Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Littorina littorea
(common periwinkle)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Littorina littorea (common periwinkle)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 08 November 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Vector of Animal Disease
  • Host Animal
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Littorina littorea
  • Preferred Common Name
  • common periwinkle
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Mollusca
  •       Class: Gastropoda
  •         Subclass: Caenogastropoda
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • L. littorea is invasive in North America with a current range from Red Bay, Labrador, to Lewes, Delaware (Blakeslee et al., 2008; ...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Littorina littorea on the Maine coast, USA, where they are invasive and the most numerous intertidal herbivore.
TitleHabit
CaptionLittorina littorea on the Maine coast, USA, where they are invasive and the most numerous intertidal herbivore.
CopyrightSusan H. Brawley
Littorina littorea on the Maine coast, USA, where they are invasive and the most numerous intertidal herbivore.
HabitLittorina littorea on the Maine coast, USA, where they are invasive and the most numerous intertidal herbivore.Susan H. Brawley

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Littorina littorea (Linnaeus, 1758)

Preferred Common Name

  • common periwinkle

International Common Names

  • English: edible periwinkle; winkle; wrinkle
  • French: bigorneau; bigorneau commun; bigorneau gris; le vrai bigorneau

Local Common Names

  • Germany: Große Strandschnecke
  • Ireland: an Giorandán
  • Netherlands: gewone alikruik
  • Norway: strandsnigel
  • Sweden: vanlig strandsnäcka

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

L. littorea is invasive in North America with a current range from Red Bay, Labrador, to Lewes, Delaware (Blakeslee et al., 2008; Brawley et al., 2009). Recent historical and molecular analyses support Great Britain and Ireland as the region from which L. littorea was introduced into Nova Scotia (NS) (Brawley et al., 2009; also see Blakeslee and Byers, 2008; Blakeslee et al., 2008). L. littorea was common at Pictou (NS) in 1840 (Dawson and Harrington, 1871), and spread southward from Halifax (NS) to Cape May, New Jersey by 1890 (Willis, 1863; Morse, 1880; Verrill, 1880; Ganong 1886, 1887; Bequaert, 1943) and northward to southern Labrador by 1882 (Bequaert, 1943). Rare subfossils of L. littorea exist in the Canadian Maritimes (see History of Invasion/Spread). This snail is the major herbivore of the intertidal zone within its invasive range in the northwestern Atlantic. Although not established, L. littorea is being periodically introduced to bays on the U.S. Pacific coast.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Mollusca
  •             Class: Gastropoda
  •                 Subclass: Caenogastropoda
  •                     Order: Littorinimorpha
  •                         Unknown: Littorinoidea
  •                             Family: Littorinidae
  •                                 Genus: Littorina
  •                                     Species: Littorina littorea

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

The name Littorina littorea was in common use among scientists by the 1830s-1840s, but the species was originally described by Linnaeus (1758) as Turbo littoreus. No shells or preserved specimens survive as types from Linnaeus’ work, and Reid (1996) established a lectotype from one of Linnaeus’ drawings along with a diagnosis of the species. Reid discusses the taxonomic history involving synonymies and earlier spellings of L. littorea (e.g., Menke (1828) used Litorina litorea). Reid (1996) remarks that a few authors, perhaps even Linneaus, included L. saxatilis within their concept of T. littoreus/L. littorea until the late 1830s, and still fewer authors included L. squalida from the Pacific within L. littorea during part of the 1800s. Lyell (1835) applied the name L. littorea to fossil specimens of L. littorea, and most subsequent authors applied this name to fossil and modern representatives of L. littorea with the same concept of the species as we use today. The common name of L. littorea in English is “the common periwinkle”.

The higher classification of the Gastropoda of Bouchet and Rocroi (2005) places Littorina in clade Littorinimorpha of the Caenogastropoda.

Description

Top of page

Reid (1996) gives the mature shell height of L. littorea as 10.6-52.8 mm. Many colour morphs are known, but most shells are dark (brown to black), although when older and eroded, the shell is lighter. The shell is an oblong-turbinate gastropod shell with a large body whorl and pointed spire; sutures and additional whorls are not very prominent except in young snails. Shell width is about two-thirds to three-quartersof the length. The species is unisexual, and, in the breeding season, males have a prominent penis (e.g., Fretter and Graham, 1962; Barroso et al., 2007). Further details and excellent illustrations are given by Fretter and Graham (1962, Chapter 2) and by Reid (1996, see p. 7, 9, 33, 100-105; reproductive details are taxonomically important: males have a penis with 10-42 mamilliform glands, and females have an oviduct that is composed of three loops, two of the albumen gland followed by a capsule gland).

Distribution

Top of page

L. littorea occurs abundantly in intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats from the White Sea (Russia) to southern Portugal in the eastern Atlantic; this is its native range (Hawkins et al., 1992; Reid, 1996; Barroso et al., 2007). Rózycki (1991) reported it from southern Spitzbergen. As an invasive species in the northwestern Atlantic, L. littorea occurs from Red Bay, Labrador, to Lewes, Delaware (Reid, 1996; Brawley et al., 2009), where it is abundant on rocky shores, cobbled beaches, salt marshes, and in shallow subtidal areas (Stephenson and Stephenson, 1954; Vadas and Elner, 1992). Occasional recruits on the Virginia (USA) shore are known (Vermeij, 1982). L. littorea is also reported locally from bays (Trinidad Bay and San Francisco Bay, California; Newport Bay, Oregon; Puget Sound, Washington) on the Pacific coast of North America, although it has not become established there as an invasive species (Hanna, 1966; Carlton, 1969; Carlton, 2007; San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2009; see Invasive Species Management).

Fossils of L. littorea in the eastern Atlantic are first found in England at ca. 2.4-3.2 My BP (the Red Crag formation) and are common in many European deposits thereafter (see discussion in Reid, 1996). The apparent range of L. littorina shifted with climate change to areas northward (Siberia) or southward (Morocco) of the present native range, based upon fossils in deposits dated from periods known to represent colder or warmer climates than present. L. littorea is unknown from Greenland, and it was last present in Iceland about 1.1 My BP (Leifsdóttir and Símonarson, 2002).

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

North America

CanadaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-New BrunswickPresentIntroduced Invasive Morse, 1880; Edgell and Rochette, 2008; Brawley et al., 2009
-Newfoundland and LabradorPresentIntroduced Invasive Bequaert, 1943; Blakeslee and Byers, 2008; Brawley et al., 2009
-Nova ScotiaPresentIntroduced Invasive Willis, 1863; Brawley et al., 2009
-Prince Edward IslandWidespread2009Introduced Invasive Brawley et al., 2009
-QuebecWidespread2009Introduced Invasive Brawley et al., 2009Penetrates St Lawrence River estuary almost to Quebec City
USAPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-CaliforniaPresent, few occurrences2009Introduced Not invasive Carlton, 2007; San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2009A few individuals found by Carlton in San Francisco Bay. Localised, accidental introductions continue, but an invasive population remains absent
-ConnecticutPresentIntroduced1879 Invasive Verrill, 1880; Brawley et al., 2009
-DelawareWidespread2009Introduced Invasive Brawley et al., 2009Southernmost distribution in NW Atlantic found at Lewes, DL
-MaineWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Verrill, 1880; Brawley et al., 2009
-MarylandAbsent, formerly presentIntroduced Invasive Wells, 1965One living individual found in attached Fucus spiralis
-MassachusettsWidespreadIntroducedMorse, 1880; Brawley et al., 2009
-New HampshireWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Morse, 1880; Brawley et al., 2009
-New JerseyWidespread2009Introduced1892 Invasive Brawley et al., 2009Reached Cape May in 1892
-New YorkWidespread2009Introduced Invasive Brawley et al., 2009
-OregonAbsent, formerly presentIntroduced Not invasive Carlton, 2007Occasional introduction but not established
-Rhode IslandWidespread2009Introduced Invasive Brawley et al., 2009
-VirginiaAbsent, formerly presentIntroduced Invasive Vermeij, 1982No longer present
-WashingtonAbsent, formerly presentIntroduced Not invasive Hanna, 1966Few individuals found in Puget Sound; invasive population not established and no longer present

Europe

BelgiumWidespreadNative Not invasive Reid, 1996; Blakeslee et al., 2008
DenmarkWidespreadNativeReid, 1996; Brawley et al., 2009
FranceWidespreadNative Not invasive Reid, 1996; Brawley et al., 2009
GermanyWidespreadNative Not invasive Reid, 1996; Buschbaum et al., 2007
IrelandWidespread2009Native Not invasive Brawley et al., 2009
NetherlandsWidespread2009Native Not invasive Brawley et al., 2009
NorwayPresentCAB ABSTRACTS Data Mining 2001; Blakeslee et al., 2008; Brawley et al., 2009
PortugalWidespread2009Native Not invasive Barroso et al., 2007Portugal is the southernmost point of distribution in the northeastern Atlantic
Russian FederationPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-Northern RussiaWidespread2009Native Not invasive Saranchova et al., 2006Present in White Sea area of northern Russia
SpainWidespreadNative Not invasive Blakeslee et al., 2008; Brawley et al., 2009
SwedenWidespreadNative Not invasive Blakeslee et al., 2008; Brawley et al., 2009
UKWidespread2009Native Not invasive Brawley et al., 2009
-Channel IslandsPresent1996Native Not invasive Reid, 1996Rare on Channel Islands except at Alderney

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

As Wares and Blakeslee (2007) commented, scientists have regarded North American L. littorea as a classic puzzle over time. The puzzle has concerned which of these hypotheses is true: 1) L. littorea in North America is derived completely from invasive introduction(s) of snails from Europe (invasion hypothesis), 2) L. littorea is native to North America, but was rare until the 1800s (native species hypothesis), or 3) L. littorea is both introduced and native to North America. The invasive species hypothesis is supported strongly by recent analyses (Blakeslee and Byers, 2008; Blakeslee et al., 2008; Brawley et al., 2009), but there are still some unresolved issues (see below) that deserve additional research.

Over time, most scientists have considered L. littorea to be invasive in North America, because its chronicled spread is consistent with an invasive introduction (e.g., Ganong, 1886, 1887; Bequaert, 1943; Carlton, 1992, Reid, 1996; Chapman et al., 2007). L. littorea was observed to be common in Pictou Harbour (Nova Scotia) and the adjacent area of the Northumberland Strait by 1840 (Dawson and Harrington, 1871; Ganong, 1886, 1887). Pictou was an important port in the early 1800s, and 97.4% of ships arriving from 1773-1861 sailed from Great Britain/Ireland (Brawley et al., 2009). The advance of L. littorea was carefully monitored in the Canadian Maritimes and on the U.S. shore after Willis (1863) reported finding it at Halifax in 1957; this was the first published description of L. littorea in North America. The rapidity of its step-wise southward movement from Halifax was well chronicled in the U.S., where local molluscs were well described by the time of the invasion of L. littorea (Ganong, 1886; Bequaert, 1943; N.B. several studies of Canadian molluscs also did not describe L. littorea, see Dawson, 1872 [living and fossil treatment] and references in Ganong, 1886). Verrill (1880) and Morse (1880) provided vivid accounts of its southern migration: L. littorea was found in Maine by 1868, and in New Hampshire in 1871. It was rare at Provincetown, MA (Cape Cod) in 1872 but became abundant by 1879; it was abundant at Newport (Rhode Island) by 1880 but still rare at New Haven (Connecticut). By 1890, it had reached Cape May, New Jersey, close to its current southern boundary (Bequaert, 1943). Meanwhile, collections were made at points distant to Pictou in the Gulf of St Lawrence: Morse (1880) received samples from Bathurst on the New Brunswick shore near Quebec in 1855, and it was collected in southern Labrador in 1882 (Bequaert, 1943). Thus, from the time (~ 1840) that L. littorea was common in and near Pictou, it had spread within ~ 50 years to occupy its current range limits.
           
The discovery of rare sub-fossils of L. littorea in Nova Scotia (Clarke and Erskine, 1961), New Brunswick (Clarke, 1971), and Newfoundland (Bird, 1968), altogether 17 shells, led to recent reconsideration of the invasive status of L. littorea in North America. Fourteen of these snails were 14C-dated and gave estimated ages of ~500-1000 y BP (Clarke and Erskine, 1961; Clarke, 1971). A single fossil (~ 33,000 y BP) was also found in southwestern Nova Scotia (Wagner, 1977). These finds and radiocarbon ages supported two different points of view: 1) L. littorea was native to North America (e.g., Clarke and Erskine, 1961; Bird, 1968) or 2) the Vikings introduced L. littorea to North America (e.g., Spjeldnaes and Henningsmoen, 1963). Bird (1968) suggested natural colonization of North America by L. littorea on driftwood from Europe.
 
European fossils of L. littorea are common, in contrast to the rare finds of fossil L. littorina in North America (see discussion in Reid, 1996 and Chapman et al., 2007). Given how abundant this snail is in its native and invasive habitats, the rarity of fossils and subfossils in North America offers little support for the existence of a native population in North America. The nature of these sub-fossils remains unresolved, but their rarity led Brawley et al. (2009) to suggest that occasional introductions from Europe prior to the 1800s (by whatever natural or anthropogenic means) failed to produce population densities necessary for L. littorea to become invasive in North America. The present failure of L. littorea to become invasive on the Pacific coast of the U.S. may be helpful as a model for understanding these subfossils (i.e., low density introductions followed by local extinctions, Hanna, 1966; Carlton, 1969).
 
