https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index en-us 5 https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:74401 Wed 17 Jul 2024 10:53:22 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:74392 Wed 17 Jul 2024 09:02:57 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:74390 Wed 17 Jul 2024 06:04:03 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:74388 Wed 17 Jul 2024 05:50:17 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:6952 Wed 10 Jul 2024 12:09:17 SAST ]]> https://commons.ufh.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:6968 15 mm) densities for both shore types (P < 0.05) but the correlations were extremely weak (r 2 < 0.06 in each case). In areas with 100% cover, adult size (mean and maximum lengths) was greater on exposed sites, but density showed the reverse and was negatively correlated with maximum wave strength (r = −0.84). Despite differences in adult densities and sizes, biomass, which is a product of the two, showed no significant difference between the two shore types (ANOVA P > 0.05). Thus wave exposure dramatically affects density, recruitment and mussel size, but not recruitment timing or biomass where there is 100% cover, and mediates a three-way interaction among food supply, larval supply and intraspecific competition for space. In contrast to shores with saturation recruitment, mussel biomass here appears to be limited by recruit supply and constraints of food, especially on sheltered shores, while density is regulated through intraspecific competition for space primarily on exposed shores and at small spatial scales.]]> Fri 26 Apr 2024 10:45:35 SAST ]]>