Marine Biology

, Volume 98, Issue 4, pp 503–509 | Cite as

Diet and prey selectivity of scyphomedusae from Port Phillip Bay, Australia

  • M. S. Fancett


Scyphomedusae collected from Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia, between 1984 and 1986, consumed a variety of zooplankton. The percentage composition of gut contents of Cyanea capillata (Linné) in order of decreasing importance was larvaceans 31%, cladocerans 29%, fish eggs 14%, copepods 11%, hydromedusae 9%, and ascidian tadpoles 3%. The percentage composition of gut contents of Pseudorhiza haeckeli Haacke was fish eggs 41%, copepods 33%, larvaceans 8%, cladocerans 4%, crab zoea 4%, and decapod larvae 1%. Both species of scyphomedusae showed strong positive selection for fish eggs and yolk-sac larvae, and negative selection for other prey items. When fish eggs were omitted from the selectivity analyses, C. capillata showed positive selection for amphipods, decapods, crab zoea, Podon spp., larvaceans and ascidian tadpoles, and negative selection for Evadne spp. and all copepod taxa. Pseudorhiza haeckeli showed positive selection for amphipods, decapod larvae, crab zoea and cladocerans, and negative selection for cirripede larvae, larvaceans and hydromedusae. Amongst copepods, P. haeckeli showed positive selection for calanoid and harpacticoid copepods and negative selection for cyclopoid copepods.


Prey Item Negative Selection Percentage Composition Harpacticoid Copepod Cyclopoid Copepod 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Arnott, G. H. (1974). Studies on the zooplankton of Port Phillip Bay and adjacent waters with special reference to the Copepoda. PhD thesis, Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, K. M. (1984). Comparison of laboratory rates of predation on five species of marine fish larvae by three planktonic invertebrates: effects of larval size on vulnerability. Mar. Biol. 79: 303–309Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, K. M., Batty, R. S. (1983). A laboratory study of predation by Aurelia aurita on larval herring (Clupea harengus): experimental observations compared with model predictions. Mar. Biol. 72: 295–301Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, K. M., Yen, J. (1983). Predation by a carnivorous marine copepod, Euchaeta elongata Esterly, on eggs and larvae of the pacific hake, Merluccius productus. J. Plankton Res. 5: 71–82Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, J. W. (1966). Feeding rates of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Chesapeake Sci. 7: 95–100Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, J. L., Dodson, S. I. (1965). Predation, body size, and composition of the plankton. Science, N.Y. 150: 28–35Google Scholar
  7. Deason, E. E., Smayda, T. J. (1982). Ctenophore-zooplanktonphytoplankton interactions in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, U.S.A., during 1972–1977. J. Plankton Res. 4: 203–217Google Scholar
  8. Buskey, E. J., Mann, C. G., Swift, E. (1986). The shadow response of the estuarine copepod Acartia tonsa (Dana). J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 103: 65–67Google Scholar
  9. Fancett, M. S. (1986). Species composition and abundance of scyphomedusae in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 37: 379–384Google Scholar
  10. Fancett, M. S. (In preparation). Species composition and abundance of the zooplankton of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia: with special reference to the microzooplankton.Google Scholar
  11. Fancett, M. S., Jenkins, G. P. (in press). Predatory impact of scyphomedusae on ichthyoplankton and other zooplankton in Port Phillip Bay. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, J. H. (1969). Experimental feeding of some medusae and Chaetognatha. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 26: 1743–1762Google Scholar
  13. Gerritsen, J., Strickler, J. R. (1977). Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton, a mathematical model. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 34: 73–82Google Scholar
  14. Greene, C. H., Landry, M. R., Monger, B. C. (1986). Foraging behavior and prey selection by the ambush entangling predator Pleurobrachia bachei. Ecology 67: 1493–1501Google Scholar
  15. Hulsizer, E. E. (1976). Zooplankton of lower Narragansett Bay, 1972–1973. Chesapeake Sci. 17: 260–270Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs, J. (1977). Coexistence of similar zooplankton species by differential adaptation to reproduction and escape in an environment with fluctuating food and enemy densities. Oecologica (Berl.) 30: 313–329Google Scholar
  17. Kimmerer, W. J., McKinnon, A. D. (1985). A comparative study of the zooplankton in two adjacent embayments, Port Phillip and Westernport Bays, Australia. Estuar.cstl Shelf Sci. 21: 145–159Google Scholar
  18. Kiørboe, T., Mohlenberg, F., Nicolassen, H. (1982). Ingestion rate and gut clearance in the planktonic copepod Centropages hamatus Lilljeborg in relation to food concentration and temperature. Ophelia 21: 181–194Google Scholar
  19. Kremer, P. (1979). Predation by the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in Narrangansett Bay, Rhode Island. Estuaries 2: 97–105Google Scholar
  20. Lindahl, O., Hernroth, L. (1983). Phyto-zooplankton community in coastal waters of Wester Sweden — an ecosystem off balance? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10: 119–126Google Scholar
  21. Lonsdale, D. J. (1981). Regulatory role of physical factors and predation for two Chesapeake Bay copepod species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 5: 341–352Google Scholar
  22. Möller, H. (1979). Significance of coelenterates in relation to other plankton organisms. Meeresforsch. Rep. mar. Res. 27: 1–18 (Ber. dt. wiss. Kommn Meeresforsch.)Google Scholar
  23. Möller, H. (1980). Scyphomedusae as predators and food competitors of larval fish. Meeresforsch. Rep. mar. Res. 28: 90–100. (Ber. dt. wiss. Kommn Meeresforsch.)Google Scholar
  24. Möller, H. (1984). Reduction of a larval herring population by a jellyfish predator. Science, N.Y. 224: 621–622Google Scholar
  25. Pearre, S. (1982). Estimating prey preference by predators: uses of various indices and a proposal of another based on χ 2. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sciences 39: 914–923Google Scholar
  26. Reeve, M. R., Walter, M. A., Ikeda, T. (1978). Laboratory studies of ingestion and food utilization in lobate and tentaculate ctenophores. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23: 740–751Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. S. Fancett
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoology DepartmentUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations