Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 303–315 | Cite as

Ontogenetic variations in the type and size of prey consumed by juvenile coho,Oncorhynchus kisutch, and chinook,O. tshawytscha, salmon

  • Richard D. Brodeur
Full Papers

Synopsis

Stomach contents of juvenile coho,Oncorhynchus kisutch, and chinook,O. tshawytscha, salmon collected in purse seines off the coast of Washington and Oregon were examined for variations related to predator size. There was a general trend toward increasing consumption of fish with increasing body size, due mainly to the increase in northern anchovy biomass consumed by the larger salmon. Most of the major prey taxa showed significant differences among the size classes examined for both salmon species. There was a direct relationship between predator and prey size for both coho and chinook, but considerable variation was found in prey length consumed within each size class. Prey width did not provide as good a fit as prey length for either species. In general, coho consumed larger fish prey in relation to their body length than chinook but there were substantial differences by month or year of collection.

Key words

Feeding ecology Coastal ecosystem Salmonids Size-related diet variations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Beacham, T.D. 1986. Type, quantity, and size of food of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, British Columbia. U.S. Fish. Bull. 84: 77–89.Google Scholar
  2. Breck, J.E. & M.J. Gitter. 1983. Effect of fish size on the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) sunfish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 162–167.Google Scholar
  3. Brodeur, R.D., D.M. Gadomski, W.G. Pearcy, H.P. Batchelder & C.B. Miller. 1985. Abundance and distribution of ichthyoplankton in the upwelling zone off Oregon during anomalous El Niño conditions. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 21: 365–378.Google Scholar
  4. Brodeur, R.D., H.V. Lorz & W.G. Pearcy. 1987. Food habits and dietary variability of pelagic nekton off Oregon and Washington, 1979–1984. NOAA Tech. Rep. 57. 32 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Brodeur, R.D. & W.G. Pearcy. 1986. Distribution and relative abundance of pelagic nonsalmonid nekton off Oregon and Washington, 1979–1984. NOAA Tech. Rep. 46. 85 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Brodeur, R.D. & W.G. Pearcy. 1990. Trophic relations of juvenile Pacific salmon off the Oregon and Washington coast. U.S. Fish Bull. (Submitted)Google Scholar
  7. Dunbrack, R.L. & L.M. Dill. 1983. A model of size dependent surface feeding in a stream dwelling salmonid. Env. Biol. Fish. 8: 203–216.Google Scholar
  8. Eggers, D.M. 1982. Planktivore preference by prey size. Ecology 63: 381–390.Google Scholar
  9. English, K.K. 1983. Predator-prey relationships for juvenile chinook salmon,Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, feeding on zooplankton in ‘in situ’ enclosures. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 287–297.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, J.P. & W.G. Pearcy. 1988. Growth of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the ocean off Oregon and Washington, USA, in years of differing coastal upwelling. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 1036–1044.Google Scholar
  11. Grossman, G.D. 1980. Ecological aspects of ontogenetic shifts in prey size utilization in the bay goby (Pisces: Gobiidae). Oecologia 47: 233–238.Google Scholar
  12. Grossman, G.D., R. Coffin & P.B. Moyle. 1980. Feeding ecology of the bay goby (Pisces: Gobiidae). Effects of behavioral, ontogenetic, and temporal variation on diet. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 44: 47–59.Google Scholar
  13. Hargreaves, N.B. & R.J. LeBrasseur. 1985. Species selective predation on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum salmon (O. keta) by coho salmon (O. kisutch). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 659–668.Google Scholar
  14. Hespenheide, H.A. 1975. Prey characteristics and predator niche width. pp. 158–180.In: M.L. Cody & J.M. Diamond (ed.) Ecology and Evolution of Communities, Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Keast, A. 1985a. The piscivore feeding guild of fishes in small freshwater ecosystems. Env. Biol. Fish. 12: 119–129.Google Scholar
  16. Keast, A. 1985b. Development of dietary specializations in a summer community of juvenile fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 13: 211–224.Google Scholar
  17. Macdonald, J.S., I.K. Birtwell & G.M. Kruzynski. 1987. Food and habitat utilization by juvenile salmonids in the Campbell River estuary. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44: 1233–1246.Google Scholar
  18. Mathews, S.B. & R. Buckley. 1976. Marine mortality of Puget Sound coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 1677–1684.Google Scholar
  19. McCabe, G.T., Jr., W.D. Muir, R.L. Emmett & J.T. Durkin. 1983. Interrelationships between juvenile salmonids and nonsalmonid fish in the Columbia River estuary. U.S. Fish Bull. 81: 815–826.Google Scholar
  20. Okada, S. & A. Taniguchi. 1971. Size relationship between salmon juveniles in shore waters and their prey animals. Bull. Fac. Fish., Hokkaido Univ. 22: 30–36.Google Scholar
  21. Pearcy, W.G. & J.P. Fisher. 1988. Migrations of coho salmon,Oncorhynchus kisutch, during their first summer in the ocean. U.S. Fish. Bull. 86: 173–195.Google Scholar
  22. Pearre, S., Jr. 1980. The copepod width-weight relation and its utility in food chain research. Can. J. Zool. 58: 1884–1891.Google Scholar
  23. Pearre, S., Jr. 1986. Ratio-based trophic niche breadths of fish, the Sheldon spectrum, and the size-efficiency hypothesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 27: 299–314.Google Scholar
  24. Peterson, W.T., R.D. Brodeur, & W.G. Pearcy. 1982. Food habits of juvenile salmon in the Oregon coastal zone, June 1979. U.S. Fish. Bull. 80: 841–851.Google Scholar
  25. Ross, S.T. 1978. Trophic ontogeny of the leopard searobin,Prionotus scitulus (Pisces: Triglidae). U.S. Fish. Bull. 76: 225–234.Google Scholar
  26. Ruggerone, G.T. 1989. Coho salmon predation on juvenile sockeye salmon in the Chignik Lakes, Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 151 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Schmitt, R.J. & S.J. Holbrook. 1984a. Gape-limitation, foraging tactics and prey size selectivity of two microcarnivorous species of fish. Oecologia 63: 6–12.Google Scholar
  28. Schmitt, R.J. & S.J. Holbrook. 1984b. Ontogeny of prey selection by black surfperchEmbiotoca jacksoni (Pisces: Embiotocidae): the roles of fish morphology, foraging behavior, and patch selection. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 18: 225–239.Google Scholar
  29. Stoner, A.W. 1980. Feeding ecology ofLagodon rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae): Variation and functional responses. U.S. Fish. Bull. 78: 337–352.Google Scholar
  30. Wańkowski, J.W.J. 1979. Morphological limitations, prey size selectivity, and growth response of juvenile Atlantic salmon,Salmo salar. J. Fish Biol. 14: 89–100.Google Scholar
  31. Wańkowski, J.W.J. & J.E. Thorpe. 1979. The role of food particle size in the growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). J. Fish Biol. 14: 351–370.Google Scholar
  32. Werner, E.E. 1974. The fish size, prey size, handling time relation in several sunfishes and some implications. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: 1531–1536.Google Scholar
  33. Werner, E.E. & J.F. Gilliam. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393–425.Google Scholar
  34. Werner, E.E. & D.J. Hall. 1977. Competition and habitat shift in two sunfishes (Centrarchidae). Ecology 58: 869–876.Google Scholar
  35. Yasuda, F. 1960. The feeding mechanisms of some carnivorous fishes. Rec. Oceanogr. Works Japan 5: 153–160.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard D. Brodeur
    • 1
  1. 1.Fisheries Research Institute, WH-10University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations