Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of methods for quantitative analysis of feeding selection of fishes

  • Published:
Environmental Biology of Fishes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Synopsis

Predator-prey data were obtained in a study of feeding ecology of land-locked alewife,Alosa pseudoharengus, in Claytor Lake, Virginia, and subjected to two indices of electivity as well as a nonparametric paired-comparisons statistical test. Values obtained from the two indices were often contradictory with each other and the statistical test. Attributes of the statistical procedure render it more appropriate than electivity indices to describe feeding selectivity in fish populations. Results of the study also demonstrated the importance of considering the size composition of zooplankton populations in prey preference studies; measures of selection were often positive for zooplankters ≥ 1.0 mm while negative for those of the same prey group < 1.0 mm length. Because numerous problems are inherent with in situ feeding selectivity studies of planktivorous fishes, selectivity determinations, regardless of methodology, should be construed in a relative rather than absolute context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References cited

  • Brooks, J.L. 1968. The effects of prey size selection by lake planktivores. Syst. Zool. 17: 272–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesson, J. 1978. Measuring perference in selective predation. Ecology 55: 622–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confer, J.L. & P.I. Blades. 1975. Omnivorous zooplankton and planktivorous fish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20: 571–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drenner, R.W., J.R. Strickler & W.J. O'Brien. 1978. Capture probability; the role of zooplankter escape in the selective feeding of planktivorous fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35: 1370–1373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, D.M. 1977. The nature of prey selection by planktivorous fish. Ecology. 58: 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, W.L. 1978. Statistics of selectivity. pp. 62–66. In: S.J. Lipovsky & C.A. Simenstad (ed.) Gutshop '78: Fish Food Habits Studies, Proc. 2nd Pacific Northwest Tech. Workshop, Washington Sea Grant Publ., Washington, Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gannon, J.E. 1976. The effects of differential digestion rates of zooplankton by alewife,Alosa pseudoharengus, on determinations of selective feeding. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 105: 89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, M. & D.A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric statistical methods Wiley and Sons, New York. 503 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Entomol. Soc. Can. Mem. 48: 1–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivlev, V.W. 1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 302 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev's electivity index. Oecologia 14: 413–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J. 1976. Feeding modes and prey size selection in the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 1972–1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, C.C. 1980. Trophic ecology of an introduced, land-locked alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) population and assessment of alewife impact on resident sportfish and crustacean zooplankton communities in Claytor Lake, Virginia. Ph.D. Thesis, Va. Polytech. Instit. State Univ. Blacksburg. 208 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, C.C. & J.J. Ney. 1981. Consequences of an alewife dieoff to the fish and zooplankton of a reservoir. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 110: 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, C.C., J.J. Ney & A.A. Nigro. 1979. Compact, portable vertical gill net system. Prog. Fish-Cult. 41: 34–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellors, W.K. 1975. Selective predation of ephippialDaphnia and the resistance of ephippial eggs to digestion. Ecology 56: 974–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, W.W. 1969. Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol. Monogr. 39: 336–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, M.W. 1971. The developmental response of predators to changes in prey density. Ecology 52: 132–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, M.W., S. Avery & M.E.B. Smyth. 1975. Switching in predatory fish. Ecology 56: 1094–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaten, A. & W.W. Murdoch. 1975. Switching, functional response, and stability in predator-prey systems. Amer. Nat. 109: 229–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, W.J. 1979. The predator-prey interaction of planktivorous fish and zooplankton. Amer. Scientist 67: 572–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, W.J. & G.L. Vinyard. 1974. Comment on the use of Ivlev's electivity index with planktivorous fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: 1427–1429.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, W.J., N.A. Slade & G.L. Vinyard. 1976. Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57: 1304–1310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paloheimo, J.E. 1979. Indices of food type preference by a predator. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36: 470–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirie, W.R. & W.A. Hubert. 1977. Assumptions in statistical analysis. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 106: 646–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, R.E. 1979. Reliability estimates for lvlev's electivity index, the forage ratio, and a proposed linear index of food selection. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 108: 344–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinyard, G.L. 1980. Differential prey vulnerability and predator selectivity: effects of evasive prey on bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus) predation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 2294–2299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warshaw, S.J. 1972. Effects of alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) on zooplankton of Lake Wonoskopomuc, Connecticut. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 816–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E.E. 1974. The fish size, prey size, handling time relation in several sunfishes and some implications. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: 1531–1536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E.E. & D.J. Hall. 1974. Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55: 1042–1052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windell, J.T. & S.H. Bowen. 1978. Methods for study of fish diets based on analysis of stomach contents. pp. 219–226. In: T. Bagenal (ed.) Methods For Assessment of Fish Production In Fresh Water, 3rd edition, Blackwell Scientific Publ., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, T.M. 1972. Predators, invisible prey, and the nature of polymorphism in the cladocera (Class Crustacea). Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, T.M. 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven. 187 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, T.M. & W.C. Kerfoot. 1975. Fish predation onBasmina longirostris: body-size selection versus visibility selection. Ecology 56: 223–237.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kohler, C.C., Ney, J.J. A comparison of methods for quantitative analysis of feeding selection of fishes. Environ Biol Fish 7, 363–368 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005571

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005571

Keywords

Navigation