Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 57–65 | Cite as

The influence of predator presence on utilization of artificial seagrass habitats by juvenile walleye pollock,Theragra chalcogramma

  • Susan M. Sogard
  • Bori L. Olla
Full paper


Behavioral preference for a structured habitat (artificial seagrass) by juvenile walleye pollock,Theragra chalcogramma, was tested in controlled laboratory experiments. We monitored position of fish in 2000 1 tanks with and without artificial seagrass present in one half of the tank. In addition, we exposed walleye pollock to a predator model, assessing their response when a grass plot was available or unavailable as a potential refuge. In the absence of predators, the fish avoided the artificial seagrass, displaying a preference for the open water side of the experimental tanks. In the presence of a predator model, however, juvenile walleye pollock readily entered the artificial seagrass plots. In addition, they often remained in the grass canopy in proximity to the predator instead of moving out of the grass to avoid the predator (when no grass was present they consistently moved to the opposite side of the tank from the predator). The behavioral choices exhibited in this study suggest that juvenile walleye pollock modify habitat selection in response to perceived predation risk, and recognize the structure provided by artificial seagrass as a potential refuge.

Key words

Predation refuge Habitat structure Habitat selection Fish behavior 

References cited

  1. Bailey, K.M. 1989. Interaction between the vertical distribution of juvenile walleye pollockTheragra chalcogramma in the eastern Bering Sea, and cannibalism. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 53: 205–213.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, W.E., J.G. Greenwood & P. Crocos. 1979. Artificial seagrass — a new technique for sampling the community. Hydrobiologia 65: 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, J.D., A.S. Steffe & M. Westoby. 1985. Artificial seagrass: how useful is it for field experiments on fish and macroinvertebrates? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 90: 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coen, L.D., K.L. Heck, Jr. & L.G. Abele. 1981. Experiments on competition and predation among shrimps of seagrass meadows. Ecology 62: 1484–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dwyer, D.A., K.M. Bailey & P.A. Livingston. 1987. Feeding habits and daily ration of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) in the eastern Bering Sea, with special reference to cannibalism. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 11: 1972–1984.Google Scholar
  6. Fraser, D.F. & R.D. Cerri. 1982. Experimental evaluation of predator-prey relationships in a patchy environment: consequences for habitat use patterns in minnows. Ecology 63: 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heck, K.L., Jr. & T.A. Thoman. 1981. Experiments on predator-prey interactions in vegetated aquatic habitats. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 53: 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heck, K.L., Jr., K.W. Able, M.P. Fahay & C.T. Roman. 1989. Fishes and decapod crustaceans of Cape Cod eelgrass meadows: species composition and seasonal abundance patterns. Estuaries 12: 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hinckley, S., K.M. Bailey, S.J. Picquelle, J.D. Schumacher & P.J. Stabeno. 1991. Transport, distribution, and abundance of larval and juvenile walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) in the western Gulf of Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 91–98.Google Scholar
  10. Lima, S.L. & L.M. Dill. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus Can. J. Zool. 68: 619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Orth, R.J., K.L. Heck, & J. van Montfrans. 1984. Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey relationships. Estuaries 7: 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Savino, J.F. & R.A. Stein. 1982. Predator-prey interaction between large-mouth bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated, submerged vegetation. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 111: 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Savino, J.F. & R.A. Stein. 1989. Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Env. Biol. Fish. 24: 287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sogard, S.M. 1989. Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes and decapod crustaceans: importance of proximity to natural eelgrass. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 133: 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sogard, S.M. & K.W. Able. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and marsh creeks as habitat for epibenthic fishes and decapods. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 33: 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sokal, R.R. & F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman, New York. 859 pp Virnstein, R.W. & M.C. Curran. 1986. Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance from source. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 29: 279–288.Google Scholar
  17. Virnstein, R.W. & M.C. Curran. 1986. Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance from source. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 29: 279–288.Google Scholar
  18. Wilson, K.A., K.L. Heck, Jr. & K.W. Able. 1987. Juvenile blue crab,Callinectes sapidus, survival: an evaluation of eelgrass,Zostera marina, as refuge. U.S. Fish. Bull. 85: 53–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan M. Sogard
    • 1
  • Bori L. Olla
    • 1
  1. 1.Cooperative Institute for Marine Resource Studies, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries ServiceHatfield Marine Science CenterNewportU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations