) are denoted as NS.

Genus Common Name

Mean (mm)


Control Site

Littorina littorea and obtusata

Common and Flat periwinkle 1.40 1.37 0.21 0.651 NS

Mytilus edulis Common mussel 3.15 1.25 9.17 0.003 S

Nucella lapillus Dog whelk 2.18 1.82 2.49 0.129 NS

Patella vulgata Common limpet 3.68 3.97 1.65 0.200 NS

One-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference of (F = 9.17, p = 0.003) in

the mean size of Mytilus edulis. There was no significant difference for of

Nucella lapillus, Littorina littorea and obtusata (periwinkle sp.), or Patella

vulgate (Table 5).

5.4 Human depreciative behaviour along the intertidal zone in the study areas.

Figure 10a and 10b indicate both sites to have very similar depreciative

behaviour. There were similar numbers of people engaged in similar types of

activity, by far the most dominant depreciative activity was trampling.

Extraction was the least common activity. In general this involved the

collection of Littorina littorea and obtusata for use as bait.



30

Figure 10a. Depreciative behaviour at NTZ (n = 412 people).

Figure 10b. Depreciative behaviour at control site (n = 405 people).

5.5 Investigate the extent to which visitors are aware of the No-take Zone.

Characteristics of visitors (11a – 11 d).

Visitors to the area were predominantly male (63%), spanning the age range

45 – 65+ (82%). There were a lot of regular visitors to the area, many visiting

every month (36%); the frequency of other visits was mixed. The frequency of

visitation suggests the area was well supported locally, but because the

survey was carried out during the summer holidays it is not surprising that

32% were making a yearly return visit while 22% were visiting for the first



31

time. Bridlington appears to be a traditional seaside resort for people visiting

from South and West Yorkshire (90%). The distance most people travelled

was as far as 137 miles (band 5). The furthest distance travelled was band 9

(312 – 387 miles). The highest number of people visiting (12) was from Hull.

By far the most popular activity when visiting the area was walking (56%) and

dog walking (29%).

Figure 11a. Age and sex of visitors questioned at the Flamborough Head NTZ and

control site during August 27th and August 28th 2011 (n = 100).

Figure 11b. How often people visit the Flamborough Head NTZ

and control site (n = 100).



32

Figure 11c. Distance travelled by visitors to the study areas. Red circles indicate the

location from which visitors had travelled. The red circle increased in size

exponentially, with the number of people visiting from that area.

Figure 11d. The popularity and range of activities people engaged in while visiting the

Flamborough Head study sites. (n = 129)



33

Awareness and support for NTZ (12a – 12d)

Although 57% of visitors knew about the NTZ, only 49% of these had any

understanding of the purpose and objectives of the area. A high proportion

(81%) of people who knew about the NTZ were aware of the site because

they read the signage close to the access points. Information was not gained

via the internet, tourist information, or advertisements. The extent of support

for the NTZ was overwhelmingly in agreement with 96% indicating they totally

agree, while the other 4% partially agreed.

Figure 12a. Percentage of people aware of the NTZ. More than half had knowledge

of the site.

Figure 12b. Percentage of people who knew about and understood the NTZ

regulations.



34

Figure 12c. Ways in which people received information about the NTZ. Nearly all

leant about the site from signage.

Figure 12d. Visitor’s opinion as to whether they agree to the establishment of the

NTZ.

6 Discussion

There may be many reasons for the observed differences in the abundance of

key species between the study sites. A direct and potentially damaging effect

of human visitation to the intertidal zone is the extraction of organisms

(Murray et al., 1999). Extraction may indirectly affect other species, which may

result in changes to the overall community structure (Addison, 2008). These

effects are exacerbated when the target species have a key role in structuring

the community (Underwood, 2005). In the UK several rocky shore species



35

found at Flamborough Head are exploited by humans, including Littorina

littorea and obtusata, Mytilus edulis, Nucella lapillus and Patella vulgata. They

are collected for human consumption, for research, fishing bait and for

aquariums (Addessi, 1994).

The collection of commercial species for food and bait can directly result in a

substantial reduction in the abundance and average size of the harvested

species population (Addison 2008). This is because when rocky intertidal

species are harvested, larger individuals are often preferentially collected

(Roy et al., 2003). The size structure of the population may change to smaller

and younger individuals that may result in a disproportionate decrease in the

reproductive ability of the population because the reproductive potential

increases exponentially with size (Branch, 1974; Smith et al., 2008). This

trend was observed at Flamborough Head; for example the mussel population

at the control site contained just a few small individuals relative to the

protected site. However, whether this was due to human exploitation requires

further discussion and investigation.

