Marine Biology

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 173–183 | Cite as

Foraging by the herbivorous parrotfish Sparisoma radians

  • P. S. Lobel
  • J. C. Ogden


The foraging behavior of the bucktooth parrotfish Sparisoma radians was studied in seagrass beds off St. Croix, US Virgin Islands and in laboratory preference tests. Thalassia testudinum was the dominant item in the field diet with the epiphytized distal portion of the blades most favored. Other seagrasses, Syringodium filiforme and Halodule wrightii, were taken in relation to their abundance. Several algae were also eaten, particularly Halimeda spp. and Penicillus spp. Although abundances of the algae varied, the fish maintained a steady mixture of plant species in their diet. Laboratory feeding tests for various plants presented in pairs showed clear preferences in nearly all cases. The preference hierarchy was (1) T. testudinum with epiphytes, (2) H. wrightii, (3) T. testudinum without epiphytes, (4) S. filiforme, and the algae, (5) Dictyota divaricata, (6) Enteromorpha flexuosa, (7) Caulerpa mexicana, (8) Halimeda incrassata and (9) Penicillis pyriformis. Preference did not vary significantly with satiation. The “catch per unit effort” (kilocalories absorbed per bite) was calculated for each plant, using (a) absorption values calculated for S. radians fed the different plants, (b) the calorific values for tested plants, and (c) an estimate of the amount of material taken per bite. The ranking of catch per unit effort closely paralleled the preference hierarchy with the exception of C. mexicana which has a toxin. Fish fed diets of single plants, mixed plant diet, and starved controls showed differential survival which paralleled the preference hierarchy, the most preferred plants leading to longest survival. Comparison of laboratory results with field feeding behavior shows that inclusion of plants in the diet is not related directly to preference rank, availability or survival value, but that the fish deliberately eat a variety of plants presumably which maintains balanced diet. This result indicates that models of optimal foraging for herbivores should include nutrient constraints and avoidance of toxins in order to predict accurately the behavior of an animal in the field.


Preference Rank Unit Effort Halimeda Virgin Island Mixed Plant 
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. Ballantine, D. L.: The distribution of algal epiphytes on macrophyte hosts offshore from La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Bot. Mar. 22, 107–111 (1979)Google Scholar
  2. Ballantine, D. L. and H. J. Humm: Benthic algae of the Anclote estuary I. Epiphytes of seagrass leaves. Fla Scient 38, 150–162 (1975)Google Scholar
  3. Belovsky, G. E.: Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theor. Pop. Biol. 14, 105–134 (1978)Google Scholar
  4. Charnov, E. L.: Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid. Am. Nat. 110, 141–151 (1976)Google Scholar
  5. Condrey, R. E., J. G. Gosselink and H. J. Bennett: Comparison of the assimilation of different diets by Penaeus setiferus and P. aztecus. Fish. Bull. U.S. 70, 1281–1292 (1972)Google Scholar
  6. Conover, R. J.: Assimilation of organic matter by zooplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 11, 338–345 (1966)Google Scholar
  7. Dawes, C. J. and R. H. Goddard: Chemical composition of the wound plug and entire plants for species of the coenocytic green alga, Caulerpa. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 35, 259–263 (1978)Google Scholar
  8. Dawes, C. J. and J. M. Lawrence: The effects of blade removal on the proximate composition of the rhizome of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum Banks ex Kónig. Aquat. Bot. 7, 255–266 (1980)Google Scholar
  9. Dawes, C.J., K. Bird, M. Durako, R. Goddard, W. Hoffman and R. McIntosh: Chemical fluctuations due to seasonal and cropping effects on an algal-seagrass community. Aquat. Bot. 6, 79–86 (1979)Google Scholar
  10. Doty, M. S. and G. Aguilar-Santos: Caulerpicin, a toxic constituent of Caulerpa. Nature, Lond. 211, 990 (1966)Google Scholar
  11. Doty, M. S. and G. Aguilar-Santos: Transfer of toxic algal substances in marine food chains. Pacif. Sci. 24, 351–355 (1970)Google Scholar
  12. Freeland, W. J. and D. H. Janzen: Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am. Nat. 108, 269–289 (1974)Google Scholar
  13. Hobson, E. S.: Feeding relationships of teleostean fishes on coral reefs in Kona, Hawaii. Fish. Bull. U.S. 72, 915–1031 (1974)Google Scholar
  14. Humm, H. J.: Epiphytes on the seagrass, Thalassia testudinum, in Florida. Bull. mar. Sci. 14, 306–341 (1964)Google Scholar
  15. Ivlev, V. S.: Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press 1961Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs, J.: Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oeccologia 14, 413–417 (1974)Google Scholar
  17. Krebs, J. R.: Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. In: Behavioral ecology, pp 23–63, Ed. by J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer 1978Google Scholar
  18. Lawrence, J. M.: On the relationships between marine plants and sea urchins (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Oceanogr. mar. Biol. A. Rev. 13, 213–286 (1975)Google Scholar
  19. Lobel, P. S.: Herbivory by damselfishes and their role in coral reef community ecology. Bull. mar. Sci. 30, 273–289 (1980)Google Scholar
  20. Lobel, P. S.: Trophic biology of herbivorous reef fishes: alimentary pH and digestive capabilities. J. of Fish Biol. (In press)Google Scholar
  21. Lowe, E. F. and J. M. Lawrence. Absorption efficiencies of Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck) (Echinodormata: Echinodea) for selected marine plants. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 21, 223–234 (1976)Google Scholar
  22. Ogden, J. C. and P. S. Lobel: The role of herbivorous fishes and urchins in coral reef communities. Envir. Biol. Fish. 3, 46–63 (1978)Google Scholar
  23. Ogden, J. C. and J. C. Zieman: Ecological aspects of coral reefseagrass bed contacts in the Caribbean. Proceedings Third International Coral Reef Symposium 1, 377–382 (1977)Google Scholar
  24. Paine, R. T.: The measurement and application of the calorie to ecological problems. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2, 145–164 (1971)Google Scholar
  25. Paine, R. T. and R. L. Vadas: Calorific values of benthic marine algae and their postulated relation to invertebrate food preference. Mar. Biol. 4, 79–86 (1969)Google Scholar
  26. Paloheimo, J. E.: Indices of food preference by a predator. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 36, 470–473 (1979)Google Scholar
  27. Pulliam, H. R.: On the theory of optimal diets. Am. Nat. 108, 59–74 (1974)Google Scholar
  28. Pulliam, H. R.: Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. Am. Nat. 109, 765–768 (1975)Google Scholar
  29. Pyke, G. H., H. R. Pulliam and E. L. Charnov: Optimal foraging theory and tests. Q. Rev. Biol. 52, 137–154 (1977)Google Scholar
  30. Randall, J. E.: A redescription of Sparisoma automarium (Poey), a valid West Indian parrotfish. Notul. Nat. No. 378, 1–9 (1965)Google Scholar
  31. Randall, J. E.: Food habits of reef fishes of the West Indies. Stud. trop. Oceanogr. Miami 5, 665–847 (1967)Google Scholar
  32. Randall, J. E.: Caribbean reef fishes, 319 pp. New Jersey: T. F. H., Press 1968Google Scholar
  33. Reyes-Vasques, G.: Studies on the diatom flora living on Thalassia testudinum Konig in Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bull. mar. Sci. 20, 105–134 (1970)Google Scholar
  34. Robertson, D. R. and R. R. Warner: Sexual patterns in the labroid fishes of the Western Caribbean. II. The parrotfishes (Scaridae). Smithson. Contr. Zool. No. 255, 1–26 (1978)Google Scholar
  35. Schoener, T. W.: Theory of feeding strategies. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2, 369–404 (1971)Google Scholar
  36. Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf: Biometry. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co. 1969Google Scholar
  37. Stein, R. A.: Selective predation, optimal, foraging, and the predator-prey interaction between fish and crayfish. Ecol. 58, 1237–1253 (1977)Google Scholar
  38. Thayer, G. W. and M. W. LaCroix: Utilixation of energy sources by a tropical-subtropical seagrass bed herbivore. N.M.F.S. Annual Report E.R.D.A., 1–12 (1977)Google Scholar
  39. Vadas, R. L.: Preferential feeding: an optimization strategy in sea urchins. Ecol. Monogr. 47, 337–371 (1977)Google Scholar
  40. Weatherley, A. H.: Factors affecting maximization of fish growth. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 33 1046–1058 (1976)Google Scholar
  41. Weinstein, M. P. and K. L. Heck, Jr.: Ichthyofauna of seagrass meadows along the Caribbean coast of Panama and in the Gulf of Mexico: composition, structure and community ecology. Mar. Biol. 50, 97–107 (1979)Google Scholar
  42. Westoby, M.: An analysis of diet selection by large generalist herbivores. Am. Nat. 108, 290–304 (1974)Google Scholar
  43. Westoby, M.: What are the biological bases of varied diets? Am. Nat. 112, 627–631 (1978)Google Scholar
  44. Zeitoun, I. H., D. E. Ullrey, W. T. Magee, J. L. Gill and W. G. Bergen: Quantifying nutrient requirements of fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 33, 167–172 (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. S. Lobel
    • 1
  • J. C. Ogden
    • 2
  1. 1.Museum of Comparative ZoologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.West Indies LaboratoryFairleigh Dickinson UniversityChristiansted

Personalised recommendations