Habitat and diet overlap of 4 piscivorous fishes: variation on the inner continental shelf off New Jersey

Wuenschel, Mark J.; Able, Kenneth W.; Vasslides, James M.; Byrne, Donald M.

doi:10.7755/fb.111.4.5

Cited by 14 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…; Wuenschel et al. ; Buchheister and Latour ), a likely explanation for differences in predator diets between trawl and gill‐net surveys is predator size. Wuenschel et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Smaller Weakfish relied more heavily on mysids, whereas fish prey were more important in the diets of larger Weakfish. Anchovies were more important in the diets of smaller Bluefish, whereas larger Bluefish consumed larger fish prey (Wuenschel et al 2013). These ontogenetic shifts are similar to the differences we observed between Weakfish and Bluefish sampled in the trawl and gill-net surveys and lend support that predator size is driving the differences in predator diets between surveys.…”

Section: Identification Of Estuarine Trophic Guildsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Hallfredsson and Pederson ), competition, and niche partitioning (Wuenschel et al. ; Teffer et al. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fisheries management is increasingly moving from single-species approaches toward more holistic multispecies and ecosystem-based approaches (Hollowed et al 2000;Latour et al 2003;Pikitch et al 2004;Link 2010). Trophic interactions are important for ecosystem regulation (Schmitz 2007) through predator-prey interactions (Buckel et al 1999;Hallfredsson and Pederson 2009), competition, and niche partitioning (Wuenschel et al 2013;Teffer et al 2015). Thus, food habits data are critical for ecosystembased modeling approaches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Predators caught in trawls relied more heavily on invertebrate prey, and gill-net predators consumed higher proportions of fish prey. Since predator size can have a large influence on diet (e.g., ontogenetic diet shifts; Overton et al 2009;Wuenschel et al 2013;Buchheister and Latour 2015), a likely explanation for differences in predator diets between trawl and gill-net surveys is predator size. Wuenschel et al (2013)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Importance of Sample Gear in the Identification of Trophic Guilds and Forage Species in a Large Lagoonal Estuary

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food habits in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, are poorly described despite the estuary's large size and importance as nursery and fisheries habitat. We conducted the first multi‐year, multispecies food habits study in Pamlico Sound, sampling the stomach contents of 16,913 predators representing 25 species. Predators were sampled from fisheries‐independent trawl and gill‐net surveys. We used multivariate analyses to compare diets between surveys, used agglomerative hierarchical cluster analyses and similarity profiles to identify significant trophic guilds, and identified forage fish using multiple approaches (qualitative classification criteria, connectance, and supportive role to fishery ecosystems [SURF]). The diets of predators sampled from the trawl survey were significantly different than predators sampled from the gill‐net survey. Mysids and anchovies were more important for trawl‐caught predators, with the majority of those predators belonging to nonpiscivorous guilds. Half of the gill‐net survey predators were piscivorous and relied more heavily on Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus and sciaenids. Differences in the level of piscivory between the surveys are most likely a result of larger predators being sampled in gill nets relative to trawls. There was little agreement among approaches in forage species identification, and only anchovies in the trawl survey were identified as a forage species using all approaches. Quantitative metrics identified forage species (e.g., Spot Leiostomus xanthurus and invertebrates) that were not identified by qualitative classification criteria. Our work shows the effect of gear size selection on estimates of predator diets and the need to use a variety of gears that sample a wide range of predator sizes. Additionally, the identification of forage species requires an evaluation of criteria outside of life history characteristics and a greater emphasis on the contribution of a prey species to a predator's diet.

show abstract

“…; Wuenschel et al. ; Buchheister and Latour ), a likely explanation for differences in predator diets between trawl and gill‐net surveys is predator size. Wuenschel et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identification Of Estuarine Trophic Guildsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Hallfredsson and Pederson ), competition, and niche partitioning (Wuenschel et al. ; Teffer et al. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%