Measuring predation with tethering experiments

Aronson, R. B.; Heck, KL

doi:10.3354/meps214311

Cited by 62 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tethering is a simple method to compare relative predation intensity on sedentary prey (Aronson et al 2001) and has been used with sea urchins in several studies (McClanahan & Muthiga 1989, Shears & Babcock 2002, Guidetti 2006, Clemente et al 2011. We used juvenile Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis from 2 size classes (small: 10 (± 2) mm test diameter and medium: 20 (± 2) mm test dia meter) to test the effect of sea urchin size on predation rates.…”

Section: Tethering Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predators of the destructive sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis on the Norwegian coast

Norderhaug

Christie

Pedersen³

et al. 2014

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In central Norway, populations of the green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis are collapsing, but the factors controlling its population density have not yet been elucidated. Through field sampling, we identified several sea urchin predators and investigated their predation rates on recently settled S. droebachiensis in laboratory experiments. Tethering experiments in kelp forest and on barren ground study sites in the area where sea urchin populations are collapsing confirmed predation by some of the predators tested in laboratory experiments. The edible crab Cancer pagurus was the most efficient sea urchin predator, and it was more abundant at kelp forest sites than on barren grounds. Stocks of C. pagurus have increased dramatically in central Norway since the 1990s, and predation by C. pagurus may contribute to the decline in sea urchin densities, allowing kelp recovery and conferring resilience of the new kelp forest state.

show abstract

Section: Tethering Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predators of the destructive sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis on the Norwegian coast

Norderhaug

Christie

Pedersen³

et al. 2014

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tethering mobile prey is useful in comparing predation rates in different habitats (Aronson et al 2001, Haywood et al 2003, particularly in demonstrating the refuge value of mangroves for fish (Laegdsgaard & Johnson 2001). Tethering, however, may alter an individual's behaviour and escape responses, making it more susceptible to predation (Peterson et al 2001, Haywood et al 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing effects of diel period, gear selectivity and predation on patterns of microhabitat use by fish in a mangrove dominated system in SE Australia

Smith¹,

Hindell²

2005

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relative value of temperate mangroves to fish, and the processes driving patterns of microhabitat use within this habitat, are unknown. There are 3 quickly identifiable microhabitats within temperate Australian mangroves: (1) forest (the area of mangroves with trees); (2) pneumatophores (the area directly seaward of the forest without trees but with pneumatophores [aerial roots]); and (3) channel (the area directly seaward of the pneumatophores without gross structural attributes such as trees or pneumatophores). Duplicate fyke and gill nets were both initially used to sample fish in the 3 microhabitats described above. Sampling took place across the seaward edge of mangroves on 10 sampling occasions (5 night and 5 day), in a large estuarine system in SE Australia. Fish assemblages (693 fish from 20 species and 15 families) varied significantly (p < 0.05) between the forest and the channel, and between diel periods for each gear (net type), but there was little difference in the assemblage structure of fish between forest -pneumatophore or pneumatophore-channel microhabitats. Juvenile lifestages (61% of all fish) and commercially important taxa (76%) were common. Abundance, biomass and species richness of fish were generally lower in the forest than the other microhabitats, but this pattern varied significantly (p < 0.05) between diel periods, among sampling occasions, and with water depth. Highly quantitative pop nets provided a preliminary assessment of whether differential gear selectivity caused patterns between microhabitats, but less rich fish assemblages were again recorded in forests than in pneumatophores. The importance of predation in structuring fish assemblages across microhabitats was assessed by measuring survival of juvenile fish tethered in 3 predation treatments (predator exclusion, cage control, and uncaged). Survival rates were high across the predator treatments and did not vary among microhabitats. The variation in fish assemblages across microhabitats within mangroves was not consistent with a model of mangrove structure providing a refuge for juvenile fish from predation, but instead could indicate differences in efficiency of gear types among microhabitats and/or other 'edge effect'-driven processes such as the provision of food and/or shelter. KEY WORDS: Temperate · Mangroves · Fish assemblages · Microhabitat · Predation · DielResale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher

show abstract

“…This technique, which is suitable for sedentary benthic organisms (Aronson et al, 2001), has been used to test predation intensity on sea urchins in tropical ecosystems (McClanahan and Muthiga, 1989;McClanahan and Shafir, 1990;McClanahan, 1998;McClanahan, 1999;McClanahan et al, 1999), in temperate systems of the Mediterranean Sea (Sala andZabala, 1996, Guidetti, 2006) and of the Pacific Ocean (Shears and Babcock, 2002). With this technique, D. aff.…”

Section: Predation Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, particularly in the marine environment, the influence of predators can be difficult to quantify (Aronson and Heck Jr, 1995;Aronson et al, 2001). Predators can have indirect impacts on community organisation, especially when their prey interacts strongly with other species in the community (Power, 1992;Duffy and Hay, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation upon <i>Diadema</i> aff. <i>Zantillarum</i> in barren grounds in the Canary Islands

Clemente¹,

Hernández²,

Toledo³

et al. 2007

Sci. Mar.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring predation with tethering experiments

Cited by 62 publications

References 10 publications

Predators of the destructive sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis on the Norwegian coast

Predators of the destructive sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis on the Norwegian coast

Assessing effects of diel period, gear selectivity and predation on patterns of microhabitat use by fish in a mangrove dominated system in SE Australia

Predation upon <i>Diadema</i> aff. <i>Zantillarum</i> in barren grounds in the Canary Islands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About