Oecologia

, Volume 165, Issue 1, pp 101–109 | Cite as

Waves affect predator–prey interactions between fish and benthic invertebrates

  • Friederike Gabel
  • Stefan Stoll
  • Philipp Fischer
  • Martin T. Pusch
  • Xavier-François Garcia
Behavioral ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Little is known about the effects of waves on predator–prey interactions in the littoral zones of freshwaters. We conducted a set of mesocosm experiments to study the differential effects of ship- and wind-induced waves on the foraging success of littoral fish on benthic invertebrates. Experiments were conducted in a wave tank with amphipods (Gammarus roeseli) as prey, and age-0 bream (Abramis brama, B0), age-0 and age-1 dace (Leuciscus leuciscus, D0 and D1) as predators. The number of gammarids suspended in the water column was higher in the wave treatments compared to a no-wave control treatment, especially during pulse waves mimicking ship-induced waves in comparison to continuous waves mimicking wind-induced waves. The resulting higher prey accessibility in the water column was differently exploited by the three types of predatory fish. D0 and D1 showed significantly higher foraging success in the pulse wave treatment than in the continuous and control treatments. The foraging success of D0 appears to be achieved more easily, since significantly higher swimming activity and more foraging attempts were recorded only for D1 under the wave treatments. In contrast, B0 consumed significantly fewer gammarids in both wave treatments than in the control. Hence, waves influenced predator–prey interactions differently depending on wave type and fish type. It is expected that regular exposure to ship-induced waves can alter littoral invertebrate and fish assemblages by increasing the predation risk for benthic invertebrates that are suspended in the water column, and by shifting fish community compositions towards species that benefit from waves.

Keywords

Ship- and wind-induced waves Hydrodynamic disturbance Invertebrate detachment Foraging success 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank M. Wolf for his technical support and T. Hintze for his assistance with video equipment. The manuscript benefited from the comments of K. Tockner, T. Mehner, C. Wolter, M. Brauns and two anonymous reviewers. This study was completed within the Collaborative Research Centre 454, “Littoral Zone of Lake Constance”, and was financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the German Federal Environmental Foundation (F. Gabel) and the German National Academic Foundation (S. Stoll).

