Predation by the salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) in relation to prey size and habitat structure: Consequences for prey distribution and abundance

Vince, S. W.; Valiela, Iván; Backus, N.; Teal, John M.

doi:10.1016/0022-0981(76)90024-1

Cited by 234 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, benthic algae increased synergistically in creeks with nutrient enrichment and fish reduction during the time of our studies (Deegan et al 2007). Predator release (Vince et al 1976) and density-dependent migration (Van Dolah 1978) may also stimulate amphipod changes in habitat utilization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large-scale manipulations reveal that top-down and bottom-up controls interact to alter habitat utilization by saltmarsh fauna

Johnson¹,

Fleeger²,

Deegan³

2009

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used ecosystem-wide predator removal and nutrient enrichment to examine topdown and bottom-up forces on saltmarsh fauna. We reduced the killifish Fundulus heteroclitus bỹ 60%, which elicited significant increases (2 to 4 ×) in hydrobiid snails Hydrobia spp., suggesting topdown control. The talitrid amphipod Uhlorchestia spartinophila was the most abundant species of epifauna in the creek-bank Spartina alterniflora habitat. Our elevated water column nutrients (~70 µmol l -1 , ~10 × background) and predator reduction treatments alone both yielded nonsignificant increases in amphipod abundance, suggesting weak top-down and bottom-up control over this species. However, treatments interacted antagonistically in this habitat such that amphipod abundances were lower than would be expected by an additive response to both treatments. We found corresponding amphipod abundance increases in the adjoining creek-wall habitat, suggesting that amphipods move under the influence of our treatments from the marsh edge onto the creek wall, possibly as a result of an increased incidence of a parasitic (i.e. trematode Levinseniella sp.) infection. Coincident to increased amphipods on creek walls, semipalmated sandpipers Calidris pusilla, amphipod predators, increasingly foraged in creek channels in combined treatments (~30 × higher than controls based on unreplicated creek systems). Our results suggest that top-down and bottom-up effects may at times be difficult to detect in small, single-factor studies because of inter-habitat movements of target species and redundant predation. Because the effects of stressors may not be limited to one part of the landscape even for small, motile fauna, landscape-level studies may generally be needed to capture responses to anthropogenic activities. KEY WORDS: Ecosystem experiments · Multi-stressors · Parasites · Epifauna · Salt marshResale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large-scale manipulations reveal that top-down and bottom-up controls interact to alter habitat utilization by saltmarsh fauna

Johnson¹,

Fleeger²,

Deegan³

2009

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These species showed inverse patterns, with H, rubra (large species) occurring at stations containing seaweed patches with high canopies, H. maroubrae (small species) at stations containing patches with low canopies. The occurrence of large-sized amphipods in patches with dense canopy has generally been considered to be the result of pressure from predators (mainly fish) (Vince et al 1976, Stoner 1982, Edgar 1983, Orth et al 1984, which are responsible for their selective elimination in less structured seaweed patches and/or in those with low canopies; in smaller seaweeds only juveniles or small species of amphipods which escape the high predation pressure occur (Nelson 1979a, b, Crowder & Cooper 1982, Edgar 1983, Russo 1987 . Despite a lack of information on the preferred size of prey, the constant presence of fish in this protected sector suggests the selective removal of large amphipods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution patterns and coexistence of six species of the amphipod genus Hyale

Lancellotti¹,

Trucco²

1993

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distribution patterns of 6 phytal amphipod species of the genus Hyale that occur on the intertidal rocky shores of Coquirnbo, Chile, are described. The species show habitat segregation with respect to the wave-exposure gradient: H. maroubrae (small species, < 0.6 mm cephalon length) and H. rubra (large species, >0.6 mm cephalon length) occurred in protected environments, whereas H. grandicornis, H hirtipalma and H. m e d~a (large species) and Hyale sp. (a small species) inhabited exposed environments. With the exception of Hyale sp., all the species were also found in areas with intermediate exposure. However, when they coexist, Hyale spp. show differential occurrence according to microhabitat utilization: in protected environments H rubra was found exclusively on algal patches with high canopies, whereas H. maroubrae was abundant on patches with low canopies. In the exposed sectors, the species were found mainly on algal patches with low canopies; they showed pronounced segregation among patches, with Hyale sp. being restricted to turf-forming filamentous algal patches. The association of amphipod occurrence with canopy height and with occasional and seasonal algal patch occurrence in protected environments suggests that the distribution and coexistence of Hyale spp. are controlled by predation and the proximity to the colonization sectors (subtidal). In contrast, the permanent algal patch occurrence in exposed env~ronments suggests that interspecific competition is the main factor influencing the distribution and coexistence patterns of Hyale spp., with lowcanopy algal patches and water movement playing important roles in maintaining the presence of small species with poor competitive ability.

show abstract

“…In most fish species, like those in this study, there appears to be a strong association between small individuals and vegetated habitats with larger size classes moving to less vegetated habitats (Werner et al, 1983a;Mittelbach, 1984;Thayer et al, 1987;Lubbers et al, 1990;Laegdsgaard, 1996) with concomitant shifts in diet (Keast, 1978;Stoner, 1982;Lubbers et al, 1990;Laegdsgaard, 1996). For many fish species, increase in size confers an ability to feed on larger food items and a decreased vulnerability to predators (Vince et al, 1976;Mittelbach, 1981Mittelbach, , 1986Werner et al, 1983a,b;Jones, 1984;Power, 1984;Ebeling and Laur, 1985;Archambault and Feller, 1991). This increases the ability of larger fish to exploit new habitats where dietary components are more abundant or easier to attain, however it is unknown whether differential food availability drives, or simply tracks, shifts in habitat.…”

Section: Size-specific Selection Of Habitatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This increases the ability of larger fish to exploit new habitats where dietary components are more abundant or easier to attain, however it is unknown whether differential food availability drives, or simply tracks, shifts in habitat. The structure of mangrove habitats, which provide both protection and ample food for small juvenile fish, may hamper effective prey capture by larger fish in the same way that large killifish are unable to feed in marsh where structural complexity is high (Vince et al, 1976). Similarly, in high densities of seagrass (Syringodium), pursuit and capture of invertebrates by pinfish is inhibited in larger size classes due to restriction of movement of the pectoral fin, while the same habitat is apparently no barrier to locomotion in small pinfish (Stoner, 1982).…”

Section: Size-specific Selection Of Habitatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many vegetated areas are a rich source of invertebrates (Harrington and Harrington, 1961;Stoner, 1982;Heck Jr. and Thoman, 1984;Orth et al, 1984;Bell and Westoby, 1986;Lubbers et al, 1990) that are suitable prey for small planktivorous fish. However, if the vegetation is too dense, fish may be hampered in their capture of prey, so that intermediate levels of structure of some seagrass and marsh plants effects the most profitable food returns (Vince et al, 1976;Crowder and Cooper, 1982;Stoner, 1982). Mangrove pneumatophores offer structure of a medium density, and their epiphytes facilitate increased abundance of planktonic prey species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why do juvenile fish utilise mangrove habitats?

Laegdsgaard

Johnson

2001

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

476

298

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three hypotheses to discern the strong positive association between juvenile fish and mangrove habitat were tested with field and laboratory experiments. Artificial mangrove structure in the field attracted slightly more juvenile fish than areas without structure. Artificial structure left to accumulate fouling algae attracted four-times the total number of juvenile fish than areas without structure or areas with clean structure. Community composition of fish attracted to structure with fouling algae was different when compared with areas with no structure or clean structure; five species were attracted by structure with fouling algae whilst two species were associated with structure regardless of fouling algae. Algae were linked to increased food availability and it is suggested that this is an important selection criteria for some species. Other species were apparently attracted to structure for different reasons, and provision of shelter appears to be important. Predation pressure influenced habitat choice in small juvenile fish in laboratory experiments. In the absence of predators, small juveniles of four out of five species avoided shelter but when predators were introduced all species actively sought shelter. Large fish were apparently less vulnerable to predators and did not seek shelter when predators were added to their tank. Feeding rate was increased in the mangrove habitat for small and medium-sized fish compared with seagrass beds and mudflats indicating increased food availability or foraging efficiency within this habitat. Larger fish fed more effectively on the mudflats with an increased feeding rate in this habitat compared with adjacent habitats. The most important aspect of the mangrove habitat for small juvenile fish is the complex structure that provides maximum food availability and minimises the incidence of predation. As fish grow a shift in habitat from mangroves to mudflat is a response to changes in diet, foraging efficiency and vulnerability to predators.

show abstract

Predation by the salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) in relation to prey size and habitat structure: Consequences for prey distribution and abundance

Cited by 234 publications

References 16 publications

Large-scale manipulations reveal that top-down and bottom-up controls interact to alter habitat utilization by saltmarsh fauna

Large-scale manipulations reveal that top-down and bottom-up controls interact to alter habitat utilization by saltmarsh fauna

Distribution patterns and coexistence of six species of the amphipod genus Hyale

Why do juvenile fish utilise mangrove habitats?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About