Marine Biology

, Volume 61, Issue 2–3, pp 243–246

Tidal and diurnal influence on food consumption of a salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus

  • S. B. Weisberg
  • R. Whalen
  • V. A. Lotrich
Article

Abstract

Feeding patterns during four 24-h periods, sampled at 3-h intervals, were investigated for the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus, in a Delaware, USA tidal marsh. Two factors potentially influencing feeding patterns, time of day and tide height, were examined. On 2 of the sampling periods a low tide occurred in the morning, while on the other 2 sampling periods a high tide occurred in the morning. Results are reported as g-dry wt. of food per g-dry wt. of fish. F. heteroclitus is primarily a daytime feeder that most actively feeds at high tide, regardless of whether or not the high tide inundates marsh surface areas. When tide height was sufficient to inundate the marsh surface, fish invaded these areas and consumed prey characteristic of the marsh surface. F. heteroclitus is an important link in energy transfers between the marsh surface and subtidal systems, enhancing its own energy supplies by consuming marsh surface prey whenever available.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Atmar, G. L. and K. W. Stewart: Food, feeding selectivity, and ecological efficiencies of Fundulus notatus. Am. Midl. Nat. 88, 76–89 (1972)Google Scholar
  2. Babkin, B. P. and D. J. Bowie: The digestive system and its function in Fundulus heteroclitus. Biol. Bull. 54, 254–277 (1928)Google Scholar
  3. Baker-Dittus A. M.: Foraging patterns of three sympatric killifish. Copeia 1978, 383–389 (1978)Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. A.: Food habits and feeding chronology of the longnose killifish, Fundulus similis (Baird and Girard) from St. Louis Bay, Mississippi. 29 pp. Masters Thesis. Mississippi State University. 1973Google Scholar
  5. Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder: Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull. Fish Wildl. Serv. U.S. 53(74), 1–577 (1953)Google Scholar
  6. Butner, A. and B. H. Brattstrom: Local movements in Menidia and Fundulus. Copeia 1960, 139–141 (1960)Google Scholar
  7. Cain, R. L. and J. M. Dean: Annual occurrence, abundance and diversity of fish in a South Carolina intertidal creek. Mar. Biol. 36, 369–379 (1976)Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, B. C. and R. F. Denno: The structure of the aquatic insect community associated with intertidal pools on a New Jersey salt marsh. Ecol. Entomol. 3, 181–187 (1978)Google Scholar
  9. Clymer, J. P.: The distributions, trophic activities and competitive interactions of three salt marsh killifishes (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae). 281 pp. Ph.D. Dissertation. Lehigh University. 1978Google Scholar
  10. Davis, R. E. and J. E. Bardach: Time co-ordinated prefeeding activity in fish. Anim. Behav. 13, 154–162 (1965)Google Scholar
  11. Fange, R. and D. Grove: Digestion. pp 162–259 In: Hoar, W. S., D. J. Randall and J. R. Brett (eds.) Fish physiology. Vol. VIII. Bioenergetics and growth. New York: Academic Press 1979Google Scholar
  12. Ferrigno, F. and D. M. Jobbins: Open marsh water management. Proc. New Jers. Mosq. Exterm. Ass. 55, 104–115 (1968)Google Scholar
  13. Fritz, E. S.: Total diet comparison in fishes by Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Copeia 1974, 210–214 (1974)Google Scholar
  14. Helfman, G. S.: Patterns of community structure in fishes: summary and overview. Env. Biol. Fish. 3, 129–148 (1978)Google Scholar
  15. Kelso, W. E.: Predation on soft-shell clams, Mya arenaria, by the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. Estuaries 2, 249–254 (1979)Google Scholar
  16. Kneib, R. T. and A. E. Stiven: Growth, reproduction and feeding of Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) on North Carolinas salt marsh. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 31, 121–140 (1978)Google Scholar
  17. Meredith, W. H. and V. A. Lotrich: Production dynamics of a tidal creek population of Fundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus). Estual. Coast. Mar. Sci. 8, 99–118 (1979)Google Scholar
  18. Morrison, D. F.: Multivariate statistical methods. 338 pp. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.1967Google Scholar
  19. Nichollis, J. V. V.: The influence of temperature on digestion in Fundulus heteroclitus. Contr. Can. Biol. Fish. 7, 47–55 (1933)Google Scholar
  20. Schmelz, G. W.: A natural history study of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus (Linnaeus) in Canary Creek marsh. 64 pp. M.S. thesis. University of Delaware. 1964Google Scholar
  21. Schwassman, H. O.: Biological rhythms. pp 371–428 In: Hoar, W. S. and D. J. Randall (eds). Fish physiology Vol. VI. Environmental relations and behavior. New York, Academic Press 1971Google Scholar
  22. Valiela, I., J. E. Wright, J. M. Teal and S. B. Volkmann: Growth, production and energy transformations in the salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus. Mar. Biol. 40, 135–144 (1977)Google Scholar
  23. Vince, S., I. Valiela, N. Backus and J. M. Teal: Predation by the salt marsh killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus (L.), in relation to prey size and habitat structure: consequences for prey distribution and abundance. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 23, 255–266 (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. B. Weisberg
    • 1
  • R. Whalen
    • 1
  • V. A. Lotrich
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Life and Health Sciences, Ecology and Organismic Biology SectionUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations