Marine Biology

, Volume 144, Issue 1, pp 139–145 | Cite as

What attracts juvenile coral reef fish to mangroves: habitat complexity or shade?

  • E. Cocheret de la Morinière
  • I. Nagelkerken
  • H. van der Meij
  • G. van der Velde
Research Article


The value of mangroves for fish species is usually explained in terms of high food abundance or shelter against predators as a result of high turbidity and structural complexity. In a field experiment, artificial mangrove units (AMUs) were designed as open cages, each of which was provided with a different degree of structural complexity and shade. Fish species that were attracted to the AMUs were identified and counted and the effects of shade and structural complexity, as well as the interaction between the two factors, were tested. Diurnal fish showed a preference for the greatest structured complexity and for a moderate increase in shade. Two nocturnal species common in local mangroves as well as seagrass beds showed statistically significant effects: densities of Haemulon sciurus were positively related to both shade and structural complexity, whereas only shade had a significant positive effect on densities of Ocyurus chrysurus. The experiment indicated that the attractiveness of mangrove vegetation for H. sciurus may be influenced by the structural complexity of the habitat as well as by the degree of shade, and that both factors are equally and separately important. Individuals of O. chrysurus that are attracted to mangroves are more likely to be influenced by the presence of shade than by the degree of structural complexity. The data thus indicated that the positive relationship between fish densities in mangrove habitats and the degree of shade and structural complexity, or both, is species-specific.


Predation Risk Reef Fish Fish Density Nursery Habitat Mangrove Habitat 
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.



We would like to thank all the staff of the Carmabi Foundation, where the research was carried out. We also thank E.A. Moody of the Curaçao Seaquarium for her co-operation and her part-time supervision of H. van der Meij. Mark Vermeij kindly lent us his light spate meter. The research was funded by the Netherlands Foundation for the Advancement of Tropical Research (WOTRO). E. Kardinaal supplied us with a map of Spanish Water Bay and the Winkel family allowed us to use their pier. Finally, we thank Prof. P.H. Nienhuis for his comments and suggestions on the manuscript. This is Centre for Wetland Ecology publication no. 324.


  1. Benfield MC, Minello TJ (1996) Relative effects of turbidity and light intensity on reactive distance and feeding of an estuarine fish. Environ Biol Fish 46:211–216Google Scholar
  2. Blaber SJM, Blaber TG (1980) Factors affecting the distribution of juvenile estuarine and inshore fish. J Fish Biol 17:143–162Google Scholar
  3. Carr WES, Adams CA (1973) Food habits of juvenile marine fishes occupying seagrass beds in the estuarine zone near Crystal River, Florida. Trans Am Fish Soc 102:511–540Google Scholar
  4. Cocheret de la Morinière E, Pollux BJA, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G (2002) Post-settlement life cycle migration patterns and habitat preference of coral reef fish that use seagrass and mangrove habitats as nurseries. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 55:309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cocheret de la Morinière E, Pollux BJA, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G (2003a) Diet shifts of Caribbean grunts (Haemulidae) and snappers (Lutjanidae) and the relation with nursery-to-coral reef migrations. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 57:1079–1089Google Scholar
  6. Cocheret de la Morinière E, Pollux BJA, Nagelkerken I, Hemminga MA, Huiskes AHL, van der Velde G (2003b) Ontogenetic dietary changes of coral reef fishes in the mangrove–seagrass–reef continuum: stable isotopes and gut-content analysis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 246:279–289Google Scholar
  7. Haan D de, Zaneveld JS (1959) Some notes on tides in Annabaai harbour, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles. Bull Mar Sci Gulf Caribb 9:224–236Google Scholar
  8. Heck KL, Crowder LB (1991) Habitat structure and predator–prey interactions in vegetated aquatic ecosystems. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky ER (eds) Habitat structure: the physical arrangements of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 281–299Google Scholar
  9. Helfman GS (1981) The advantage to fishes of hovering in shade. Copeia 2:392–400Google Scholar
  10. Kelly DJ, Bothwell ML (2002) Avoidance of solar ultraviolet radiation by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laegdsgaard P, Johnson C (2001) Why do juvenile fish utilise mangrove habitats? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 257:229–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Nagelkerken I, Dorenbosch M, Verberk WCEP, Cocheret de la Morinière E, van der Velde G (2000a) Day–night shifts of fishes between shallow-water biotopes of a Caribbean bay with emphasis on the nocturnal feeding of Haemulidae and Lutjanidae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 194:55–64Google Scholar
  13. Nagelkerken I, Dorenbosch M, Verberk WCEP, Cocheret de la Morinière E, van der Velde G (2000b) Importance of shallow-water biotopes of a Caribbean bay for juvenile coral reef fishes: patterns in biotope association, community structure and spatial distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 202:175–192Google Scholar
  14. Odum WE, Heald EJ (1972) Trophic analyses of an estuarine mangrove community. Bull Mar Sci Gulf Caribb 22:671–738Google Scholar
  15. Ogden JC, Zieman JC (1977) Ecological aspects of coral reef–seagrass bed contacts in the Caribbean. Proc 3rd Int Coral Reef Symp 1:377–382Google Scholar
  16. Parrish JD (1989) Fish communities of interacting shallow-water habitats in tropical oceanic regions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 58:143–160Google Scholar
  17. Robertson AI, Blaber SJM (1992) Plankton epibenthos and fish communities. In: Robertson AI, Alongi DM (eds) Tropical mangrove ecosystems. Coast Estuar Stud 41:173–224Google Scholar
  18. Shulman MJ (1985) Recruitment of coral reef fishes: effects of distribution of predators and shelter. Ecology 66:1056–1066Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Cocheret de la Morinière
    • 1
  • I. Nagelkerken
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. van der Meij
    • 3
  • G. van der Velde
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal Ecology and EcophysiologyUniversity of Nijmegen NijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Carmabi FoundationCuraçaoNetherlands Antilles
  3. 3.Institute of Spatial Planning and Environmental ScienceSaxion University for Professional EducationDeventerThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations