The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mechanical Limits to Size in Wave‐Swept Organisms
Abstract
Plants and animals that inhabit the intertidal zone of wave—swept shores are generally small relative to terrestrial or subtidal organisms. Various biological mechanisms have been proposed to account for this observation (competition, size—specific predation, food—limitation, etc.). However, these biological mechanisms are constrained to operate within the mechanical limitations imposed by the physical environment, and these limitations have never been thoroughly explored. We investigated the possibility that the observed limits to size in wave—swept organisms are due solely or in part to mechanical, rather than biological, factors. The total force imposed on an organism by breaking waves and postbreaking flows is due to both the water's velocity and its acceleration. The force due to velocity (a combined effect of drag and lift) increases in strict proportion to the organism's structural strength as the organism increases in size, and therefore cannot act as a mechanical limit to size. In contrast, the force due to the water's acceleration increases faster than the organism's structural strength as the organism grows, and thus constitutes a potential mechanical limit to its size. We incorporated this fact into a model that predicts the probability that an organism will be destroyed (by breakage or dislodgement) as a function of five parameters that can be measured empirically: (1) the organism's size, (2) the organism's structural strength, (3) the maximum water acceleration in each wave, (4) the maximum water velocity at the time of maximum acceleration in each wave, and (5) the probability of encountering waves with given flow parameters. The model was tested using a variety of organisms. For each, parameters 1—4 were measured or calculated; the probability of destruction, and the size—specific increment in this probability, were then predicted. For the limpets Collisella pelta and Notoacmaea scutum, the urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, the mussel Mytilus californianus (when solitary), and the hydrocoral Millepora complanata, both the probability of destruction and the size—specific increase in the risk of destruction were determined to be substantial. It is conjectured that the size of individuals of these species may be limited as a result of mechanical factors, though the case of M. complanata is complicated by the possibility that breakage may act as a dispersal mechanism. In other cases (the snails Thais canaliculata, T. emarginata, and Littorina scutulata; the barnacle Semibalanus cariosus), the size—specific increment in the risk of destruction is small and the size limits imposed on these organisms are conjectured to be due to biological factors. Our model also provides an approach to examining many potential effects of environmental stress caused by flowing water. For example, these methods may be applied to studies of: (1) life—history parameters (e.g., size at first reproduction, age at first reproduction, timing of reproductive cycles, length of possible reproductive lifetime), (2) the effects of gregarious settlement on the flow encountered, (3) the physical basis for patterns of disturbance, (4) the optimum (as opposed to the maximum) size of organisms, and (5) the energetic cost of maintaining a skeleton with an appropriate safety factor. A definitive answer regarding the possibility of mechanical limits to size depends both upon an accurate measurement of the probability of encountering a wave of specific flow parameters and upon factors that are external to the model considered (e.g., life—history parameters). Further, due to their ability to move with the flow, organisms that are sufficiently flexible can escape the size limits imposed on more rigid organisms. Thus, some macroalgae attain large sizes (2—3 m in maximum dimension). The precise role of these factors awaits further research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Brooks, J. L., & Dodson, S. I. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.150.3692.28 · Cited by 3,280
ALLOMETRY AND SIZE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY
GOULD, S. J. (1966) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1966.tb01624.x · Cited by 2,280
Cited by
The Role of Disturbance in Natural Communities
Sousa, W. P. (1984) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002033 · Cited by 2,305
Physiological Consequences of Habitat Selection
Huey, R. B. (1991) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285141 · Cited by 914
Hydraulic Stream Ecology: Observed Patterns and Potential Applications
Statzner, B., Gore, J. A., & Resh, V. H. (1988) · Journal of the North American Benthological Society · doi:10.2307/1467296 · Cited by 719
THE ROLE OF POSITIVE INTERACTIONS IN COMMUNITIES: LESSONS FROM INTERTIDAL HABITATS
Bertness, M. D., & Leonard, G. H. (1997) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[1976:tropii]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 580
The Ecology Of Indeterminate Growth In Animals
Sebens, K. (1987) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.18.1.371 · Cited by 554
Metadata
- Authors
- Denny, M. W., Daniel, T. L., & Koehl, M. A. R.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1985-03
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-102
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2158779154
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanical Limits to Size in Wave‐Swept Organisms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942526
- The paper
- Denny, M. W., Daniel, T. L., & Koehl, M. A. R. (1985). Mechanical Limits to Size in Wave‐Swept Organisms. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942526
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.