1982
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1982.tb03998.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The feeding habits of 0+ stone loach, Noemacheilus bavbatulus (L.), and bullhead, Cottus gobio L.

Abstract: The feeding habits of the 0 + year class of two of the most common small fish species in the River Ouzel, Milton Keynes, stone loach, Noernacheilus bnrhafulus (L.), and bullhead, Coftus gobio L., are assessed throughout the first growing season and compared. Despite similarities in the diets of the two species, differences in feeding behaviour and in morphology, especially in gape, may serve to reduce interspecific competition by partitioning of food resources.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
21
0
1

Year Published

1989
1989
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
21
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, increased intraspecific competition for food resources has been shown to increase niche width (Svanbäck and Boldnick 2007). Our results support previous findings that the feeding habits of stone loach and bullhead differ from each other and that resource partitioning might be the key factor, which enables coexistence of these two species with apparently similar ecology (Hyslop 1982;Welton et al 1983Welton et al , 1991. The well-defined separation of stone loach and bullhead populations and their similar location in the trophic niche space at both site categories suggests that the presence of crayfish does not markedly change the use of basal food sources.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For example, increased intraspecific competition for food resources has been shown to increase niche width (Svanbäck and Boldnick 2007). Our results support previous findings that the feeding habits of stone loach and bullhead differ from each other and that resource partitioning might be the key factor, which enables coexistence of these two species with apparently similar ecology (Hyslop 1982;Welton et al 1983Welton et al , 1991. The well-defined separation of stone loach and bullhead populations and their similar location in the trophic niche space at both site categories suggests that the presence of crayfish does not markedly change the use of basal food sources.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Our results indicate that the overall contribution of pelagic food sources to bullhead diet was higher than for stone loach. Bullheads are visual predators and therefore, better suited to capturing zooplankton than non-visual stone loaches (Hyslop 1982;Welton et al 1983). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Apart from large trout, there was no other apparent strong territorial effect between other species and usually several coexisted in the same microhabitat patch, including bullhead and stone loach long recognized as potential competitors (Smyly, 1957;Hyslop, 1982;Mann, 1989;Welton et al, 1983Welton et al, , 1991. Various species associations based in similar distribution emerged.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The larvae also form an important component of the diet of adult and particularly nestling riverine birds (Ormerod, 1985;Ormerod & Tyler, 1987) and many fish species (Thomas, 1962;Elliott, 1967;Hyslop, 1982;Welton &al., 1983) whilst the adults are favoured by insectivorous bats (Swift et al, 1985). Agapetus fuscipes Curtis, is a widespread British trichopteran (Rees, 1978) and in common with other grazing trichopterans is important in determining the structural and functional characteristics of the periphyton (Douglas, 1958;Lamberti & Resh, 1983;Jacoby, 1987;Hill & Knight, 1988).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%