Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 104, Issue 1, pp 31–38 | Cite as

Limiting similarity and the intensity of competitive effects on the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi, in experimental stream communities

  • W. J. ResetaritsJr
Original Paper

Abstract

The identification of potential competitors has been driven by the concept of limiting similarity. Lacking are explicit tests of interaction strength among morphologically similar and dissimilar species. I used the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi, as a focal species in an artificial stream experiment designed to compare the effect of intraspecific competition to interspecific cometition from two very different species: a congener, the Kanawha sculpin (C. carolinae ssp.), and an unrelated species, the fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare). The differences in morphology between these two species generate specific predictions under limiting similarity regarding the likelihood of competition and its relative strength: the congener should be a more important potential competitor. Increased fish density had a strong effect on the multivariate response of survival and growth, and on the relative condition of C. bairdi, indicating competition. The effect of additional C. bairdi or Kanawha sculpins were roughly equal, but the effect of E. flabellare was significantly greater. The most important potential impact on C. bairdi came from interspecific competition by a species that is smaller and very different in morphology, contrary to predictions based on limiting similarity.

Key words

Artificial streams Competition Fish Limiting similarity Streams 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarssen LW (1983) Ecological combining ability and competitive combining ability in plants: toward a general evolutionary theory of coexistence in systems of competition. Am Nat 122:707–731Google Scholar
  2. Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 14:359–376Google Scholar
  3. Agren GI, Fagerstrom T (1984) Limiting dissimilarity in plants: randomness prevents exclusion of species with similar competitive abilities. Oikos 43:369–375Google Scholar
  4. Bagenal TB (1978) Aspects of fish fecundity. In: Gerking SD (ed) Ecology of freshwater fish production. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 75–101Google Scholar
  5. Bristow CE (1991) Interactions between phylogenetically distant predators Notophthalmus viridescens and Enneacanthus obesus. Copeia 1991:1–8Google Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Davidson DW (1977) Competition between seed-eating rodents and ants in desert ecosystems. Science 196:880–882Google Scholar
  7. Brown JH, Munger JC (1985) Experimental manipulation of a desert rodent community: food addition and species removal. Ecology 66:1545–1563Google Scholar
  8. Burton GW, Odum EP (1945) The distribution of small stream fish in the vicinity of Mountain Lake, Virginia. Ecology 26:182–194Google Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696Google Scholar
  10. Daiber FC (1956) A comparative analysis of the winter feeding habits of two benthic stream fishes. Copeia 1956:141–151Google Scholar
  11. Eadie JM, Keast A (1982) Do goldeneye and perch compete for food? Oecologia 55:225–230Google Scholar
  12. Fausch KD, White RJ (1986) Competition among juveniles of coho salmon, brook trout, and brown trout in a laboratory stream, and implications for Great Lakes tributaries. Trans Am Fish Soc 115:363–381Google Scholar
  13. Fauth JE, Resetarits WJ Jr, Wilbur HM (1990) Interactions between larval salamanders: a case of competitive equality. Oikos 58:91–99Google Scholar
  14. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenberg L (1991) Habitat use and feeding behavior of thirteen species of benthic stream fishes. Environ Biol Fish 31:389–402Google Scholar
  16. Hairston NG (1980) The experimental test of an analysis of field distributions: competition in terrestrial salamanders. Ecology 61:817–826Google Scholar
  17. Hansen MJ, Gloss SP, Peckarsky BL (1986) Predator species richness and prey population variability: effects on diets of benthic stream fishes. Am Midl Nat 115:63–72Google Scholar
  18. Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia, or Why are there so many kinds of animals?. Am Nat 93:145–159Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1993) The freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MdGoogle Scholar
  20. Karr JR (1964) Age, growth, fecundity and food habits of fantail darters in Boone County, Iowa. Proc Iowa Acad Sci 71:274–280Google Scholar
  21. Keddy P (1989) Competition. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Lotka AJ (1932) The growth of mixed populations: two species competing for a common food supply. J Wash Acad Sci 22:461–469Google Scholar
  23. MacArthur RH, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385Google Scholar
  24. Matheson RE Jr, Brooks GR Jr (1983) Habitat segregation between Cottus bairdi and Cottus girardi: an example of complex inter- and intraspecific resource partitioning. Am Midl Nat 110:165–176Google Scholar
  25. Morin PJ, Johnson EA (1988) Experimental studies of asymmetric competition among anurans. Oikos 53:398–407Google Scholar
  26. Morin PJ, Lawler SP, Johnson EA (1988) Competition between aquatic insects and vertebrates: experimental measures of interaction strength and higher order interactions. Ecology 69:1401–1409Google Scholar
  27. Nagel JW (1980) Life history of the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi, in northeastern Tennessee. Brimeleyana 4:115–121Google Scholar
  28. Paine MD, Dodson JJ, Power G (1982) Habitat and food resource partitioning among four species of darters (Percidae:Etheostoma) in a southern Ontario stream. Can J Zool 60:1635–1641Google Scholar
  29. Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266Google Scholar
  30. Persson L (1988) Asymmetries in competitive and predatory interactions in fish populations. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 203–218Google Scholar
  31. Pflieger WL (1975) The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson CityGoogle Scholar
  32. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that cat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330Google Scholar
  33. Resetarits WJ Jr (1991) Ecological interactions among predators in experimental stream communities. Ecology 72:1782–1793Google Scholar
  34. Resetarits WJ Jr (1995) Competitive asymmetry and coexitence in size-structured populations of brook trout and spring salamanders. Oikos 73:188–198Google Scholar
  35. Root RB (1967) The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecol Monogr 37:317–350Google Scholar
  36. Ross ST (1986) Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 1986:352–388Google Scholar
  37. SAS Institute (1988) SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlosser IJ, Toth LA (1984) Niche relationships and population ecology of rainbow (Etheostoma caeruleum) and fantail (E. flabellare) darters in a variable environment. Oikos 42:229–238Google Scholar
  39. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285Google Scholar
  40. Southerland MT (1986) Coexistence of three congeneric salamanders: the importance of habitat and body size. Ecology 67:721–728Google Scholar
  41. Vandermeer JH (1972) Niche theory. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 3:107–132Google Scholar
  42. Volterra V (1926) Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118:558–560Google Scholar
  43. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425Google Scholar
  44. Williams AH (1981) An analysis of competitive interactions in a patchy back-reef environment. Ecology 62:1107–1120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. J. ResetaritsJr
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Mountain Lake Biological StationPembrokeUSA

Personalised recommendations