Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 95, Issue 1, pp 115–126 | Cite as

Ontogenetic diet shifts and prey selection in nursery bound lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris, indicate a flexible foraging tactic

  • Steven P. Newman
  • Richard D. Handy
  • Samuel H. Gruber
Article

Abstract

Ontogenetic variations in shark diet are often qualitatively inferred from dietary analysis and hindered by high levels of unidentified prey or small sample sizes. This study focused on nursery bound lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris, n = 396), enabling some control over the confounding variables of prey choice associated with ontogeny. Nursery bound lemon sharks exhibited weak ontogenetic variation in dietary composition with high levels of dietary overlap. Variation in prey preference of lemon sharks with ontogeny was complex, but revealed a continuous shift from predominantly opportunistic benthic foraging as neonates to more selective piscivory with increasing shark size while in the nursery. Lemon sharks demonstrated a discrete ontogenetic shift in the number of prey consumed and stomach content weight (Kruskal-Wallis tests p < 0.01), as well as prey size (ANOVA, p < 0.001). All sizes of sharks exhibited positive size selection of prey (Mann–Whitney U tests, p < 0.01). However, the lack of size preference by all but the largest lemon sharks for their major prey (yellowfin mojarra, Gerres cinereus), suggests neonate sharks, while capable of occasionally foraging on large prey, are relatively inept opportunistic foragers. This was evident in high diet breadth, low diversity of consumed prey and lower trophic level than larger sharks. This study represents the first quantitative analysis of ontogenetic variation in prey preference and size selection in sharks, indicating a flexible foraging tactic in lemon sharks and the importance of hunting ability and predator size in prey choice.

Keywords

Carcharhinidae Elasmobranch Learning Preference Size selection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by a studentship from the University of Plymouth (SPN), the Florida Department of Education (Grant 874-97030-00001, SHG), PADI project AWARE (SPN), and Bimini Biological Field Station and its supporters. We thank R. Mann and L. Hoover, The Greentweed Foundation, the Hoover Foundation, T. and T. Fujino, B. & T. Newman, N. and E. Phillips, S. and T. Daniels, and R. Rosenberg for generous private support. This work was carried out in collaboration with the Bimini Biological Field Station, Bahamas, under University of Miami’s Bahamian research permit (MAF/LIA/22). We acknowledge the key role of the Bimini Biological Field Station staff and volunteers for assistance with data collection, with special thanks to K. Parsons, D. McElroy, C. Hofmann. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the people of Bimini, and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas for allowing us to work in the controlled waters of the Bahamas. Ethical approval and permissions were in place for all procedures in accordance with the current laws of the Bahamas.

References

  1. Barker MJ, Gruber SH, Newman SP, Schluessel V (2005) Spatial and temporal variation in growth of nursery bound juvenile lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris), a comparison of two novel age-assigning techniques. Environ Biol Fish 72:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beamish FWH (1978) Swimming capacity. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ (eds) Fish physiology. Academic, New York, pp 101–187Google Scholar
  3. Bethea DM, Buckel JA, Carlson JK (2004) Foraging ecology of the early life stages of four sympatric shark species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:245–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bethea DM, Carlson JK, Buckel JA, Satterwhite M (2006) Ontogenetic and site-related trends in the diet of the Atlantic Sharpnose shark Rhizopriondon terraenovae from the Northeast Gulf Mexico. Bull Mar Sci 78:287–307Google Scholar
  5. Beulig A (1982) Social and experimental factors in the responsiveness of sharks to sound. Fla Sci 45:2–10Google Scholar
  6. Christensen B (1996) Predator foraging capabilities and prey antipredator behaviours: pre- versus postcapture constraints on size-dependent predator-prey interactions. Oikos 76:368–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cortés E (1997) A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: application to elasmobranch fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:726–738Google Scholar
  8. Cortés E (1999) Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of sharks. ICES J Mar Sci 56:707–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cortés E, Gruber SH (1990) Diet, feeding habits and estimates of daily ration of young lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Copeia 1990:204–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cortés E, Manire CA, Hueter RE (1996) Diet, feeding habits, and diel feeding chronology of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, in southwest Florida. Bull Mar Sci 58:353–367Google Scholar
  11. Ellis JK, Musick JA (2007) Ontogenetic change in the diet of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, in lower Chesapeake Bay and Virginia (USA) coastal waters. Environ Biol Fish 80:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL (2009) EcoSim: null models software for ecology. Version 7. Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear. Jericho, VT 05465. http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim.htm
  13. Gruber SH, de Marignac JR, Hoenig JM (2001) Survival of juvenile lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) at Bimini, Bahamas, estimated by mark-depletion experiments. T Am Fish Soc 130:376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heithaus MR (2004) Predator-prey interactions. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds) Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 487–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resources preference. Ecology 61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juanes F (1994) What determines prey size selectivity in piscivorous fishes? In: Strouder DJ, Fresh KL, Feller RJ (eds) Theory and application in fish feeding ecology. S Carolina University Press, Columbia, pp 79–100Google Scholar
  17. Juanes F, Buckel JA, Scharf FS (2001) Predatory behaviour and selectivity of a primary piscivore: comparison of fish and non-fish prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 217:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koen-Alonso M, Crespo EA, García NA, Pedraza SN, Mariotti PA, Mora NJ (2002) Fishery and ontogenetic driven changes in the diet of the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, in Patagonian waters, Argentina. Environ Biol Fish 63:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology 2nd ed. Benjamin Cummings CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowe CG, Wetherbee BM, Crow GL, Tester AL (1996) Ontogenetic dietary shifts and feeding behaviour of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, in Hawaiian waters. Environ Biol Fish 47:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lucifora LO, García VB, Menni RC, Escalante AH (2006) Food habits, selectivity, and foraging modes of the school shark Galeorhinus galeus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 315:250–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lucifora LO, García VB, Menni RC, Escalante AH, Hozbor NM (2009) Effects of body size, age and maturity stage on diet in a large shark: ecological and applied implications. Ecol Res 24:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manire CA, Gruber SH (1993) A preliminary estimate of natural mortality of age-0 lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. NOAA Technical Report. NMFS 115:65–72Google Scholar
  24. McElroy WD, Wetherbee BM, Mostello CS, Lowe CG, Crow GL, Wass RC (2006) Food habits and ontogenetic changes in the diet of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, in Hawaii. Environ Biol Fish 76:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morrissey JF, Gruber SH (1993) Home range of juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Copeia 1993:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman RM, Waters TF (1984) Size-selective predation on Gammarus pseudolimnaeus by trout and sculpins. Ecology 65:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newman SP, Handy RD, Gruber SH (2007) Spatial and temporal variations in mangrove and seagrass faunal communities at Bimini, Bahamas. Bull Mar Sci 80:529–553Google Scholar
  28. Newman SP, Handy RD, Gruber SH (2010) Diet and prey preference of juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 398:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pinkas LM, Oliphant S, Iverson ILK (1971) Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito in Californian waters. Calif Fish Game 152:1–105Google Scholar
  30. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross ST (1986) Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 1986:352–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salini JP, Blaber SJM, Brewer DT (1992) Diets of sharks from estuaries and adjacent waters of the North-eastern Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Aust J Mar Freshwater Res 43:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scharf FS, Juanes F, Roundtree RA (2000) Predator size – prey size relationships of marine fish predators: interspecific variation and effects of ontogeny and body size on trophic-niche breadth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 208:229–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt TW (1986) Food of young juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris (Poey), near Sandy Key, Western Florida Bay. Fla Sci 49:7–10Google Scholar
  35. Schmitt RJ, Holbrook SJ (1984) Ontogeny of prey selection by black surfperch Embriotica jacksonii (Pisces: Embiotocidae): the roles of fish morphology, foraging behaviour and patch selection. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 18:225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schurdak ME, Gruber SH (1989) Gastric evacuation of the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris (Poey) under controlled conditions. Exp Biol 48:77–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Simpfendorfer CA, Goodreid AB, McAuley RB (2001) Size, sex and geographic variation in the diet of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, from Western Australian waters. Environ Biol Fish 61:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Springer S (1950) Natural history notes on the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris. Tex J Sci 3:349–357Google Scholar
  39. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 264Google Scholar
  40. Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dulvy NK, Walker PA (2000) The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci 57:476–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 15:393–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wetherbee BM, Cortés E (2004) Food consumption and feeding habits. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds) Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC Press LLC, Florida, pp 225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wetherbee BM, Gruber SH, Cortés E (1990) Diet, feeding habits, digestion and consumption in sharks, with special reference to the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris. In: Pratt jr HL, Gruber SH, Tauriuchi T (eds) Elasmobranchs as living resources, advances in the biology, ecology, systematics and the states of the fisheries. NOAA technical report, RSMAS, pp 29–47Google Scholar
  44. Winemiller KO (1989) Ontogenetic diet shifts and resource partitioning among piscivorous fishes in the Venezuelan Ilanos. Environ Biol Fisches 26:177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winemiller KO, Pianka ER (1990) Organization and natural assemblages of desert lizards and tropical fishes. Ecol Monogr 60:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven P. Newman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Richard D. Handy
    • 1
  • Samuel H. Gruber
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  2. 2.Bimini Biological Field StationBiminiBahamas
  3. 3.Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA
  4. 4.School of Marine Science and TechnologyNewcastle UniversityNewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations