Advertisement

Fisheries Science

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 183–188 | Cite as

Predation dynamics of mackerel on larval and juvenile anchovy: is capture success linked to prey condition?

  • Dominique Robert
  • Akinori Takasuka
  • Sayaka Nakatsuka
  • Hiroshi Kubota
  • Yoshioki Oozeki
  • Hiroshi Nishida
  • Louis Fortier
Original Article Biology

Abstract

We tested whether the predation dynamics of chub mackerel Scomber japonicus and spotted mackerel S. australasicus on young anchovy Engraulis japonicus relates to individual growth characteristics of the prey and could account for the growth-selective survival predicted by recruitment hypotheses. Juvenile and adult mackerel were sampled along with their young anchovy prey field in 2004 (juvenile mackerel and larval anchovy) and 2005 (adult mackerel and juvenile anchovy) off the Pacific coast of Honshu, Japan. The recent 5-day mean growth rate of larval and juvenile survivors and prey found in the stomach of mackerel was estimated from the otolith microstructure. No significant difference was found between the recent growth of larval or juvenile survivors and that of preyed individuals. We conclude that despite a relatively small body size, the high activity level and predation skills displayed by mackerel prevent fast-growing larvae and early juveniles from benefitting in terms of the expected survival advantage over slow-growers. Hence, growth-selective predation mortality of larval fish would depend on the feeding ecology of the predator rather than predator size. Selection for fast growth is more likely to occur under predation pressure from invertebrate organisms and small pelagic fish specialized on zooplankton, such as herring and anchovy.

Keywords

Growth rate Growth-selective predation Larval and juvenile anchovy Mackerel Otolith microstructure Predation mortality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the officers and crew of RVs Hokuho-maru, Kaiun-maru, and Soyo-maru and to M. Takahashi, A. Yatsu, and N. Yamashita for their support during the sampling at sea. We also thank S. Shindo and A. Matsuura for their help with otolith preparation, and M. Saito for otolith reading. DR was funded by a joint scholarship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson JT (1988) A review of size dependent survival during pre-recruit stages of fishes in relation to recruitment. J Northwest Atl Fish Sci 8:55–66Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cushing DH (1990) Plankton production and year-class strength in fish populations: an update of the match/mismatch hypothesis. Adv Mar Biol 26:249–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Houde ED (2008) Emerging from Hjort’s shadow. J Northwest Atl Fish Sci 41:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chambers RC, Leggett WC (1987) Size and age at metamorphosis in marine fishes––an analysis of laboratory-reared winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) with a review of variation in other species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44:1936–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takasuka A, Aoki I, Mitani I (2003) Evidence of growth-selective predation on larval Japanese anchovy Engraulis japonicus in Sagami Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 252:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller TJ, Crowder LB, Rice JA, Marschall EA (1988) Larval size and recruitment mechanisms in fishes: toward a conceptual framework. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:1657–1670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houde ED (1987) Fish early life dynamics and recruitment variability. Am Fish Soc Symp 2:17–29Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beyer JE, Laurence GC (1980) Stochastic-model of larval fish growth. Ecol Model 8:109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meekan MG, Fortier L (1996) Selection for fast growth during the larval life of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua on the Scotian Shelf. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 137:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robert D, Castonguay M, Fortier L (2007) Early growth and recruitment in Atlantic mackerel: discriminating the effects of fast growth and selection for fast growth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 337:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Takasuka A, Aoki I, Oozeki Y (2007) Predator-specific growth-selective predation on larval Japanese anchovy Engraulis japonicus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 350:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pepin P, Pearre SJ, Koslow JA (1987) Predation on larval fish by Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, with a comparison of predation by zooplankton. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44:2012–2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lett PF (1980) A comparative study of the recruitment mechanisms of cod and mackerel, their interaction, and its implication for dual stock management. Can Tech Rep Fish Aquat Sci 988. Environment Fish and Marine Service Biology Station, St. AndrewsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Darbyson E, Swain DP, Chabot D, Castonguay M (2003) Diel variation in feeding rate and prey composition of herring and mackerel in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. J Fish Biol 63:1235–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swain DP, Sinclair AF (2000) Pelagic fishes and the cod recruitment dilemma in the Northwest Atlantic. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:1321–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosel PE, Kocher TD (2002) DNA-based identification of larval cod in stomach contents of predatory fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 267:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macy WK, Sutherland SJ, Durbin EG (1998) Effects of zooplankton size and concentration and light intensity on the feeding behavior of Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 172:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Folkvord A, Hunter JR (1986) Size-specific vulnerability of northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, larvae to predation by fishes. Fish Bull US 84:859–869Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pepin P, Koslow JA, Pearre S (1988) Laboratory study of foraging by Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, on natural zooplankton assemblages. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oozeki Y, Hu F, Kubota H, Sugisaki H, Kimura R (2004) Newly designed quantitative frame trawl for sampling larval and juvenile pelagic fish. Fish Sci 70:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Searcy SP, Sponaugle S (2000) Variable larval growth in a coral reef fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 206:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pepin P, Dower JF, Benoit HP (2001) The role of measurement error on the interpretation of otolith increment width in the study of growth in larval fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:2204–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robert D, Castonguay M, Fortier L (2009) Effects of preferred prey density and temperature on feeding success and recent growth in larval mackerel of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 377:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takahashi M, Watanabe Y (2004) Staging larval and early juvenile Japanese anchovy based on the degree of guanine deposition. J Fish Biol 64:262–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frank KT, Petrie B, Choi JS, Leggett WC (2005) Trophic cascades in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem. Science 308:1621–1623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daan N, Rijnsdorp AD, Vanoverbeeke GR (1985) Predation by North Sea herring Clupea harengus on eggs of plaice Pleuronectes platessa and cod Gadus morhua. Trans Am Fish Soc 114:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Köster FW, Möllmann C (2000) Trophodynamic control by clupeid predators on recruitment success in Baltic cod? ICES J Mar Sci 57:310–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Last JM (1989) The food of herring, Clupea harengus, in the North Sea, 1983–1986. J Fish Biol 34:489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Takahashi M, Watanabe Y, Kinoshita T, Watanabe C (2001) Growth of larval and early juvenile Japanese anchovy, Engraulis japonicus, in the Kuroshio-Oyashio transition region. Fish Oceanogr 10:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Robert D, Castonguay M, Fortier L (2008) Effects of intra- and inter-annual variability in prey field on the feeding selectivity of larval Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). J Plankton Res 30:673–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buskey EJ, Coulter C, Strom S (1993) Locomotory patterns of microzooplankton: potential effects on food selectivity of larval fish. Bull Mar Sci 53:29–43Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plaza G, Ishida M (2008) The growth-mortality relationship in larval cohorts of Sardinops melanostictus, revealed by using two new approaches to analyse longitudinal data from otoliths. J Fish Biol 73:1531–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Fisheries Science 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominique Robert
    • 1
  • Akinori Takasuka
    • 2
  • Sayaka Nakatsuka
    • 3
  • Hiroshi Kubota
    • 2
  • Yoshioki Oozeki
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hiroshi Nishida
    • 2
  • Louis Fortier
    • 1
  1. 1.Département de Biologie, Québec-Océan, Pavillon Alexandre-VachonUniversité LavalQuebecCanada
  2. 2.National Research Institute of Fisheries ScienceFisheries Research AgencyYokohamaJapan
  3. 3.Tokyo University of Marine Science and TechnologyMinatoJapan

Personalised recommendations