Molecular analyses strongly support introduction of L. littorea to North America from Europe (Blakeslee and Byers, 2008; Blakeslee et al., 2008; Brawley et al., 2009), and from Great Britain and Ireland, in particular (Brawley et al., 2009). Wares et al. (2002) paved the way for modern sequence-based studies of the invasion versus native hypotheses, and concluded that L. littorina was native; however, their sampling level turned out to be too low (Wares and Blakeslee, 2007) because of the very large genetic diversity of L. littorea in Europe, as demonstrated by Blakeslee et al. (2008)Blakeslee et al. (2008) found that North American haplotypes (i.e., sequences of a mitochondrial gene) were nested within European haplotypes, and their statistical analysis predicted that European L. littorea has 17.5 x times the diversity of North American L. littorea. Thus, they hypothesized that North American haplotypes in their study for which they found no matches in Europe (i.e., “unique” North American haplotypes) are shared with (and introduced from) Europe, but that the high genetic diversity in Europe requires even larger sampling to find them. Indeed, applying a historical analysis of shipping to sampling design for further molecular analyses, Brawley et al. (2009) found that the European rockweed Fucus serratus, also first recognized in North America in the mid-1800s at Pictou, came to Nova Scotia from Scotland and Ireland. Brawley et al. (2009) then used the same locations to study L. littorea haplotypes (Great Britain and Ireland were weakly sampled by Blakeslee et al. (2008), in comparison to Scandinavia and the rest of continental Europe). Eight of 9 cytochrome b haplotypes of L. littorea at Pictou had matches in Ireland and Scotland with the 9th haplotype being basal to a Scottish haplotype. Considering L. littorea from 5 different Nova Scotian sites, 11 of 13 haplotypes were shared with haplotypes found in Europe, and all of these 11 haplotypes were found in Great Britain and Ireland (10 matches to Ireland and Scotland). This study also found that there was a weak match between haplotypes in Scandinavia versus Pictou and Nova Scotia as a whole (Brawley et al., 2009). The match to haplotypes from Ireland and Great Britain is consistent with Brawley et als (2009) finding that 97.6% of all ships entering Pictou from 1773-1861 came from Great Britain and Ireland.
 
Brawley et al. (2009) used an Isolation by Migration (IMa) analysis of their L. littorea sequence data to predict that the introduction of L. littorea occurred between 192 and 11,794 y BP (low and high 95% confidence intervals, all Nova Scotian haplotypes compared to all haplotypes from Great Britain and Ireland). The more recent time (192 y BP) fits historical reports of the discovery of L. littorea near Pictou (Dawson and Hetherington, 1871). Continued sampling from British ports involved in 1800s trade with Pictou (Brawley et al., 2009) should provide more matches for North American haplotypes and lower the higher confidence level (11,794 y BP). If it does not, attention will need to be redirected to Clarke’s (1971) hypothesis that North American L. littorea could be both native and introduced.
 
In summary, rock-ballasted ships from Great Britain/Ireland sailed to Pictou in the late 1700s/early 1800s in order to obtain timber for Great Britain, and these ships dumped their ballast onto the shore and into the harbor (Brawley et al., 2009). Some of the ballast used by British ships came from the intertidal zone, and the molecular analyses support this route for the introduction of L. littorea,F. serratus, and no doubt other organisms, into North America (Brawley et al., 2009). The intensity of this “propagule pressure” (i.e., large numbers of arriving ships) was likely critical to overcome the constraining effects of L. littorea’s reproductive biology on invasion potential (see Reproductive Biology), by transporting a steady number of individuals to the same place in North America from Great Britain and Ireland.
 

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
Canada Ireland early 1800s Hitchhiker (pathway cause)Brawley et al. (2009) See text for discussion of subfossils in North America that predate this period; these subfossils have led to propose that there was also a native population
Canada UK early 1800s Hitchhiker (pathway cause)Brawley et al. (2009) See text for discussion of subfossils in North America that predate this period; these subfossils have led to propose that there was also a native population
Pacific, Northeast 1900s Hitchhiker (pathway cause)Carlton (2007); San Francisco Estuary Partnership (2009) Spot introductions that appear too small to form invasive populations; recent introductions in San Francisco Bay are part of an active eradication effort
USA Canada late 1800s Self-propelled (pathway cause)Reid (1996) Planktonic dispersal led to rapid and well-chronicled spread from Nova Scotia along the Atlantic shore of New Brunswick to Maine and southward to New Jersey by end of the nineteenth century

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

L. littorea can survive a wide range of air and water temperatures, is tolerant of brackish water, can withstand brief anoxic periods, and feeds under both damp emersed and immersed conditions in the intertidal zone (see Physiology). Thus, its physiology makes it unusually capable of being transported and established outside its native range, whether in rock ballast on ships that took ~ 21-60 days to reach Pictou in the nineteenth century (Brawley et al., 2009) or, presently, as a hitchhiker as other marine species are transported for aquaculture, food, or fishing bait from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

A key limiting factor to establishment after introduction is likely to be that the species is unisexual (male or female, see Reproductive Biology). Given natural predation in an introduced habitat, obligate sexual reproduction requires that a large number of sexually mature females and males be introduced simultaneously in order for establishment of L. littorina as an invasive species to occur. The evidence is that this rarely occurs, and is why the repetitive, large-scale ballast discharge into Pictou Harbour is likely to have been critical to the invasion of North America (Brawley et al., 2009). Once abundantly established in a new location, however, L. littorea poses a strong risk for continued spread because of its planktonic larvae.
 

Habitat

Top of page

L. littorea reaches intertidal abundances of hundreds to thousands of animals/m2 on rocky shores, cobbled beaches, mudflats and Spartina marshes (e.g., Lubchenco, 1978; Bertness, 1984; Buschbaum, 2000; Carlson et al., 2006; Tyrell et al., 2008). Generally, it is most common in the lower half of the intertidal zone. L. littorea is found both on rock surfaces and macrophytes (e.g., Fucus vesiculosus, F. serratus, Saccharina latissima, Ascophyllum nodosum,S Brawley, University of Maine, USA, personal communication, 2009) in both the northeastern and northwestern Atlantic. The species is found at considerable depth (e.g., Huntsman, 1918 (36 m, Gulf of St Lawrence); Fretter and Graham, 1980 (60 m, northern Britain)), but predation limits its abundance subtidally (Pettitt, 1975; Perez et al., 2009). L. littorea typically moves into subtidal areas on cold shores (e.g., Maine) in winter, becoming uncommon in the intertidal zone until spring.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Littoral
Coastal areas Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Coastal areas Principal habitat Natural
Mud flats Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Mud flats Principal habitat Natural
Intertidal zone Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Intertidal zone Principal habitat Natural
Salt marshes Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Salt marshes Principal habitat Natural
Brackish
Estuaries Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Estuaries Principal habitat Natural
Marine
 
Inshore marine Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Inshore marine Principal habitat Natural

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Reproductive Biology

Following copulation by males and females, capsules (i.e., saucer-shaped structures containing the zygotes, see Reid, 1996, fig. 44P) are released into the sea by the female. Reproduction is seasonal, usually including part of the winter and spring, and capsules are typically spawned at night on full and new moon spring tides during the reproductive period (Fish, 1979). Water temperature controls the onset and duration of spawning (Chase and Thomas, 1995). The planktonic stages are a trochophore larva followed by a veliger larva, and the trochophore stage lasts for about a week (Fretter and Graham, 1962, see their fig. 235).
 
Nutrition
 
L. littorea is typically herbivorous, but it functions ecologically as an omnivore, because as it scrapes surfaces with its radula, many juvenile invertebrates (e.g., recently settled barnacle larvae) are also ingested (Lubchenco, 1978, 1983; Bertness, 1984; Hawkins et al., 1992; Vadas and Elner, 1992; Buschbaum, 2000). This snail feeds primarily on ephemeral filamentous and bladed algae and diatoms, including Acrosiphonia spp., Cladophora spp., Urospora spp., Ulothrix spp., Ulva spp. (all green algae), Ceramium spp., Palmaria spp., Polysiphonia spp., Porphyra spp. (red algae), Ectocarpus spp. (brown algae), and germlings of rockweeds (Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus spp.) and other macrophytic sporelings/germlings (e.g., Lubchenco, 1978, 1983; Vadas and Elner, 1992). Bequaert (1943) reports the work of a contemporary scientist (WT Davis) who kept L. littorea alive from November 23, 1930, to April 1, 1932, “in a corked bottle of sea-water with a piece of Ulva lactuca on which it fed (p. 5)”; this emphasizes the ability of L. littorea to be transported long distances from a nutritional and environmental viewpoint. This snail also feeds on marsh grasses, perhaps with more effect on rhizomes than blades, as well as scraping surficial diatoms and epiphytes from blade surfaces (e.g., Spartina alterniflora) (Bertness, 1984; Tyrrell et al., 2008).
 
Associations
 
Trematode parasites of L. littorea reduce reproductive success and survival by feeding on the female and male reproductive organs and the digestive tract (Fretter and Graham, 1962) and also reduce grazing rates of the snails (Wood et al., 2007). Blakeslee and Byers (2008) found 11 trematode species associated with European L. littorea and 5 species associated with North American L. littorea (e.g., Cryptocotyle lingua [most common in North America]; Cercaria parvicaudata, Renicola roscovita, Microphallus similis). Trematode parasites of L. littorea are extensively studied throughout the snail’s native and invasive range (e.g., Fretter and Graham, 1962; Kristoffersen, 1991; Huxham et al., 1993; Blakeslee and Byers, 2008; Blakeslee et al., 2008; Byers et al., 2008). L. littorea is infected by trematodes by ingesting bird faeces as it grazes in the intertidal zone, and forms one part of the infective life history (birds-snails-fishes) of the trematodes.
 
Shell borers, both sponges (Cliona sp.) (Stefaniak et al., 2005) and polychaetes (Polydora ciliata) (Buschbaum et al., 2007), weaken shells and make L. littorea more susceptible to predation by crabs (see Natural enemies). Especially, this increases the susceptibility of larger L. littorea to predation (Stefaniak et al., 2005; Buschbaum et al., 2007).
 
Environmental Requirements
 
The eurythermal tolerance of L. littorea is evident from its abundance across its native range from the White Sea to Portugal (Reid, 1996); however, acclimation occurs seasonally and in different parts of its range and there appear to be some genetic components to thermal tolerance, as well (i.e., adaptation versus acclimation). Clarke et al. (2000) found that Welsh L. littorea had higher mean heat-comma temperatures in seawater than English (Yorkshire) L. littorea, across three acclimation temperatures (12, 16, 20oC). Heat comma limits of Yorkshire L. littorea increased with acclimation temperature from a field-collected (unacclimated) value of 28.3oC to ~ 35oC when snails were acclimated at 20oC. A weekly, near-lethal heat coma event can be tolerated, but animals quickly succumb to repeated daily exposures to high temperature (Clarke et al., 2000), which explains current southern range limits on both sides of the Atlantic. The median upper lethal temperature for Scottish L. littorea was 35.3oC, and the median lower lethal temperature was -13.0oC; snails were tested in air at 100% humidity and collections were made from the shore in summer to test the high temperature tolerance and in winter to test low temperatures (Davenport and Davenport, 2005). L. littorea tolerates these freezing conditions on the shore at low tide because they can tolerate freezing of extracellular water (Kanwisher, 1955; Murphy, 1979). The freezing tolerance of L. littorea decreases at lower salinities (Murphy, 1979) and heat tolerance also is decreased at lower salinities (i.e., ~ 15 psu, Clarke et al., 2000). Hypoxia is tolerated by L. littorea as a consequence of regulation of metabolic rate and does not appear to have as much effect as salinity history on thermal tolerance (e.g., MacDonald and Storey, 1999; Davenport and Davenport, 2007).
 
This snail penetrates brackish areas, including the southern Baltic Sea, with a salinity tolerance to ~ 10 psu (Fretter and Graham, 1962; Reid, 1996). Larvae of White Sea L. littorea have survival limits of 8-50 psu (Saranchova et al., 2006).

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
71

Water Tolerances

Top of page
ParameterMinimum ValueMaximum ValueTypical ValueStatusLife StageNotes
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) Optimum Tolerant of short-term anoxic conditions
Salinity (part per thousand) 30 33 Optimum 10-40 tolerated, both values in psu. Euryaline
Water temperature (ºC temperature) 8 22 Optimum 0-28 tolerated. Acclimation (phenotypic) and adaptation (genotypic) cause the temperature range to be different across the geographic range, but L. littorea is eurythermal at all sites

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Calidris canutus Predator Adult not specific
Cancer borealis Predator Adult not specific
Cancer irroratus Predator Adult not specific
Carcinus maenas Predator Adult not specific
Cliona Parasite All Stages not specific
Cryptocotyle lingua Parasite Adult not specific
Larus argentatus Predator Adult not specific
Platichthys flesus Predator Adult not specific
Polydora ciliata Parasite Adult not specific

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

The heavy shell of L. littorea protects it from many predators but numerous birds, fishes, and crabs are major predators (Pettitt, 1975). Birds that eat L. littorea include herring gulls (Larus argentatus), the knot (Calidris canutus), and oldsquaws (Clangula hymenalis); among the many fishes that eat L. littorea, flounders (e.g., Pleuronectes flesus) are prominent (Pettitt, 1975). Crabs crush shells, and it is common to see L. littorea on the shore that have repaired their shells after escaping crab predation (e.g., Vermeij, 1982). In Europe, the green crab Carcinus maenas is a major predator on L. littorea (e.g., Buschbaum et al., 2007), and this is also true of the crab’s invasive range in North America (Carlson et al., 2006; Ellis et al., 2007; Edgell and Rochette, 2008; Perez et al., 2009). ). L. obtusata is much more affected by C. maenas predation than L. littorea in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy, which Edgell and Rochette (2008) suggested was due to the prior evolution of predator-resistance by L. littorea in Europe, before its introduction to North America. The Jonah crab Cancer borealis is an important L. littorea predator and is especially important in limiting subtidal abundance of L. littorea (Perez et al., 2009). Lobsters (e.g., Homarus americanus) eat few L. littorea (Jones and Shulman, 2008). The Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus, now invasive on the U.S. shore) consumes few L. littorea directly, but it may eat juveniles as it consumes algae based upon the decreased abundance of L. littorea on one studied shore as H. sanguineus became more abundant (Bourdeau and O’Connor, 2003; Kraemer et al., 2007). Humans should also be considered a natural enemy based upon their use of periwinkles for food (Pettitt, 1975; Reid, 1996).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Natural Dispersal

This species disperses well because of its planktonic larva. The period that the larva (trochophore through veliger) spends in the plankton before metamorphosis and settlement is about 4-7 weeks (Thorson, 1946; Fretter and Graham, 1962; Williams, 1964).
 
Accidental Introduction
 
It is highly likely that L. littorina was introduced to North America from the intertidal or shallow subtidal zones of Great Britain and Ireland with rocks/cobbles used for ship ballast; ballast was dumped into the harbour and onshore in Pictou, Nova Scotia (and in other areas of Nova Scotia) in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Brawley et al., 2009).
 
In the twentieth century, local introductions of L. littorea to several bays on the Pacific U.S. shore (see above) are believed to have occurred as Atlantic shellfish like oysters and clams were transported for fisheries/aquaculture (Hanna, 1966; Carlton, 1969, 1992, 2007). Underlining this likely route of introduction of L. littorea from the Atlantic to Pacific earlier in the twentieth century, Bequaert (1943) states that L. littorea’s “herbivorous habits are sometimes made use of to keep parked oysters free of algal growth (p. 5)”.
 
Transport of L. littorea is occurring currently in bunches of Ascophyllum nodosum, because this brown seaweed is commonly used as packing material for northwestern Altantic seafoods (e.g., lobsters) and worms (i.e., bait worms for fishermen) that are sold and shipped live to distant areas (Carlton, 2007; San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2009). The type of A. nodosum that is being shipped with bait worms from Maine is, in fact, nicknamed “worm-weed” in Maine, and L. littorea (and L. saxatilis) occur on this seaweed in its natural shore habitat.
 
Intentional Introduction
 
Steneck and Carlton (2001) suggested that the introduction(s) of L. littorea into Canada could have been deliberate, because periwinkles were commonly consumed in Britain and Ireland by poor people. There are no data to support this interesting idea (e.g., cargo manifests for the period do not reveal this, to date, S Brawley, University of Maine, USA, personal communication, 2009). Brawley et al. (2009) hypothesized that the major introductions in Nova Scotia occurred on rock ballast, because they found records of substantial discharge of ballast into Pictou Harbour by ships arriving from Great Britain and Ireland in the early 1800s, as well as documents showing that the Irish shore was dredged for ship ballast. The Northumberland Strait and western Cape Breton Island areas of Nova Scotia were particularly exposed to high intensity introduction potential due to the number of ships that sailed with ballast, discharging it to load timber before returning to Great Britain (Brawley et al., 2009).

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
AquacultureAccidently introduced with oysters Yes Carlton, 2007
FisheriesAccidently introduced with oysters Yes Carlton, 2007
FoodHypothesis Yes Yes Department of Marine Resources State of Maine, 2009a; Department of Marine Resources State of Maine, 2009b; Marine Institute Ireland, 2009; Marine Sacs Project UK, 2009; Sharp, 1998; Sharp et al., 1998
HitchhikerWith Atlantic seaweeds used as packing for long distance transport of bait worms and shellfish/fish Yes Carlton, 2007
Hunting, angling, sport or racingWith shipments of bait from Atlantic to Pacific for anglers Yes Carlton, 2007
Intentional releaseHypothesis Yes San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2009; Steneck and Carlton, 2001
Interconnected waterways Yes Reid, 1996
Self-propelledPlanktonic larvae are a highly dispersive stage in life history Yes Yes FRETTER and GRAHAM, 1962; Reid, 1996
Timber tradeassociated with rock ballast Yes Brawley et al., 2009

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Aquaculture stockAdults, in past with oysters Yes Carlton, 2007
BaitAdult hitchikers in rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) used for packing of bait worms or shellfish Yes Carlton, 2007; San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2009
Containers and packaging - woodHitchikers in rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) used for packing of bait worms or shellfish Yes Carlton, 2007; San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2009
Live seafood Yes Yes Carlton, 2007
Ship ballast water and sedimentWith rock ballast Yes Brawley et al., 2009

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Economic/livelihood Positive and negative
Environment (generally) Negative

Economic Impact

Top of page

This snail is a concern to fish aquaculture because, when abundant, it can cause more fish to be infected with trematode parasites (e.g., Kristoffersen, 1991). L. littorea should be considered as a potential threat to the establishment of sea vegetable aquaculture in Europe and North America because it consumes Porphyra spp. and Palmaria spp.

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Impact on Habitats

One of the most important demonstrations of the ecological effects of L. littorea in the northwestern Atlantic was the experimental demonstration of its ability to shift the composition of algae on the shore (Lubchenco, 1978). High intertidal pools are filled with Ulva intestinalis and similar species when L. littorea is absent, but become dominated by crustose algae and the tough red seaweed Mastocarpus stellatus when the snail is present (Lubchenco, 1978; I have updated species names). The rest of the intertidal shore can be grazed down to bare (or crust-covered) rock at high L. littorea densities. At moderate densities, L. littorea can facilitate macrophyte growth by removing epiphytes, including diatoms, after the macrophytes (e.g., Fucus spp., Lubchenco, 1978) have grown large enough to avoid being removed by grazing L. littorea). It is likely that shores of the northwestern Atlantic had different species compositions (quantitatively) prior to the introduction of L. littorea (e.g., Vadas and Elner, 1992), but recent studies of the interactions of L. littorea and the native L. saxatilis (Behrens Yamada and Mansour, 1987) show competition and lead to a contrasting viewpoint (Eastwood et al., 2007). Eastwood et al. (2007) suggest that the grazing niche occupied by L. saxatilis extended throughout the intertidal zone prior to introduction of L. littorea and the predatory green crab C. maenas. Of course, there were still native fishes, birds, and crabs that are littorinid predators, and L. saxatilis has a thinner shell and is more susceptible to predation than L. littorea. Thus, demonstration of the niche overlap of these two snails (e.g., Eastwood et al., 2007) may still reflect a greater effect of L. littorea introduction on L. saxatilis than a potential equivalence of the two species as herbivores in the northwestern Atlantic intertidal zone. The consequences of grazing by L. littorea are much less dramatic on European shores than in North America because of the presence of large, herbivorous limpets in Europe that are absent in North America (i.e., Patella vulgata); these limpets are such major grazers that they swamp out the effects of L. littorea, but L. littorea is still a locally important herbivore in its native range (Hawkins et al., 1992).
 
Littorea littorea can physically alter salt marsh habitats and cobbled beaches by affecting sediment accretion (Bertness, 1984). As L. littorea browse cobble surfaces, they remove (“bulldoze”) sediment from these surfaces. Grazing by L. littorea also reduces the amount of physically benign habitat at low tide for small organisms by removing leafy and filamentous green, red, and brown algae, which are otherwise often found in mats or turfs on the shore. There are both facilitations and inhibitions on settlement of invertebrate larvae (e.g., barnacle cyprids) associated with clearing of intertidal substratum by grazing L. littorea (e.g., Bertness, 1984; Buschbaum, 2000).

Impacts on Biodiversity

Grazing by L. littorea quantitatively reduces recruitment of many benthic intertidal organisms; larger sessile organisms (e.g., rockweeds) size-escape grazing and then benefit from being cleaned by surficial grazing of L. littorea on their surfaces (Lubchenco, 1983; Vadas and Elner, 1992). Locally, the quantity of green algae (in particular) is markedly reduced by the presence of L. littorea, but the overall biodiversity (species richness) of a shore is rarely affected because there are microhabitat refuges where such species escape grazing.

L. littorea in North America partly displaced the mud snail Ilyanassa obsoleta from mudflats, which may have had effects on the composition of infauna of mudflats (Brenchley and Carlton, 1983). As noted above, L. littorea competes with and may have displaced native North American L. saxatilis from portions of the mid and low intertidal zone (Behrens-Yamada and Mansour, 1987; Eastwood et al., 2007).

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Has a broad native range
  • Abundant in its native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Is a habitat generalist
  • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Gregarious
  • Has high genetic variability
Impact outcomes
  • Altered trophic level
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Modification of natural benthic communities
  • Modification of successional patterns
  • Negatively impacts animal health
  • Soil accretion
  • Threat to/ loss of native species
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Pest and disease transmission
  • Herbivory/grazing/browsing
  • Interaction with other invasive species
  • Predation
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page

Productive Uses

Scheibling et al. (2008), in the case of the invasive green alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, and Valentine et al. (2007), for the invasive ascidian Didemnum sp., asked the question, “Is L. littorea reducing the abundance of these organisms?”. Although L. littorea did reduce the biomass of both species in the tide pool habitats of Nova Scotia and New England where the studies were done, the results would not support application of L. littorea in biocontrol. They do show how complex the northwestern Atlantic shore is in terms of interactions between native and successive waves of invasive species. An earlier use of L. littorea to control epiphytes on oysters is mentioned above.
 
Economic Value and Social Benefit
 
A fishery for periwinkles has existed for centuries in parts of Europe (e.g., Scotland and Ireland). Landings of the L. littorina fishery in Ireland in 2006 had a value of 1,663,000 Euros (first sale value) and a tonnage of 1,066 tons (Marine Institute, Ireland, 2009). Annual landings (and value) were about two times higher during most of the 1990s than landings (and value) from 2003-2006. The primary area of L. littorina collection is in western Ireland (Sligo, Mayo Galway and Claire) and the Louth and Dublin area in eastern Ireland are the second most important area (Marine Institute, Ireland, 2009). The harvested periwinkles are exported to the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Spain (Marine Institute, Ireland, 2009).
 
A periwinkle fishery developed in some areas of Canada (e.g., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick) and New England (Maine) after the species attained high abundances in the twentieth century. Recent periwinkle harvests from both Canada and Maine are taken to Boston and sold from there to markets in Asia, Europe and the United States (Daigle and Dow, 2000). In the Maritimes, the best price is for animals over 19 mm shell height; these animals are four years old (Sharp, 1998). Most periwinkles in New Brunswick are harvested in southern New Brunswick (Atlantic New Brunswick), and in Nova Scotia, the main periwinkle landings come from Digby-St. Mary’s Bay (Sharp, 1998). Thus, both in Maine and Canada, the Bay of Fundy region is a major site of L. littorina harvest. Sharp et al. (1998) reported that there were at least 150 regular harvesters and hundreds more occasional harvesters working in the New Brunswick periwinkle fishery.
           
Within the period of available records (1950-2008), the periwinkle harvest in Maine expanded beginning about 1981, and achieved its highest landings and value in 1989 (3,827,560 pounds valued at $1, 343,318). The lowest annual value from 1989-2008 was in 2004 ($47,860). The 2008 periwinkle fishery brought in 720,004 pounds valued at $601,410 (Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine, 2009a). Because of concern about use of suction collection devices and potential depletion of the periwinkle fishery, the State of Maine instituted regulations (Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine, 2009b) for the periwinkle fishery in 2009 (with a personal exemption for collection of up to 2 quarts/day for personal use without a license). These regulations make it unlawful to use SCUBA, snorkelling, pumps or suction-devices to harvest periwinkles, and they require that undersize periwinkles be returned to the waters where they were collected.

Uses List

Top of page

Animal feed, fodder, forage

  • Attractant in fish/shrimp feed

Human food and beverage

  • Emergency (famine) food
  • Meat/fat/offal/blood/bone (whole, cut, fresh, frozen, canned, cured, processed or smoked)

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

L. littorea is easy to spot on shipped live seafoods or potential aquaculture targets, and to prevent spread to the North American Pacific coast, this should be carried out by traders in seafoods, shellfish, and bait worms. However, there are no regulations in the State of Maine that enforce such inspections presently (Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine, personal communication to S Brawley, University of Maine, USA, December 2009), and the best strategy to change behaviour (e.g., type of packing materials) is probably for regulation to occur at the level of receiving states and countries.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

In its invasive range in the Atlantic, L. littorea is most similar to L. saxatilis, but is easily distinguished when mature by its larger size and the less pronounced ridges (roughness) of the L. littorea shell compared to L. saxatilis. Also, L. saxatilis is rarely found below the high intertidal zone, and L. littorea becomes more common below the high zone (but is also found in abundance in many high intertidal zones and pools). In the Pacific, L. squalida, which is considered to be L. littorea’s sister species (Reid, 1996), has a similar shell shape, but L. littorea’s shell is a little narrower and less incised. These two species are also distinguished by differences in reproductive anatomy, and the number of zygotes/capsule that are spawned (14-15 zygotes/capsule in L. squalida; 1-3 [less commonly to 9] zygotes/capsule in L. littorea; see Reid, 1996, Table 3, p. 91). When in doubt (e.g., with immature specimens), molecular techniques will separate L. littorina from other species (Reid et al., 1996).

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Control

Once a large breeding population is established, eradication is not feasible, and the snail can be expected to extend its range substantially. Thus, control of this potentially invasive snail in the Pacific is best based upon care in avoiding accidental transport with other live organisms from the intertidal zone. The San Franscisco Bay Estuary Partnership (2009) is sponsoring local eradication efforts for L. littorea, which appear to be helpful to preventing invasion.

Public awareness
 
Maine Sea Grant and the Department of Marine Resources (State of Maine) have prepared posters showing several species that would be invasive to the U.S. West Coast if established from Atlantic shores and distributed them to fishing shops, etc. throughout the U.S. (Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine, personal communication to S Brawley, University of Maine, USA, December 2009). This is an attempt to limit shipment and introduction of invasives. The San Francisco Estuary Partnership (2009) also has a website and outreach programs designed to increase public awareness of the danger of release of L. littorea (and other hitchhiking species) to the local shore.

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

Top of page

1. More information is needed on the paleooceanography of the North Atlantic, especially in the last interglacial period.

2. What finally leads to successful invasion of L. littorea after focal introductions (this is a general problem for invasion biology, see Ruiz et al., 1997, 2000).
 
3. What can replace seaweed packing materials for shipment of shellfish, fish bait, etc. from one location to another?

References

Top of page

Barroso CM; Gonçalves C; Moreira MH, 2007. Growth, reproductive cycle and penis shedding of Littorina littorea in the Ria de Aveiro (north-west Portugal). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87:547-550.

Behrens-Yamada SB; Mansour RA, 1987. Growth inhibition of native L. saxatilis (Olivi) by introduced L. littorea (L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 204:59-83.

Bequaert JC, 1943. The genus Littorina in the western Atlantic. Monographs of the marine mollusks of the western Atlantic. Johnsonia, 1(7):1-28.

Bertness MD, 1984. Habitat and community modification by an introduced herbivorous snail. Ecology, 65:370-381.

Bird JB, 1968. Littorina littorea: Occurrence in a northern Newfoundland beach terrace, predating Norse settlements. Science, 159:114.

Blakeslee AMH; Byers JE, 2008. Using parasites to inform ecological theory: Comparisons among three congeneric marine snails in North America and Europe. Ecology, 89:1068-1079.

Blakeslee AMH; Byers JE; Lesser MP, 2008. Solving cryptogenic histories using host and parasite molecular genetics: the resolution of Littorina littorea's North American origin. Molecular Ecology, 17(16):3684-3696. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120779938/HTMLSTART

Bouchet P; Rocroi JP, 2005. Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families. Malacologia, 47(1/2):397 pp.

Bourdeau PE; O'Connor JN, 2003. Predation by the nonindigenous Asian shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus on macroalgae and molluscs. Northeastern Naturalist, 10:319-334.

Brawley SH; Coyer JA; Blakeslee AMH; Hoarau G; Johnson LE; Byers JE; Stam WT; Olsen JL, 2009. Historical invasions of the intertidal zone of Atlantic North America associated with distinctive patterns of trade and emigration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(20):8239-8244. http://www.pnas.org/

Brenchley GA; Carlton JT, 1983. Competitive displacement of native mud snails by introduced periwinkles in the New England intertidal zone. Biological Bulletin, 165:543-558.

Buschbaum C, 2000. Direct and indirect effects of Littorina littorea (L.) on barnacles growing on mussel beds in the Wadden Sea. Hydrobiologia, 440:119-128.

Buschbaum C; Buschbaum G; Schrey I; Thieltges DW, 2007. Shell-boring polychaetes affect gastropod shell strength and crab predation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 329:123-130.

Byers JE; Blakeslee AMH; Linder E; Cooper AB; Maguire TJ, 2008. Controls of spatial variation in the prevalence of trematode parasites infecting a marine snail. Ecology, 89(2):439-451. http://www.esajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1890%2F06-1036.1

Carlson RL; Shulman MJ; Ellis JC, 2006. Factors contributing to spatial heterogeneity in the abundance of the common periwinkle Littorina littorea (L.). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 72:149-156.

Carlton JT, 1969. Littorina littorea in California (San Francisco and Trinity Bays). The Veliger, 11:283-284.

Carlton JT, 1992. Introduced marine and estuarine mollusks of North America: an end-of-the-20th-century perspective. Journal of Shellfish Research, 11:489-505.

Carlton JT, 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology, 77(6):1653-1655.

Carlton JT, 2007. The Light and Smith manual. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1001 pp.

Chapman JW; Carlton JT; Bellinger MR; Blakeslee AMH, 2007. Premature refutation of a human-mediated marine species introduction: the case history of the marine snail Littorina littorea in the northwestern Atlantic. Biological Invasions, 9(6):737-750. http://www.springerlink.com/content/7jk8k72622456598/?p=90d9db51ce5547e18ef85ee971c0decf&pi=10

Chase ME; Thomas MLH, 1995. The effect of the rate and onset of temperature increase on spawning of the periwinkle, Littorina littorea (L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 186:277-297.

Clarke AH, 1971. Littorina littorea, native or introduced? The Biologist, 53:160-162.

Clarke AH; Erskine JS, 1961. Pre-Columbian Littorina littorea in Nova Scotia. Science, 134:393-394.

Clarke AP; Mill PJ; Grahame J, 2000. The nature of heat coma in Littorina littorea (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Marine Biology, 137:447-451.

Cunningham CW, 2008. How to use genetic data to distinguish between natural and human-mediated introduction of Littorina littorea to North America. Biological Invasions, 10(1):1-6. http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=103794

Daigle C; Dow J, 2000. "Wrinkles", Quoddy Tides. http://www.cobscook.org/cobscookBay/soundings/art10-per.htm

Davenport J; Davenport JL, 2005. Effects of shore height, wave exposure and geographical distance on thermal niche width of intertidal fauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 292:41-50.

Davenport J; Davenport JL, 2007. Interaction of thermal tolerance and oxygen availability in the eurythermal gastropods Littorina littorea and Nucella lapillus. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 332:167-170.

Dawson JW, 1872. The post-Pliocene geology of Canada. Sub-kingdom Mollusca. Canadian Naturalist, New Series, 6:369-416.

Dawson JW; Harrington BJ, 1871. Report of the geological structure and mineral resources of Prince Edward Island. Montreal: Government of Prince Edward Island.

Department of Marine Resources State of Maine, 2009. DMR Regulations Chapter 13 (amended, July 20, 2009) Whelks and periwinkles. 3 pp. http://www.maine.gov/dmr/

Department of Marine Resources State of Maine, 2009. Historical Maine Periwinkle Landings. http://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercialfishing/historicaldata.htm

Eastwood MM; Donahue MJ; Fowler AE, 2007. Reconstructing past biological invasions: niche shifts in response to invasive predators and competitors. Biological Invasions, 9(4):397-407. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k2810788w05q27pk/?p=8b0427c7a5184d71872cb2dd53622be3&pi=3

Edgell TC; Rochette R, 2008. Differential snail predation by an exotic crab and the geography of shell-claw covariance in the northwest Atlantic. Evolution, 62:1216-1228.

Ellis JC; Shulman MJ; Wood M; Witman JD; Lozyniak S, 2007. Regulation of intertidal food webs by avian predators on New England rocky shores. Ecology, 88:853-863.

Fish JD, 1979. The rhythmic spawning behaviour of Littorina littorea (L.). Journal of Mollucan Studies, 45:172-177.

Fretter V; Graham A, 1962. British prosobranch molluscs. Their functional anatomy and ecology. London: Ray Society, xvi+755 pp.

Fretter V; Graham A, 1980. The prosobranch molluscs of Britain and Denmark. Part 5-Marine Littorinacea. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 7(Supplement):242-284.

Ganong WF, 1886. Is Littorina littorea introduced or indigenous? American Naturalist, 20:931-940.

Ganong WF, 1887. Is Littorina littorea introduced or indigenous? American Naturalist, 21:287-288.

Hanna GD, 1966. Introduced mollusks of western North America. Occasonial Papers of the California Academy of Sciences, 48:1-108.

Hawkins SJ; Hartnoll RG; Kain JM; Norton TA, 1992. Plant-animal interactions on hard substrata in the north-east Atlantic. In: Plant-Animal interactions in the marine benthos [ed. by John, D. M. \Hawkins, S. J. \Price, J. H.]. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1-33.

Huntsman AG, 1918. The vertical distribution of certain intertidal animals. Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Series 3, 4:53-60.

Huxham M; Raffaelli D; Pike A, 1993. The influence of Cryptocotyle lingua (Digenea: Platyhelminthes) infections on the survival and fecundity of Littorina littorea (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia); an ecological approach. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 168(2):223-238.

Jones PL; Shulman MJ, 2008. Subtidal-intertidal trophic links: American lobsters [Homarus americanus (Milne-Edwards)] forage in the intertidal zone on nocturnal high tides. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 361:98-103.

Kanwisher JW, 1955. Freezing in intertidal animals. Biological Bulletin, 109:56-63.

Kraemer GP; Sellberg M; Gordon A; Main J, 2007. Eight-year record of Hemigrapsus sanguineus (Asian shore crab) invasion in western long island sound estuary. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(2):207-224.

Kristoffersen R, 1991. Occurrence of the digenean Cryptocotyle lingua in farmed Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus and periwinkles Littorina littorea sampled close to charr farms in northern Norway. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 12(1):59-65.

Leifsdóttir ÓE; Símonarson LA, 2002. The mesogastropod Littorina littorea (Linné, 1758) in Iceland: paleobiology and migration. Cainozoic Research, 1:3-12.

Linnaeus C, 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, 1.

Lubchenco J, 1978. Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. American Naturalist, 112:23-39.

Lubchenco J, 1983. Littorina and Fucus: effects of herbivores, substratum heterogeneity, and plant escapes during succession. Ecology, 64:1116-1123.

Lyell C, 1835. On the proofs of a gradual rising of the land in certain parts of Sweden. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1835(1):1-38.

MacDonald JA; Storey KB, 1999. Cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase: role in anoxia and freezing tolerance of the marine periwinkle Littorina littorea. Marine Biology, 133:193-203.

Malacolog, 2009. Malacolog 4.1.1 A database of western Atlantic marine Mollusca.

Marine Institute Ireland, 2009. Periwinkle on all Coasts (Subareas VI and VII). http://www.marine.ie

Marine Sacs Project UK, 2009. Phylum Mollusca: Molluscs, Family Littorinidae: Winkles. http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/bait-collection/bc9_3.htm

Menke KT, 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum. H. Gelpke, Pyrmonti.

Morse ES, 1880. The gradual dispersion of certain Mollusks in New England. Bulletin of the Essex Institute, 12:171-176.

Murphy DT, 1979. A comparative study of the freezing tolerances of the marine snails Littorina littorea (L.) and Nassarius obsoletus (Say). Physiological Zoology, 52:219-230.

Perez KO; Carlson RL; Shulman MJ; Ellis JC, 2009. Why are intertidal snails rare in the subtidal? Predation, growth and the vertical distribution of Littorina littorea (L.) in the Gulf of Maine. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 369:79-86.

Pettitt C, 1975. A review of the predators of Littorina, especially those of L. saxatilis (Olivi) [Gastropoda: Prosobranchia]. Journal of Conchology, 28:343-357.

Reid DG, 1996. Systematics and evolution of Littorina. Dorchester, England: The Dorset Press, 463 pp.

Reid DG; Rumbak E; Thomas RH, 1996. DNA, morphology and fossils: Phylogeny and evolutionary rates of the gastropod genus Littorina. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 351:877-895.

Rózycki O, 1991. Mollusca. In: Klekowski RZ, Weslawski JM, eds. Atlas of the Marine Fauna of Southern Spitzbergen, Gdansk. Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sceinces.

Ruiz GM; Carlton JT; Grosholz ED; Hines AH, 1997. Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: Mechanisms, extent, and consequences. American Zoologist, 37:621-632.

Ruiz GM; Fofonoff PW; Carlton JT; Wonham MJ; Hines AH, 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent patterns, processes and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31:481-531.

San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2009. Littorina removal. http://www.sfestuary.org/projects/detail.php?projectID=19#

Saranchova OL; Ushakova OO; Belyaeva DV, 2006. Resistance of larvae of common species of White Sea invertebrates to extreme changes in salinity. Biologiya Morya (Vladivostok), 32:428-435.

Scheibling RE; Lyons DA; Sumi CBT, 2008. Grazing of the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides by the common periwinkle Littorina littorea: effects of thallus size, age and condition. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 355(2):103-113. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T8F-4RNK45V-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F22%2F2008&_rdoc=4&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235085%232008%23996449997%23679972%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5085&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=9&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=08fd4b866e0389e3874c884018b69eb2

Sharp G, 1998. Periwinkle (Littorina littorea). Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, DFO Science Stock Status Report, C3-46. 1-5. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas

Sharp G; Semple R; MacEachreon T, 1998. Rockweed and periwinkle harvests: Conflict or complement. In: Coastal monitoring and the Bay of Fundy. Proceedings of the Maritime Atlantic ecozone science workshop [ed. by Burt, M. D. B. \Wells, P. G.]. St Andrews, New Brunswick: Huntsman Marine Science Center, 113-117.

Spjeldnaes N; Henningsmoen KE, 1963. Littorina littorea: an indicator of Norse settlement in North America? Science, 141:275-276.

Stefaniak LM; McAtee J; Shulman MJ, 2005. The costs of being bored: Effects of a clionid sponge on the gastropod Littorina littorea (L). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 327:103-114.

Steneck RS; Carlton JT, 2001. Human alterations of marine communities: Students beware!. In: Marine Community Ecology [ed. by Bertness, M. D. \Gaines, S. D. \Hay, M. E.]. Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA: Sinauer Associates, Inc, 445-468.

Stephenson TA; Stephenson A, 1954. Life between tide-marks in North America. IIIA. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island: description of the region. Journal of Ecology, 42:14-45.

Thorson G, 1946. Reproduction and larval development of Danish marine bottom invertebrates with special reference to the planktonic larvae in the Sound (Øresund). Meddelelser fra Kommissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri- og Havundersøgelser, Serie Plankton, 4. 1-523.

Tyrrell MC; Dionne M; Edgerly JA, 2008. Physical factors mediate effects of grazing by a non-indigenous snail species on saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in New England marshes. ICES Journal of Marine Science [5th International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions: Integrating Knowledge for Managing Impacts, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 21-24 May 2007.], 65(5):746-752. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/5/746

Vadas Sr RL; Elner RW, 1992. Plant-animal interactions in the north-west Atlantic. In: Plant-Animal Interactions in the Marine Benthos [ed. by John, D. M. \Hawkins, S. J. \Price, J. H.]. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 33-60.

Valentine PC; Carman MR; Blackwood DS; Heffron EJ, 2007. Ecological observations on the colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. in a New England tide pool habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 342(1):109-121. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00220981

Vermeij GJ, 1982. Environmental change and the evolutionary history of the periwinkle (Littorina littorea) in North America. Evolution, 36:561-580.

Verrill AE, 1880. Rapid diffusion of Littorina littorea on the New England coast. American Journal of Science, Series 3, 20:251.

Wagner FJE, 1977. Paleoecology of marine Pleistocene Mollusca, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 14:1305-1323.

Wares JP; Blakeslee AMH, 2007. Amplified fragment length polymorphism data provide a poor solution to the Littorina littorea puzzle. Marine Biology Research, 3:168-174.

Wares JP; Cunningham CW, 2001. Phylogeography and historical ecology of the North Atlantic intertidal. Evolution, 55:2455-2469.

Wares JP; Goldwater DS; Kong BY; Cunningham CW, 2002. Refuting a controversial claim of a human-mediated marine species introduction. Ecology Letters, 5:577-584.

Wells HM, 1965. Maryland records of the gastropod, Littorina littorea, with a discussion of factors controlling its southern distribution. Chesapeake Science, 6(1):38-42.

Williams EE, 1964. The growth and distribution of Littorina littorea (L.) on a rocky shore in Wales. Journal of Animal Ecology, 33:413-432.

Willis JR, 1863. On the occurrence of Littorina litorea on the coast of Nova Scotia. Transactions of the Nova Scotian Institute of Natural Science, 1:88-90.

Wood CL; Byers JE; Cottingham KL; Altman I; Donahue MJ; Blakeslee AMH, 2007. Parasites alter community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(22):9335-9339. http://www.pnas.org/

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
San Francisco Estuary Partnershiphttp://www.sfestuary.org/

Contributors

Top of page

15/12/09 Original text by:

Susan Brawley, University of Maine, USA

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map