Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 82–86 | Cite as

Analysis of feeding preference experiments

  • Charles H. Peterson
  • Paul E. Renaud
Original Papers

Summary

Published studies of consumer feeding preferences using foods that experience autogenic change in mass, numbers, area, etc., on the time scale of a feeding trial fail to employ appropriate statistical analyses to incorporate controls for those food changes occurring in the absence of the consumer. The studies that run controls typically use them to calculate a constant “correction factor”, which is subtracted prior to formal data analysis. This procedure constitutes a non-rigorous suppression of variance that overstates the statistical significance of observed differences. The appropriate statistical analysis for preference tests with two foods is usually a simple t-test performed on the between-food differences in loss of mass (or numbers, area, etc.) comparing the results of experimentals with consumers to controls without consumers. Application of this recommended test procedure to an actual data set illustrates how low replication in controls, which is typical of most studies of feeding preference, inhibits detection of an apparently large influence of previous mechanical damage (simulated grazing) in reducing the attractiveness of a brown alga to a sea urchin.

Key words

Herbivory Preference experiment Statistical analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson RJ, Velimirov B (1982) An experimental investigation of the palatability of kelp bed algae to the sea urchinParachinus angulosus Leske. PZNI Mar Ecol 3:357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brawley SH, Fei XG (1987) Studies of mesoherbivory in aquaria and in an unbarricaded mariculture farm on the Chinese coast. J Phycol 23:614–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brownlee KA (1967) Statistical theory and methodology in science and engineering, second edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Carefoot TH (1973) Feeding, food preference, and the uptake of food energy by the supralittoral isopodLigra pallasii. Mar Biol 18:228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cock MJW (1978) The assessment of preference. J Anim Ecol 47:805–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geiselman JA, McConnell OJ (1981) Polyphenols in brown algaeFucus vesiculosus andAscophyllum nodosum: chemical defenses against the marine herbivorous snail,Littorina littorea. J Chem Ecol 7:1115–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hay ME (1986) Associational plant defenses and the maintenance of species diversity: turning competitors into accomplices. Am Nat 128:617–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hay ME, Fenical W (1988) Marine plant-herbivore interactions: the ecology of chemical defense. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 19:111–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hay ME, Lee RR, Guieb RA, Bennett MM (1986) Food preference and chemotaxis in the sea urchinArbacia punctulata (Lamarck) Philippi. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 96:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Pfister CA, Fenical W (1987) Chemical defense against different marine herbivores: are amphipods insect equivalents? Ecology 68:1567–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Fenical W, Gustafson K (1988a) Chemical defense in the seaweedDictyopteris delicatula: differential effects against reef fishes and amphipods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 48:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hay ME, Renaud PE, Fenical W (1988b) Large mobile versus small sedentary herbivores and their resistance to seaweed chemical defenses. Oecologia 75:246–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Himmelman JH (1984) Urchin feeding and macroalgal distribution in Newfoundland, eastern Canada. Naturaliste can (Rev Ecol Syst) 111:337–348Google Scholar
  14. Holmlund MB, Peterson CH, Hay ME (1989) How morphology of algal substratum affects susceptibility of amphipods to pinfish predation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Lewis SM (1985) Herbivory on coral reefs: algal susceptibility to herbivorous fishes. Oecologia 65:370–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Littler MM, Littler DS (1980) The evolution of thallus form and survival strategies in benthic marine macroalgae: field and laboratory tests of a functional form model. Am Nat 116:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Littler MM, Littler DS (1983) Heteromorphic life-history strategies in the brown algaScytosiphon lomentaria (Lyngb.) Link. J Phycol 19:425–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lubchenco J, Gaines SD (1981) A unified approach to marine plant-herbivore interactions. I. Populations and communities. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12:405–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McConnell OJ, Hughes PA, Targett NM, Daley J (1982) Effects of secondary metabolites on feeding by the sea urchin,Lytechinus variegatus. J Chem Ecol 8:1427–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murdoch WW (1969) Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol Monogr 39:335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicotri ME (1980) Factors involved in herbivore food preference. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 42:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paul VJ, Littler MM, Littler DS, Fenical W (1987) Evidence for chemical defense in tropical green algaCaulerpa ashmeadii (Caulerpacea: Chlorophyta): isolation of new bioactive sesquiterpenoids. J Chem Ecol 13:1171–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pfister CA, Hay ME (1988) Associational plant refuges: convergent patterns in marine and terrestrial communities result from differing mechanisms. Oecologia 77:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pollard SD (1988) Partial consumption of prey: the significance of prey water loss on estimates of biomass intake. Oecologia 76:475–476Google Scholar
  25. Sousa WP (1979) Experimental investigations of disturbance and ecological succession in a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecol Monogr 49:227–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sousa WP, Schroeter SC, Gaines SD (1981) Latitudinal variation in intertidal algal community structure: the influence of grazing and vegetative propagation. Oecologia 48:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steinberg PD (1984) Algal chemical defense against herbivores: allocation of phenolic compounds in the kelpAlaria marginata. Science 223:405–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steinberg PD (1985) Feeding preferences ofTegula funebralis and chemical defenses of marine brown algae. Ecol Monogr 55:333–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steinberg PD (1988) Effects of quantitative and qualitative variation in phenolic compounds on feeding in three species of marine invertebrate herbivores. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 120:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Targett NM, Targett TE, Vrolijk NH, Ogden JC (1986) The effect of macrophyte secondary metabolites on feeding preferences of the herbivorous parrotfishSparisoma radians. Mar Biol 92:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vadas RL (1977) Preferential feeding: an optimization strategy in sea urchins. Ecol Monogr 47:337–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vadas RL (1985) Herbivory. In: Littler MM, Littler DS (eds) Handbook of Phycological Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 531–572Google Scholar
  33. Zimmerman R, Gibson R, Harrington J (1979) Herbivory and detritivory among gammaridean amphipods from a Florida seagrass community. Mar Biol 54:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles H. Peterson
    • 1
  • Paul E. Renaud
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Marine SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillMorehead CityUSA

Personalised recommendations