Food selectivity versus prey availability: a study using the marine fish Pomatoschistus microps
Summary
The food selection of the common goby, Pomatoschistus microps Krøyer, was studied in the field and in laboratory experiments on the Swedish west coast. The three most important prey organisms for P. microps in the study area were Corophium volutator, chironomid larvae and Nereis spp. Corophium was consumed more than any other prey, even when it was not the most abundant prey species in the bottom. One reason may be the higher activity of Corophium above the sediment surface, which may increase its visibility and consequently its vulnerability to visual predators. When P. microps was offered Corophium and chironomid larvae with similar exposure in laboratory experiments, it showed no preference for either of the prey items. It always took the closest mobile prey, regardless of species and size.
Keywords
Laboratory Experiment Sediment Surface West Coast Prey Item Marine FishPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Coates D (1980) Prey-size intake in humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus (Pisces, Pomacentridae) living with social groups. J Anim Ecol 49:335–340Google Scholar
- Curio E (1976) The ethology of predation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Gibson RM (1980) Optimal prey-size selection by three-spined sticklebacks (Gastrosteus aculeatus): A test of the apparent-size hypothesis. Zeit Tierpsychol 52:291–307Google Scholar
- Goss-Custard JD (1977) The energetics of prey selection by redshank, Tringa totanus (L.) in relation to prey density. J Anim Ecol 46:1–19Google Scholar
- Jónasson PM (1972) Ecology and production of the profundal benthos in relation to phytoplankton in Lake Esrom. Oikos supplementum 14:1–148Google Scholar
- Mittelbach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386Google Scholar
- Moitoza DJ, Phillips DW (1979) Prey defence, predator preference and nonrandom diet: The interactions between Pycnopodia helianthoides and two species of sea urchins. Mar Biol 53:299–304Google Scholar
- O'Brien WJ, Slade NA, Vinyard GL (1976) Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57:1304–1310Google Scholar
- Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
- Rosenthal H (1969) Verdauungsgeschwindigkeit, Nahrungswahl und Nahrungsbedarf bei den Larven des Herrings, Clupea harengus L. Ber Dt Wiss Komm Meeresforsch 20:60–69Google Scholar
- Tinbergen JM (1981) Foraging decisions in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris L.) Ardea 69:1–67Google Scholar
- Villiers L (1980) Changes in predation by the juvenile goby Deltentosteus quadrimacalatus (Teleosti, Gobiidae). Neth Journal of Sea Research 14:362–373Google Scholar
- Vinyard GL (1980) Differential prey vulnerability and predator selectivity: Effects of evasive prey on Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Pumpkin seed (L. gibbosus) predation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:2294–2299Google Scholar
- Ware DM (1971) Predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri): the effect of experience. J Fish Res Board Can 28:1847–1852Google Scholar
- Ware DM (1973) Risk of epibenthic prey to predation by rainbow trout. J Fish Res Board Can 30:787–797Google Scholar
- Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Ecology 55:1042–1052Google Scholar
- Werner EE, Mittelbach GG, Hall DJ (1981) The role of foraging profitability and experience in habitat use by the bluegill sunfish Ecology 62:116–126Google Scholar