References

  1. Arlinghaus R, Engelhardt C, Sukhodolov A, Wolter C (2002) Fish recruitment in a canal with intensive navigation: implications for ecosystem management. J Fish Biol 61:1386–1402. doi: 10.1006/jfbi.2002.2148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backiel T, Zawiska J (1968) Synopsis of biological data on the bream, Abramis brama L. Rom. FAO Fish Biol Synopsis 36:1–120Google Scholar
  3. Barton DR, Carter JCH (1982) Shallow-water epilithic invertebrate communities of eastern Georgian Bay, Ontario, in relation to exposure to wave action. Can J Zool 60:984–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop MJ (2008) Displacement of epifauna from seagrass blades by boat wake. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 354:111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2007.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop MJ, Chapman MG (2004) Managerial decisions as experiments: an opportunity to determine the ecological impact of boat-generated waves on macrobenthic infauna. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 61:613–622. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2004.06.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchet S, Loot G, Dodson JJ (2008) Competition, predation and flow rate as mediators of direct and indirect effects in a stream food chain. Oecologia 157:93–104. doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-1044-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borchardt D (1993) Effects of flow and refugia on drift loss of benthic macroinvertebrates—implications for habitat restoration in lowland streams. Freshw Biol 29:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryazgunova MI (1979) Feeding relationships of the young of the pike perch, Lucioperca lucioperca, the bream, Abramis brama, and fishes of lesser importance in the lower reaches of the Don. J Ichthyol 19:57–65Google Scholar
  9. Commito JA, Thrush SF, Pridmore RD, Hewitt JE, Cummings VJ (1995) Dispersal dynamics in a wind-driven benthic system. Limnol Oceanogr 40:1513–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowden AE, Broom DM (1980) Effects of the eyefluke, Diplostomum spathaceum, on the behavior of dace (Leuciscus leuciscus). Anim Behav 28:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliott JM (1973) Food of brown and rainbow trout (Salmo trutta and S. gairdneri) in relation to abundance of drifting invertebrates in a mountain stream. Oecologia 12:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer P, Eckmann R (1997) Spatial distribution of littoral fish species in a large European lake, Lake Constance. Ger Arch Hydrobiol 140:91–116Google Scholar
  13. Gabel F, Garcia X-F, Brauns M, Sukhodolov A, Leszinski M, Pusch MT (2008) Resistance to ship-induced waves of benthic invertebrates in various littoral habitats. Freshw Biol 53:1567–1578. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.01991.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldspink CR (1978) The population density, growth rate and production of bream, Abramis brama, in Tjeukemeer, the Netherlands. J Fish Biol 13:499–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart DD, Finelli CM (1999) Physical-biological coupling in streams: the pervasive effects of flow on benthic organisms. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:363–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart DD, Merz RA (1998) Predator prey interactions in a benthic stream community: a field test of flow-mediated refuges. Oecologia 114:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hellawell JM (1974) The ecology of populations of dace Leuciscus leuciscus (L.), from two tributaries of the River Wye, Herefordshire, England. Freshw Biol 4:577–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hine PM, Kennedy CR (1974) The population biology of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Miiller) in the River Avon. J Fish Biol 6:665–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofmann H, Lorke A, Peeters F (2008) The relative importance of wind and ship waves in the littoral zone of a large lake. Limnol Oceanogr 53:368–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kottelat M, Freyhof J (2007) Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat, CornolGoogle Scholar
  22. Macan TT (1977) The influence of predation on the composition of fresh-water animal communities. Biol Rev 52:45–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Malmqvist B, Sackmann G (1996) Changing risk of predation for a filter-feeding insect along a current velocity gradient. Oecologia 108:450–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mattila J, Heck KL, Millstein E, Miller E, Gustafsson C, Williams S, Byron D (2008) Increased habitat structure does not always provide increased refuge from predation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 361:15–20. doi: 10.3354/meps07392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mörtl M, Rothhaupt KO (2003) Effects of adult Dreissena polymorpha on settling juveniles and associated macroinvertebrates. Int Rev Hydrobiol 88:561–569. doi: 10.1002/iroh.200310640 Google Scholar
  26. Neverman D, Wurtsbaugh WA (1994) The thermoregulatory function of diel vertical migration for a juvenile fish, Cottus extensus. Oecologia 98:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmer MA (1988) Epibenthic predators and marine meiofauna—separating predation, disturbance, and hydrodynamic effects. Ecology 69:1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peckarsky BL, Horn SC, Statzner B (1990) Stonefly predation along a hydraulic-gradient—a field-test of the harsh benign hypothesis. Freshw Biol 24:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powers SP, Kittinger JN (2002) Hydrodynamic mediation of predator–prey interactions: differential patterns of prey susceptibility and predator success explained by variation in water flow. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 273:171–187Google Scholar
  30. Scheifhacken N (2006) Life at turbulent sites. Benthic communities in lake littorals interacting with abiotic and biotic constraints (Ph.D. thesis). Univ. of Constance, ConstanceGoogle Scholar
  31. Schofield DK, Townsend CR, Hildrew AG (1988) Predation and the prey community of a headwater stream. Freshw Biol 20:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sih A, Crowley P, Mcpeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985) Predation, competition, and prey communities—a review of field experiments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 16:269–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sims DW, Wearmouth VJ, Southall EJ, Hill JM, Moore P, Rawlinson K, Hutchinson N, Budd GC, Righton D, Metcalfe JD, Nash JP, Morritt D (2006) Hunt warm, rest cool: bioenergetic strategy underlying diel vertical migration of a benthic shark. J Anim Ecol 75:176–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01033.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Starry O, Wanzenböck J, Danielopol DL (1998) Tendency of the amphipod Gammarus roeseli Gervais to colonize coarse sediment habitats under fish predation pressure. Int Rev Hydrobiol 83:371–380Google Scholar
  35. Stoll S, Fischer P (2010) Three different patterns of how low-intensity waves can affect the energy budget of littoral fish: a mesocosm study. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s00442-010-1793-z
  36. Stoll S, Fischer P, Klahold P, Scheifhacken N, Hofmann H, Rothhaupt KO (2008) Effects of water depth and hydrodynamics on the growth and distribution of juvenile cyprinids in the littoral zone of a large pre-alpine lake. J Fish Biol 72:1001–1022. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01780.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoll S, Hofmann H, Fischer P (2010) Effect of wave exposure dynamics on gut content mass and growth of young-of-the-year fishes in the littoral zone of lakes. J Fish Biol 76:1714–1728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA (2004) Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141:171–178. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1644-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA (2006) Habitat structural complexity mediates food web dynamics in a freshwater macrophyte community. Oecologia 150:141–154. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0505-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Weatherley NS (1987) The diet and growth of 0-group dace Leucicus leuciscus (L.), and roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), in a lowland river. J Fish Biol 30:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Webb PW (2002) Control of posture, depth and swimming trajectories of fishes. Integr Comp Biol 42:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weihs D (1993) Stability of aquatic animal locomotion. Contemp Math 141:443–461Google Scholar
  43. Winnell MH, Jude DJ (1991) Northern large-river benthic and larval fish drift—St Marys River, USA/Canada. J Great Lakes Res 17:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolter C, Arlinghaus R (2003) Navigation impacts on freshwater fish assemblages: the ecological relevance of swimming performance. Rev Fish Biol Fish 13:63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolter C, Arlinghaus R, Sukhodolov A, Engelhardt C (2004) A model of navigation-induced currents in inland waterways and implications for juvenile fish displacement. Environ Manage 34:656–668. doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-0201-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friederike Gabel
    • 1
  • Stefan Stoll
    • 2
  • Philipp Fischer
    • 3
  • Martin T. Pusch
    • 1
  • Xavier-François Garcia
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Limnological InstituteUniversity of KonstanzConstanceGermany
  3. 3.Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Biologische Anstalt HelgolandHelgolandGermany

Personalised recommendations