6.1 Compare the species composition of intertidal communities between the

protected and non-protected sites at Flamborough Head.

This report examined the species composition of marine algae (seaweeds)

and invertebrates at both the Flamborough Head No-take Zone (NTZ) and an

adjacent, unprotected control site. Although the community composition of the

two sites was broadly very similar, there were some significant differences in

total algae cover and the abundance of certain species. These results and the

comparisons made between the NTZ and the control site can now be used to

establish a quantitative baseline of the structure of these communities soon

after (1 year) the designation of the Flamborough Head NTZ. How these

communities change in the longer term can now be used to assess the

effectiveness of the NTZ for meeting its conservation objectives.

Overall there was slightly but significantly higher algae cover at the control

site compared to the NTZ. This may be due the presence of more suitable



36

habitat for the establishment of algae at the control site. The community

present on a rocky shore will be strongly influenced by the structure and

texture of the substratum (Brehaut, 1982). The porous nature of chalk means

water is retained, allowing species to extend their range. There may have

been more chalk platforms at the control site, which enabled Fucus serratus

to extend its range to the upper shore. Species such as Ulva intestinalis (gut

weed) and Ulva lactuca (sea lettuce) were equally present at both sites.

However, at the control site when compared to the NTZ there was more

percentage cover on the lower shore as algae dominated the area. This may

be due to chalk-boring species such as Cliona celataI (yellow sponge) that is

only found at the control site. The holes they create may then be used as

footholds by the algae, thereby increasing the habitat available (Net Gain,

2011). More research needs to be carried out as to why Cliona celataI is not

present at the NTZ.

The mean density of animals was significantly less at the control site than the

NTZ. Although interactions between species can be complex it is likely that

algae cover at the control site is dominating the shore and thereby affecting

the interactions of other species. The abundance and distribution of algae can

actually swamp grazing activity (Raffaelli and Hawkins, 1996). Limpet grazing

then becomes less effective. Barnacles are reduced in number by the

presence of limpets and by predation by dog whelks. The sweeping of fucoid

fronds will also reduce the settlement of barnacles (Jenkins et al., 1999). It

seems therefore that the algae at the control site, is an important organising

force, which is controlling the density of animals.

6.2 Quantify and compare the abundance and distribution of key species of

flora and fauna, at the study sites.

The distribution and abundance of the most common plant and animal

species was also compared between the two sites. This included some

species (e.g. the common mussel, Mytilus edulis, which might be expected to

benefit from protection because it is targeted for food and bait (Smith et al.,

2008).



37

To evaluate the effects of human disturbance on the community the mean

percentage cover of key algae species and the mean number of key animal

species, were assessed. Both sites had similar key species. At both sites the

most frequently occurring algae were Fucus serratus and the most frequently

found animal was the Semibalanus balanoides. Fucus serratus found on the

lower shore, is able to extend its range up shore at Flamborough Head due to

the porous chalk platforms. Semibalanus balanoides occurs in great quantity

due to its ability to survive at higher levels than its competitors and predators

(Menge, 1991).

In addition, Fucus vesiculosis was found to be significantly more abundant at

the control site. Also, Littorina littorea and obtusata were found to be more

abundant in the NTZ. An explanation for this maybe because as there is a

lack of abundance of Littorina littorea and obtusata at the control site

ephemeral algae and tiny fucus germlings are not being consumed which then

allows the later succession of Fucus vesiculosis to become dominate. The

dominance of Littorina littorea and obtusata at the NTZ maybe because of a

higher percentage of bare rock available and the protection offered by the

NTZ which prevents the extraction of Littorina littorea and obtusata as bait

(Lubchenco, 1983).

Patterns of vertical distribution of rocky shore organisms have been

extensively studied since Stephenson and Stephenson (1949), and Lewis

(1964). It is recognised that the general patterns of zonation on rocky shores

can be explained in terms of physical factors (direct and indirect) interacting

with biological factors to set distribution patterns (Raffaelli and Hawkins,

1996). In this investigation the comparison of patterns of abundance and

distribution were greatly strengthened by the fact that both sites were within

equivalent environments. The trends in this report suggest similar zonation

patterns and similar species present in the intertidal zone in general.

However, this study also suggests the formation of a trend whereby changes

are beginning to take place at the NTZ with an increased abundance of




38

Nucella lapillus. As previously exploited species the NTZ might be of benefit

as it protects them from extraction. The significance of these changes is hard

to establish at the moment but future monitoring will allow long-term

ecological changes to be assessed.

6.3. Quantify and compare the population structure of key species of fauna at

the study sites.

Net Gain was a North Sea Marine Conservation Zone Project that was set up

in 2009 to identify and recommend Marine Conservation Zones to the

government. Net Gain recommended that at Flamborough Head Mytilus

edulis should be protected as it had been heavily exploited in the past and

was an important species in the NTZ. When of sufficient size and distribution

they can play an important functional role by stabilising the sediment

(Thomson et al., 2009). The protection of the mussel beds is one of the key

reasons why Net Gain recommended the NTZ at Flamborough Head is

situated in that location.

The density and size of mussels at the NTZ was found to be significantly

higher. In the west corner of the NTZ there was evidence of an extensive

mussel bed as mapped by Hill (2010). This could be early evidence that the

NTZ is protecting stocks from extraction.

There have been many previous studies that examine the common effects of

commercial species within protected areas and many have shown that

protection can increase the mean size of target species (Halpern and Warren,

2002; Beukers-Stewart et al., 2005). The effect of improved recruitment is

illustrated by comparing the size structure of Littorina littorea and obtusata,

Mytilus edulis and Patella vulgata, which all show a stable population with a

range of sizes at the NTZ.

It is too early to say whether the NTZ is responsible for these population

changes, it is therefore important that these species continue to be monitored

over at least the next 5 to 10 years so that trends in population changes can

be measured and the effects of protection more fully evaluated.



39

6.4 Human depreciative behaviour along the intertidal zone in the study sites.

Depreciative behaviour is essentially behaviour which causes un-intentional

damage. For example, visitors may not understand the value of protected

resources and their potential effects on those resources (Alessa et al., 2003).

Human use of the intertidal zone can be very destructive because of

trampling, the overturning of rocks and the collection and disturbance of

certain species (Keough and Quinn, 1998).

The results in this study show that the level of trampling appears to be quite

high at both sites (over 64% of observed activity). Fletcher and Frid (1996)

found that even light trampling was enough to reduce the abundance of

fucoids. If attachments are weakened there is an increased risk of

dislodgement during storms. Brosnan and Crumrine (1994) also found that

trampling destabilized mussel beds by loosening the byssal attachment,

making them more susceptible to wave action. In contrast, there is no

evidence that the mussel beds at the NTZ are being affected by trampling as

the results from this study show there is still a high density and size of this

population.

Overturning rocks was another popular activity. The underside of rocks is a

refuge for intertidal organisms as they provide protection from desiccation

during low tide and from predators during periods of inundation (Addessi,

1994). Humans turn over boulders out of curiosity or in search of food and

bait. Addessi (1994) found a direct correlation between the distribution and

abundance of people in relation to the gradients of physical disturbance. The

handling of flora and fauna is driven by people who posses knowledge about

the intertidal ecosystem. Curiosity leads them to investigate further, and often

they express a desire to share they’re knowledge and experience with others.

Usually these interactions involve parent and child (Alessa et al., 2003).

Therefore it seems that personal attitudes are more significant than

knowledge in driving depreciative behaviours. This behaviour is compatible

with the observations in this report which shown no difference in the handling

behaviour of people when in the NTZ.



40

The fact that both sites experienced very similar patterns of human visitation

behaviour is perhaps not surprising given the close proximity of the NTZ and

the control site, and given that walking and handling are popular activities.

However, it would be expected that there should be little or no extraction at

the NTZ. The fact that levels of extraction were almost exactly the same at

both sites means that many people were not complying with the NTZ

regulations. Murray et al., (1999) also found that the frequency of extraction

continued even when signs displayed protection status. Compliance and

enforcement of the law are critical determinants of the success of a NTZ

(Hoskins et al., 2009). At Flamborough Head there is no evidence that

enforcement of the law is taking place. Without enforcement the protective

laws seem to be ineffective (Murray et al., 1999). Smith et al., (2008)

concluded that due to a lack of enforcement protected marine reserves might

not be effective in protecting and enhancing intertidal marine life.

Even if collecting is stopped through enforcement, the other impacts of human

use such as trampling and over turning of rocks will still persist (Brosnan and

Crumrine, 1994) because the NTZ does not offer protection from these

activities. It may therefore be necessary for management options to include

exclusion zones thereby restricting public access completely, or perhaps

different zones which could be accessed at different times, thereby restricting

access as appropriate (Keough and Quinn, 1998). In order to carry out

successful management practices, it is important that surveillance and

monitoring schemes are used to determine whether the management of the

site is effective.

6.5 Investigate the extent to which visitors are aware of the No-take Zone.

Effective management of human activities at the intertidal zone does not only

depend on sound scientific research only. The input and involvement of local

people and visitors is necessary for the implementation of the NTZ regulations

(Murray et al., 1999).

Flamborough Head is in close proximity to the popular tourist areas of

Flamborough, Bridlington, Scarborough and Filey with the area receiving over



41

56,000 visitors per year (East Riding News, 2006). The demographics of the

population visiting the study sites was of an older age group than the general

population, so this would suggest that families do not travel far from the main

tourist beaches of Bridlington and Filey, and therefore do not visit as often the

NTZ is some distance away from these areas. The vast majority of people

visiting the NTZ are local and visit the area many times, which implies an

enjoyment of and an appreciation for the natural environment.

Walking, (including dog walking) was the most popular activity carried out by

visitors (85%). As a result trampling may become a major problem at the NTZ.

As rocky shores become increasingly popular so the degree of trampling can

be extremely high leading to a reduction in flora and fauna (Fletcher, 1997).

Trampling can be particularly heavy in conservation areas where public

access is encouraged to promote awareness of marine wildlife (Fletcher and

Frid, 1996). To overcome this impact a clearly defined path could be

established at the NTZ as it becomes more popular.

There is clearly a need for increased awareness of the NTZ, both in terms of

knowing it’s there and what its purpose is. This would be of benefit to the NTZ

because as the data suggests those participants that were aware of the NTZ

were also strongly in support of it. As many of the visitors were from the local

area and therefore more likely to know about the NTZ, there is a need to

better inform new visitors, who may be less aware of habitats’ sensitivity.

Education is vital, as greater public awareness will help foster stewardship of

the marine environment by promoting the value of nature and encouraging the

support for conservation, whether it’s for the local or visiting public (Jones,

1999). A lack of knowledge is a factor that may explain the weak relationship

between environmental concern and environmentally responsible behaviour

(Hines, 1987). Effective targeting of education could be used to change

entrenched behaviour, especially that of local people whose detrimental

activities may have been carried out in the NTZ for a long time. Participants in

such activities will need convincing through evidence that damage is being

caused.



42

Analysis of our findings identified the need for better communication. At the

moment signage is the tool by which people are receiving information but this

method is clearly only reaching a limited amount of people. Leaflets and

booklets could be produced and distributed through popular venues such as

the tourist office, libraries and even local supermarkets. These would have the

advantage of being able to be updated relatively quickly. An interactive web

site could engage young people in the area as well as being a forum where

people can voice their opinions and experiences. The message of the reasons

why the NTZ exists, the intended outcome, and the benefits for the

environment and people, needs to be communicated much more widely.

In conclusion, although it is too early to say whether the NTZ at Flamborough

Head is providing any benefits to the intertidal community due to it being

recently established, the signs are encouraging. It is likely that any substantial

improvements will be seen in future monitoring. However, extraction of certain

species such as Littorina littorea and obtusata still appears to be occurring

within the NTZ and this could hinder recovery. Trampling is a disturbance that

can often result in persistent changes to intertidal communities. An area may

need to be fenced off (or similar) so that an exclusion zone is created thereby

fully protecting at least some areas of intertidal flora and fauna. From our

analysis of personal behaviour and awareness of visitors to the area it

appears there also needs to be more education on the impacts of human

activity in the NTZ.

Study limitations

The surveys were carried out as thoroughly and accurately as possible.

Although every care was taken to identify the species as definitively as

possible there is a possibility that some species could have been mis-

identified. Even so, any mistakes made should have been compensated for by

the fact that the surveys were repeated three times at each transect.



43

The study was carried out in the summer months of August and September.

However due to the changes that may occur in the Intertidal zone throughout

the year the data presented may not be representative for the whole year.

Species composition and the abundance of species before Flamborough

Head NTZ was established was unknown therefore any changes that have

taken place between the NTZ and the control site could not be verified.

However this study is intended to be the first in a series of an annual

monitoring scheme so any future changes will be assessed.

Further studies

There is presently no understanding of intertidal communities between

protected and non-protected sites in the UK. This baseline study can be used

to compare and contrast with new NTZs as they become established around

the country, thereby improving our understanding of how NTZs can be

developed as a management tool.

Furthermore, it is important that monitoring continues to take place (every

year) at the NTZ and control site at Flamborough Head. More data is required

on how human activity is affecting the communities at the NTZ, as this will

help us to better understand regional and global differences in intertidal

communities.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Leanne Stockdale and Robbie Fisher for their

guidance during the design of this investigation. Katherine Gray gave

permission for parking at the field site.



44

References

Addessi, L., (1994). Human Disturbance and Long-term changes on a Rocky

Intertidal Community. Ecological Applications, 4 (4), pp.786-797.

Addison, P.F.E.M., Koss, R.S., O’Hara, T.D., (2008). Recreational use of a

rocky intertidal reef in Victoria: Implications for Ecological Research and

Management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 15,

pp.169-179.

Alessa, L., Bennett, S., and Kliskey, A., (2003). Effects of knowledge,

personal attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative

behaviour in the intertidal zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve.

Journal of Environmental Management, 68, pp.207-218.

Branch, G.M., (1974). The ecology of Patella Linnaeus from the Cape

Peninsula, South Africa. 2. Reproductive cycles. Transactions from the Royal

Society of South Africa, 41, pp.111–160.

Beukers-Stewart, B.D., Vause, B.J., Mosely, M.W.J., Rossetti, H.L., Brand,

A.R., (2005). Benefits of closed area protection for a population of scallops.

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 298, pp.189-204.

Brehaut, R.N., (1982). Ecology of Rocky Shores. International review of

Hydrology, 68 (5), p.742.

Brosnan, D.M., and Crumrine, L.L., (1994). Effects of humans trampling on

marine rocky shore communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and

Ecology, 177, pp.79-97.

Crowe, T.P., Thompson, R.C., Bray, S., Hawkins, S.J., (2000). Impacts of

anthropogenic stress on rocky intertidal communities. Journal of Aquatic

Ecosystem Stress and Recovery, 7, pp.273–297.



45

Fletcher, H., (1997). The Impact and Management of Visitor Pressure on

Rocky Shore Communities. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Fletcher, H., and Frid, C.L.J., (1996). Impact and management of visitor

pressure on rocky intertidal algal communities. Aquatic Conservation: Marine

and Freshwater Ecosystems, 6, pp.287–297.

Halpern, B.S., and Warner, R.R., (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and

lasting effects. Ecology letters, 5, pp.361-366.

Hill, S., Burrows, M.T., Hawkins, S. J., (1998). Intertidal Reef Biotopes: An

overview of dynamics and sensitive characteristics for conservation

management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for marine Science.

Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera A.N., (1987). Analysis and synthesis of

research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of

Environmental Education, 18, pp.1–18.

Hoskin, M.G., Coleman, R.A., Carlshausen, L., (2009). Effects of the Lundy

No-take Zone: the first five years (2003-2007). Report to Natural England,

DEFRA and WWF-UK.

Howson, C.M., (2001). Flamborough Head cSAC intertidal survey.

Peterborough: English Nature.

IUCN, (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland and

Cambridge, UK.

Jenkins, S.R., Norton, T.A., Hawkins, S.J., (1999). Settlement and post-

settlement interactions between Semibalanus balanoides (L.) (Crustacea:

Cirripedia) and three species of fucoid canopy algae. Journal of Experimental

Marine Biology and Ecology, 236, pp.49-67.



46

Joint Nature Conservation Committee, (1989). Guide lines for Selection of

Biological SSSIs: Intertidal marine habitats and saline lagoons. Peterborough:

Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee, (2004). Common Standards Monitoring

Guidance for Littoral Rock and Inshore Sublittoral Rock Habitats.

Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Jones, P.J.S. (1999). Marine nature reserves in Britain: Past lessons, current

states and future issues. Marine Policy, 23 (4), pp.375 – 396.

Keough, M.J., and Quinn, G.P., (1998). Effects of periodic disturbances from

trampling on rocky shore intertidal algal beds. Ecological Applications, 8,

pp.141-161.

