Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 815–825 | Cite as

Interspecific interference competition alters habitat use patterns in two species of land snails

  • Kazuki Kimura
  • Satoshi Chiba
Original Paper


Focus has been placed on the relative importance of environmental heterogeneity and biological interactions on community structure. For land snails, abiotic factors have commonly been assumed to be the most important factors for shaping communities because resources for land snails are commonly not limiting, and because interspecific resource competition would not be strong enough to promote ecological divergence. However, clear divergence in habitat use is often observed among sympatric land snail species. Such an ecological divergence would be promoted not by resource competition but by other interactions such as aggression. To test this hypothesis, laboratory experiments were designed to explore aggressive behaviour in the land snails Euhadra quaesita and E. peliomphala and field surveys were conducted to examine their habitat use. In the laboratory experiments, we examined how the presence of one species affects the growth of the other species by supplying sufficient amounts of food and calcium for both species. Experimental trials showed that adult E. quaesita decreased the growth of E. peliomphala under constant diet conditions. In contrast, E. peliomphala did not affect the growth of E. quaesita. Because E. peliomphala was often attacked by E. quaesita and its shell was often eroded by E. quaesita gnawing, aggression by E. quaesita appears to be the primary factor reducing the growth of E. peliomphala. When the two species coexist in nature, adults and juveniles of E. quaesita are terrestrial, while those of E. peliomphala are arboreal. When these species occurred alone, E. quaesita were still terrestrial, but E. peliomphala were more terrestrial than when they were in sympatry. Our results suggest that habitat use of these species in the natural communities is affected by interspecific interference. These findings further suggest that the divergence of habitat use between the species can occur by aggression even in environments with unlimited resources.


Direct aggression Asymmetric competition Habitat separation Coexistence Gastropoda 



We express our sincere gratitude to M. Hayashi, J. Konuma, and N. Takahashi for helpful advice and assistance in this study. This study was financially supported by The Global COE Program J03 (Ecosystem management adapting to global change) of the MEXT, Japan.


  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Cotnr 19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson NJ, Brodersen KP, Ryves DB, McGowan S, Johansson LS, Jeppesen E, Leng MJ (2008) Climate versus in-lake processes as controlls on the development of community structure in a low-arctic lake (South-West Greenland). Ecosystem 11:307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004) Plant community responces to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139:617–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baur B (1988) Microgeographic variation in the shell size of the land snail Chondrina clienta. Biol J Linn Soc 35:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baur B, Baur A (1990) Experimental evidence for intra- and interspecific competition in two species of rock-dwelling land snails. J Anim Ecol 59:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR (1996) Ecology–individuals, populations, communities, 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Boycott AE (1934) The habitats of land mollusca in Britain. J Ecol 22:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull CM, Baker GH, Lawson LM, Steed MA (1992) Investigations of role of mucus and faeces in interspecific interactions of two land snails. J Moll Stud 58:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burch JB, Pearce TA (1990) Terrestrial gastropoda. In: Dindal DL (ed) Soil biology guide. Wiley, New York, pp 201–309Google Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler AJ (1976) A shortage of food for the terrestrial snail Helicella virgata in South Australia. Oecologia 25:349–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cain AJ (1983) Ecology and ecogenetics of terrestrial molluscan populations. In: Russel-Hunter WD (ed) The mollusca 6: ecology. Academic Press, London, pp 597–647Google Scholar
  13. Cameron RAD (1970) Differences in the distributions of three species of helicid snails in the limestone district of Derbyshire. Proc R Soc B 176:131–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cameron RAD, Carter MA (1979) Intra- and interspecific effects of population density on growth and activity in some helicid land snails (Gasropoda: Pulmonata). J Anim Ecol 48:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter MA, Ashdown M (1984) Experimental studies on the effects of density, size and shell colour and banding phenotypes on the fecundity of Cepaea nemoralis. Malacologia 25:291–302Google Scholar
  16. Carter MA, Jeffery RCV, Williamson P (1979) Food overlap in co-existing populations of the land snails Cepaea nemoralis (L.) and Cepaea hortensis (Mull). Biol J Linn Soc 11:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connell JH (1975) Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities: a model and evidence from field experiments. In: Cody M, Diamond J (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 460–490Google Scholar
  18. Cook A (2001) Behavioural ecology: on doing the right thing, in the right place at the right time. In: Baker GM (ed) The biology of terrestrial molluscs. CABI publishing, Wallingford, pp 447–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dan NA, Bailey SER (1982) Growth, mortality and feeding rates of the snail Helix aspersa at different population densities in the laboratory and the depression of activity of Helicid snails by other individuals or their mucus. J Moll Stud 48:257–265Google Scholar
  20. Foster BA, Stiven AE (1996) Experimental effects of density and food on growth and mortality of the southern Appalachian land gastropod, Mesodon normalis (Pilsbry). Am Midl Nat 136:300–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hatziioannou M, Eleutheriadis N, Lazaridou-Dimitriadou M (1994) Food preferences and dietary overlap by terrestrial snails in logos area (Edessa, Macedonia, Northern Greece). J Moll Stud 60:331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hay ME, Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Caudill CC, Wilson AE, Hallinan ZP, Chequer AD (2004) Mutualism and aquatic community structure: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Law R, Marrow P, Dieckman U (1997) On evolution under asymmetric competition. Evol Ecol 11:485–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacArthur RH, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagasawa T (1990) Eatable plants of Euhadra quaesita. Newsl Malacol Soc Jpn 21:17–20Google Scholar
  27. Pearce TA (1997) Interference and resource competition in two land snails: adult inhibit conspecific juvenile growth in field and laboratory. J Moll Stud 63:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  29. Rollo CD (1983a) Consequences of competition on the reproduction and mortality of three species of terrestrial slugs. Res Popul Ecol 25:20–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rollo CD (1983b) Consequences of competition on the time budgets, growth and distributions of three species of terrestrial slugs. Res Popul Ecol 25:44–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rollo CD, Wellington WG (1979) Intra- and interspecific agonistic behaviour among terrestrial slugs (Pulmonata: Stylommatophora). Can J Zool 57:846–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: an introduction. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Smallridge MA, Kirby GC (1988) Competitive interactions between the land snails Theba pisana (Muller) and Cernuella virgata (Da Costa) from South Australia. J Moll Stud 54:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strong DR, Simberloff D, Abele LG, Thistle AB (1984) Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Tattersfield P (1981) Density and environmental effects on shell size in some sand dune snail populations. Biol J Linn Soc 16:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valovirta I (1968) Land molluscs in relation to acidity on hyperite hills in Central Finland. Ann Zool Fennici 5:245–253Google Scholar
  37. Walden HW (1981) Community and diversity of land mollucs in Scandinavian woodlands. I. High diversity communities in taluses and boulder slopes in SW Sweden. J Conch 30:351–372Google Scholar
  38. Whitham TG, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Schster SM, Bangert RK, LeRoy CJ, Lonsdorf EV, Allan GJ, DiFazio SP, Potts BM, Fischer DG, Gehring CA, Lindroth RL, Marks JC, Hart SC, Wimp GM, Wooley SC (2006) A framewok for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystem. Nature Rev Genet 7:510–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Williamson P, Cameron RAD, Carter MA (1976) Population density affecting adult shell size of snail Cepaea nemoralis L. Nature 263:496–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Williamson P, Cameron RAD, Carter MA (1977) Population dynamics of the landsnail Cepaea nemoralis L.: a six-year study. J Anim Ecol 46:181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolda H, Zweep A, Schuitema KA (1971) The role of food in the dynamics of populations of the landsnail Cepaea nemoralis. Oecologia 7:361–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Graduate School of Life SciencesTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations