Synopsis
Gulf killifish Fundulus grandis were allowed to prey on daggerblade grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio in clear water with bright light, turbid water containing bentonite clay, and clear water treatments where the light intensity was adjusted to match that in the bottom of the turbid tanks. Significantly fewer shrimp were consumed in the turbid tanks relative to the clear and shade treatments where predation rates did not differ significantly. The results suggested that the influence of suspended particles on predation rates was a consequence of light scattering and was not related to a decrease in light intensity. Reactive distances were subsequently determined for human observers viewing a small target in elongated tanks containing turbid water (7.3–60.5 NTU) under conditions of both low (8-10 μE m−2 s−1) and high illumination (153–1249 μE M−2 s−1). Reactive distance was primarily governed by turbidity while light intensity had little influence except at low turbidities. The shape of the relationship between reactive distance and turbidity for humans resembled curves reported for a variety of fish species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References cited
Aksnes, D.L. & J. Giske. 1993. A theoretical model of aquatic visual feeding. Ecol. Modelling 67: 233–250.
Atmar, G.L. & K.W. Stewart. 1972. Food, feeding selectivity, and ecological efficiencies of Fundulus notatus. Amer. Midl. Nat. 88: 76–89.
Barrett, J.C. & G.D. Grossman & J. Rosenfeld. 1992. Turbidity-induced changes in reactive distance of rainbow trout. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 121: 437–443.
Bennett, J.A. 1973. Food habits and feeding chronology of the longnose killifish, Fundulus similis (Baird and Girard) from St. Louis Bay, Mississippi. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University, Tupelo. 29 pp.
Cerri, R.D. 1983. The effect of light intensity on predator and prey behaviour in cyprinid fish: factors that influence prey risk. Anim. Behav. 31: 736–742.
Crescitelli, F. 1991. The scotopic photoreceptors and their visual pigments in fishes: functions and adaptations. Vision Res. 31: 339–348.
Day, R.W. & G.P. Quinn. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol. Monogr. 59: 433–463.
Douglas, R.H. & C.W. Hawryshyn. 1990. Behavioural studies of fish vision: an analysis of visual capabilities. pp. 373–418. In: R.H. Douglas & M.B.A. Djamgoz(ed) The Visual System of Fish, Chapman & Hall, London.
Duntley, S.O. 1963. Light in the sea. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 53: 214–233.
Eggers, D.M. 1977. The nature of prey selection by planktivorous fish. Ecology 58: 46–59.
Gardner, M.B. 1981. Effects of turbidity on feeding rates and selectivity of bluegills. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 110: 446–450.
Grecay, P.A. 1990. Factors affecting spatial patterns of feeding success and condition of juvenbile weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) in Delaware Bay: field and laboratory assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delaware, Lewes. 179 pp.
Gregory, R.S. & T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, planktonic and benthic foraging by juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in turbid laboratory conditions. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 233–240.
Hairston, N.G. Jr., K.T. Li & S.S. Easter, Jr. 1982. Fish vision and the detection of planktonic prey. Science 218: 1240–1242.
Howick, G.L. & W.J. O'Brien. 1983. Piscivorous feeding behavior of largemouth bass: an experimental analysis. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112: 508–516.
James, P.L. & K.L. Heck, Jr. 1994. The effects of habitat complexity and light intensity on ambush predation within a simulated seagrass habitat. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 176: 187–200.
Lythgoe, J.N. 1979. The ecology of vision. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 244 pp.
Martinez, E.X. 1991. A stochastic simulation model of brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus Ives, burrowing behavior. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station. 63 pp.
Minello, T.J. & R.J. Zimmerman & E.X. Martinez. 1987. Fish predation on juvenile brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus Ives: effects of turbidity and substratum on predation rates. U.S. Fish. Bull. 85: 59–70.
Shaw, E. 1961. Minimal light intensity and the dispersal of schooling fish. Bull. Inst. Oceanogr. 1213: 1–8.
Vandenbyllaardt, L., F.J. Ward, C.R. Braekevelt & D.B. Mcintyre. 1991. Relationships between turbidity, piscivory, and development of the retina in juvenile walleyes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 120: 382–390.
Vinyard, G.L. & W.J. O'Brien. 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2845–2849.
Ware, D.M. 1972. Predation by rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri: the influence of hunger, prey density, and prey size. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29: 1193–1201.
Weisberg, S.B., R. Walen & V.A. Lotrich. 1981. Tidal and diurnal influence on food consumption of a salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus. Mar. Biol. 61: 243–246.
Wright, D.I. & W.J. O'Brien. 1984. The development and field test of a tactical model of the planktivorous feeding of white crappie (Pomoxis annularis). Ecol. Monogr. 54: 65–98.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benfield, M.C., Minello, T.J. Relative effects of turbidity and light intensity on reactive distance and feeding of an estuarine fish. Environ Biol Fish 46, 211–216 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005223
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005223