Lewis, J. R., (1964). The Ecology of Rocky Shores. London: English

Universities Press Limited, London, England.

Lubchenco, J., (1983). Littorina and Fucus: effects of herbivores, substratum,

heterogeneity, and plant escapes during succession. Ecology, 64. pp.1116-

1123.

Menge, B. A., (1991) Relative Importance of recruitment and other causes of

variation in rocky intertidal community structure. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 146.

pp. 69-100.

Menge, B. A., and G. M. Branch., (2001). Rocky Intertidal Communities.

Marine community ecology, Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

Murray, S.N., Denis, T.D., Kido, J.S., Smith, J.R., (1999). Human visitation

and the frequency and potential affects of collecting on rocky intertidal

populations in South Californian Marine Reserves. CalCOF Report, 40,

pp.100-106.



47

Natural England, (2011). Marine Protected Areas.

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/marine/protectandmanage/mpa/def

ault.aspx (Online). [Accessed 18th January 2012].

Paine, R. T., and Levin, S. A., (1981). Intertidal landscapes: disturbance and

the dynamics of pattern. Ecological Monographs, 51, pp.145–178.

Raffaelli, D.G., and Hawkins, S.J., (1996). Intertidal Ecology. London:

Chapman and Hall.

Roy, K., Collins, A.G., Becker, B.J., Begovic, E., Engle, J.M., (2003).

Anthropogenic impacts and historical decline in body size of rocky intertidal

gastropods in Southern California. Ecology Letters, 6, pp.205-211.

Scott, G., Hull, S., Hornby, S., Hardy, G and Owens, N., (2001). Phenotypic

variation in Fucus spiralis (Phaeophyceae): morphology, chemical phenotype

and their relationship to the environment. Eur. J. Phycol., 36. pp.43-50.

Smith, J.R., Fong, F., Ambrose, R.F., (2008). The Impact of Human Visitation

on Mussel Bed Communities along the California Coast: Are Regulatory

Marine Reserves Effective in Protected These Communities? Environmental

Management, 41. pp.599-612.

Sousa, W. P., (1984). The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, pp.353–391.

Stephenson, T. A., and Stephenson, A., (1949). The universal features of

zonation between the tidemarks on rocky coasts. The Journal of Ecology, 38,

pp.289-305.

Stockdale, L., (2007). The Flamborough Head Management Plan. March

2007. Flamborough Head Project Officer, Bridlington, UK.



48

Terlizzi, A., Frashetti, S., Guidetti, P., Boero, F., (2002). The effects of sewage

discharge on shallow hard substrate sessile assemblages. Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 44, pp.544-550.

Thomson, S., Elliott, M., Johnson, M., Perez-Dominguez, R., and Hull, S.,

(2009). No-take Zone Monitoring: Flamborough Head. Hull: Institute of

Estuarine & Coastal Studies.

Underwood, A.J., (2005). Exploitation of species on the rocky coast of New

South Wales (Australia) and options for its management. Ocean and Coastal

Management, 20, pp.41-62.

Wood, H.M., Grahame, J.W., Humphray, S., Rogers, J., Butlin, R.K., (2008).

Sequence differentiation in regions identified by a genome scan for local

adaptation. Molecular Ecology, 17, pp.3123-3131.

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, (2006). http://www.ywt.org.uk/flamborough_cliffs.php

(offline). [Accessed 10th October 2011].



49

Appendices

Pre- survey work

Equipment required

Collins Pocket Guide to the Seashore of Britain and Europe (Hayward, et

al., 1996)

Students Guide to the Seashore (Fish and Fish, 2008)

Plastic bags – for unidentified species

Fieldwork tables and pencil

Suitable footwear and clothing

Tape measure

Quadrat (0.5m x 0.5m), dissected into 1% squares

Quadrat (1.0m x 1.0m), dissected into 4% squares

Digital Camera (Cannon E550)

Calipers - For measuring fauna size

GPS – Garmin eTrex Summit HC, High-sensitivity GPS navigator



50

Acronyms

EMS European Marine Site

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

LNR Local Nature Reserve

MPA Marine Protected Areas

NTZ No-take Zone

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SPA Special Protected Area

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

YWT Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Is the Flamborough Head No-take Zone protecting rocky shore intertidal communities?

Documents

Transcript of Is the Flamborough Head No-take Zone protecting rocky shore intertidal communities?