Controls on the vertical distribution of meiobenthos in mud: field and flume studies with juvenile fish

Coull, Bruce C.; Palmer, MA; Myers, P. Evans

doi:10.3354/meps055133

Cited by 34 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps burrowing meiofauna (nematodes and copepods Nannopus palustris and Stenhelia bifidia) do not affect macrofauna1 settlement since they are not concentrated at the immediate sediment surface where larvae settle. Vertical distribution studies indicate N. palustris reaches highest densities at 2 to 4 mm below the surface and S. bifidia at 5 to 6 mm, while nematode numbers increase below 3 mm (Coull et al 1989). Additionally, the 2 meiofaunal taxa active at the sediment surface did not affect larval settlement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Meiobenthic interactions with macrobenthic larvae and juveniles: an experimental assessment of the meiofaunal bottleneck

Zobrist¹,

Coull²

1992

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The meiofaunal bottleneck hypothesis states that permanent meiofauna (e.g. nematodes, copepods, foraminifera) negatively affect macrofaunal larval settlement and juvenile survivorship. Field studies suggest enhanced meiofaunal densities decrease recruitment of some macrofauna but do not identify whether thls IS a settlement or post-settlement process. Our experiments specifically examined the settlement response of the spionid polychaete Streblospio bened~cti Webster and the venerid bivalve Mercenana n~ercenaria (L.) to functionally different meiofaunal taxa (burrower, epibenthic, sediment sweeper). ANOVA revealed no significant effect of any meiofaunal taxon on macrofaunal settlement. Further experiments on emigration of recently-settled (<24 h old) juvenile S. benedicti and M. rnercenana showed no difference in burial times (time from initial juvenile contact with the sediment surface until complete burial below the sediment surface) between meiofaunal treatments and control sediments. Our data suggest that if the meiofaunal bottleneck exists, it is not a settlement phenomenon nor does it cause emigration of these recently-settled macrofauna.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Meiobenthic interactions with macrobenthic larvae and juveniles: an experimental assessment of the meiofaunal bottleneck

Zobrist¹,

Coull²

1992

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in marine and freshwater habi tats the benthic community also includes a meiofaunal component. Furthermore, due to their small body size and low biomass content, meiofaunal organisms, includ ing nematodes, have been neglected as food sources for fish (Palmer, 1988;Coull et al, 1989;Schmid-Araya & Schmid, 2000). In the soft-bottom communities of marine and freshwater ecosystems, benthic meiofauna comprise one of the most abundant groups of organisms, reaching densities of millions of individuals irT2 (Heip etal., 1985;Beier & Traunspurger, 2003a, b;Traunspurger et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumption and prey size selection of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans by different juvenile stages of freshwater fish

Weber

Traunspurger

2014

Nematol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meiofauna, and nematodes in particular, play an essential role in the diet of certain juvenile freshwater fish. However, the specific consumption and prey size selection of fishes on nematodes is largely unrecognised. In this study, the effects of different juvenile stages of widely distributed common European freshwater fish, gudgeon (Gobio gobio), roach (Rutilus rutilus), ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), and two strains of common carp (Cyprinus carpio (scaled) and C. carpio (mirror)), on abundances of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans were investigated in controlled laboratory experiments with a known number of prey. Gudgeon, carp (scaled), and carp (mirror) consumed significant amounts of nematodes, whereas the roach and ninespine stickleback did not. Both strains of common carp reduced nematode abundance dependent on the size of the fish, with smaller fish causing a greater reduction than medium-size or large fish, although fish of all sizes fed significantly on nematodes of all size classes (<0.5, 0.5-1.0 and >1.0 mm). While the gudgeon also reduced nematode abundance dependent on the size of the fish, with increasing body length there was a dietary shift towards larger nematode size classes (0.5-1.0 and >1.0 mm). Morphometric analysis of the branchial basket indicated that the mesh width of gudgeon and both strains of common carp, but not of roach and ninespine stickleback, is suitable for feeding on specific size classes of nematodes. Together, the results showed that nematodes are used as a food source for different juvenile stages of certain species of freshwater fish.

show abstract

“…The magnitude and sign of L indicate degree of positive or negative selection. Because copepods only occupy the upper cm of sediment in muddy substrata (Decho & Fleeger 1988, Coull et al 1989) and juvenile spot take bites of sediment < l cm deep (Billheimer & Coull 1988), we felt justified calculating selectivity by the fish. All statistics were conducted using SAS (1996).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation on meiofauna by juvenile spot Leiostomus xanthurus (Pisces) in contaminated sediments from Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, USA

Street¹,

Coull²,

Chandler³

et al. 1998

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meiofauna are a major food source for estuarine juvenile fish despite the fact that meiofauna often live in close contact with sediment-associated contaminants. Although there is laboratory evidence that fish feeding on contaminated meiofauna can build up significant contaminant body burdens, whether or not fish predation on meiofauna is affected by sediment contamination in the field has not been well established. To answer thls question, the number and taxa of meiobenthic prey items consumed by fish were compared between contaminated and uncontaminated habitats. A model predator, luvenile spot Leiostomus xanthurus (Pisces) was allowed to feed on natural meiobenthic communities in experimental sediment microcosn~s. Significantly more meiofauna were observed in the uncontaminated reference site (1060 nematodes per 10 cm2, 177 copepods per 10 cm2) than in the contaminated site (278 nematodes per 10 cm2. 97.5 copepods per 10 cm2). Although harpacticoid copepods were found in the foreguts of spot from both contaminated (mean 22.1 prey per fish) and uncontaminated (mean 13.7 prey per fish) sediments, there were few, if any, significant reductions in meiofauna abundance due to predation. There were differences between contaminated and uncontaminated sediments in taxa eaten by spot, but these differences were most likely due to differences between the meiofauna communities from the 2 sites, not differences in fish feeding behavior. Despite the potential adverse effects of eating meiofauna from contaminated sediments, juvenile spot do not avoid them.

show abstract

Controls on the vertical distribution of meiobenthos in mud: field and flume studies with juvenile fish

Cited by 34 publications

References 11 publications

Meiobenthic interactions with macrobenthic larvae and juveniles: an experimental assessment of the meiofaunal bottleneck

Meiobenthic interactions with macrobenthic larvae and juveniles: an experimental assessment of the meiofaunal bottleneck

Consumption and prey size selection of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans by different juvenile stages of freshwater fish

Predation on meiofauna by juvenile spot Leiostomus xanthurus (Pisces) in contaminated sediments from Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About