Advertisement

Coral Reefs

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 213–222 | Cite as

No change in subordinate butterflyfish diets following removal of behaviourally dominant species

  • Shane A. Blowes
  • Morgan S. Pratchett
  • Sean R. Connolly
Report

Abstract

Direct interference interactions between species are often mediated by aggression and related to resource use. Interference interactions are frequently asymmetric, whereby one species wins the majority of interactions; however, the effect of this asymmetry on the diet of subordinate species has not received the same attention as the impact of interference on habitat use. Here we experimentally evaluated whether release from asymmetric interference led to increased use of a preferred dietary resource by subordinate species, using coral-feeding butterflyfishes as a model system. Following experimental removal of the behaviourally dominant species, we found no change in diet breadth or foraging on the preferred resource by subordinate species. Our results suggest that release from asymmetric interspecific interference does not necessarily result in changes to subordinate species’ diets, at least not over the course of our study. Rather, consistently asymmetric interactions may contribute to behavioural conditioning of subordinate species, meaning that even in the absence of dominants, subordinate individuals maintain established feeding patterns. Additionally, our results suggest that antagonistic interactions between butterflyfishes may have contributed to niche partitioning and conservatism over evolutionary time scales.

Keywords

Interference competition Experimental removal Coral reefs Butterflyfishes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank James Cook University and the Australian Research Council for financial support; SAB was also supported by a Queensland Smart State Ph.D. fellowship. We thank E. Graham, S. Montanari and the staff of the Lizard Island Research Station for assistance in the field. All applicable institutional (JCU Ethics Approval A1730) and national (Great Barrier Marine Park Authority Permit G10/33272.1) guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

338_2016_1529_MOESM1_ESM.docx (312 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 312 kb)
338_2016_1529_MOESM2_ESM.eps (2.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (EPS 2213 kb)

References

  1. Blowes SA, Pratchett MS, Connolly SR (2013) Heterospecific aggression and dominance in a guild of coral-feeding fishes: the roles of dietary ecology and phylogeny. Am Nat 182:157–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolnick DI, Svanback R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouchon-Navaro Y (1986) Partitioning of food and space resources by chaetodontid fishes on coral reefs. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 103:21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JH (1971) Mechanisms of competitive exclusion between two species of chipmunks. Ecology 52:305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Case TJ, Gilpin ME (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:3073–3077CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole AJ, Pratchett MS (2011) Inter-specific variation in susceptibility to grazing among common reef corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 422:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole AJ, Pratchett MS, Jones GP (2008) Diversity and functional importance of coral-feeding fishes on tropical coral reefs. Fish Fish 9:286–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLong JP, Vasseur DA (2011) Mutual interference is common and mostly intermediate in magnitude. BMC Ecol 11:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Driscoll JW, Driscoll JL (1988) Pair behaviour and spacing in butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae). Env Biol Fish 22:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrlich PR, Talbot FH, Russell BC, Anderson GRV (1977) The behaviour of chaetodontid fishes with special reference to Lorenz’s “poster colouration” hypothesis. J Zool 183:213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferry-Graham LA, Bolnick DI, Wainwright PC (2002) Using functional morphology to examine the ecology and evolution of specialisation. Integr Comp Biol 42:265–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder M, Nielsen A, Sibert J (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterised complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freshwater C, Ghalambor CK, Martin PR (2014) Repeated patterns of trait divergence between closely related dominant and subordinate bird species. Ecology 95:2334–2345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fryxell JM, Lundberg P (1998) Individual behaviour and community dynamics. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grether GF, Anderson CN, Drury JP, Kirschel ANG, Losin N, Okamoto K, Peiman KS (2013) The evolutionary consequences of interspecific aggression. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1289:48–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Harmelin-Vivien ML, Bouchon-Navaro Y (1983) Feeding diets and significance of coral feeding among chaetodontid fishes in Moorea (French Polynesia). Coral Reefs 2:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kimura K, Chiba S (2010) Interspecific interference competition alters habitat use patterns in two species of land snails. Evol Ecol 24:815–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawton JH, Hassell MP (1981) Asymmetrical competition in insects. Nature 289:793–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawton RJ, Pratchett MS, Berumen ML (2012) The use of specialisation indices to predict vulnerability of coral-feeding butterflyfishes to environmental change. Oikos 121:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacArthur RH (1965) Patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 40:510–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Minot EO, Perrins CM (1986) Interspecific interference competition—nest sites for blue and great tits. J Anim Ecol 55:331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morse DH (1974) Niche breadth as a function of social dominance. Am Nat 108:818–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peiman KS, Robinson BW (2010) Ecology and evolution of resource-related heterospecific aggression. Q Rev Biol 85:133–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pianka ER (1981) Competition and niche theory. In: May RM (ed) Theoretical ecology: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific, Hoboken, pp 167–196Google Scholar
  29. Pianka ER (2011) Evolutionary ecology, 7th edn. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML, Mitchell W (1985) Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory. Ecology 66:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pratchett MS (2005) Dietary overlap among coral-feeding butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae) at Lizard Island, northern Great Barrier Reef. Mar Biol 148:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pratchett MS (2007) Dietary selection by coral-feeding butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae) on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Raffles Bull Zool 14:155–160Google Scholar
  33. Pratchett MS, Wilson SK, Baird AH (2006) Declines in the abundance of Chaetodon butterflyfishes following extensive coral depletion. J Fish Biol 69:1269–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pratchett MS, Wilson SK, Berumen ML, McCormick MI (2004) Sublethal effects of coral bleaching on an obligate coral feeding butterflyfish. Coral Reefs 23:352–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  37. Reese ES (1975) A comparative field study of the social behaviour and related ecology of reef fishes of the family Chaetodontidae. Z Tierpsychol 37:37–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Righton D, Mills C (2006) Application of GIS to investigate the use of space in coral reef fish: a comparison of territorial behaviour in two Red Sea butterflyfishes. Int J Geo Inf Sci 20:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Righton D, Miller M, Ormond R (1998) Correlates of territory size in butterflyfish Chaetodon austriacus (Ruppell). J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 226:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts CM, Ormond RFG (1992) Butterflyfish social behaviour, with special reference to the incidence of territoriality: a review. Env Biol Fish 34:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robertson DR, Gaines SD (1986) Interference competition structures habitat use in a local assemblage of coral reef surgeonfishes. Ecology 67:1372–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skalski GT, Gilliam JF (2001) Functional responses with predator interference: viable alternatives to the Holling type II model. Ecology 82:3083–3092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skaug H, Forurnier D, Nielsen A, Magnusson A Bolker B (2013) Generalised linear mixed models using AD Model Builder, R package version 0.7.7Google Scholar
  45. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  46. Sutton M (1985) Patterns of spacing in a coral reef fish in two habitats on the Great Barrier Reef. Anim Behav 33:1332–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tricas TC (1989) Determinants of feeding territory size in the corallivorous butterflyfish, Chaetodon multicinctus. Anim Behav 37:830–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Veron JEN (2000) Corals of the world. Australian Institute of Marine Science, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
  49. Young KA (2003) Evolution of fighting behaviour under asymmetric competition: an experimental test with juvenile salmonids. Behav Ecol 14:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ziv Y, Abramsky BP, Subach A (1993) Interference competition and temporal and habitat partitioning in two gerbil species. Oikos 66:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shane A. Blowes
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Morgan S. Pratchett
    • 2
  • Sean R. Connolly
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Marine Biology and Aquaculture, College of Science and EngineeringJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef StudiesJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life SciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations