Advertisement

Coral Reefs

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 265–274 | Cite as

Interactive effects of interspecific competition and microhabitat on early post-settlement survival in a coral reef fish

  • M. C. BoninEmail author
  • M. Srinivasan
  • G. R. Almany
  • G. P. Jones
Report

Abstract

Microhabitat type and the competition for microhabitats can each influence patterns of abundance and mortality in coral reef fish communities; however, the effect of microhabitat on the intensity and outcome of competition is not well understood. In Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea, surveys were used to quantify microhabitat use and selectivity in two live-coral specialist damselfishes (Pomacentridae), Chrysiptera parasema, and Dascyllus melanurus. A patch reef experiment was then conducted to test how intra- and interspecific competition interacts with two types of microhabitat to influence survival of recently settled C. parasema. Surveys demonstrated that C. parasema and D. melanurus recruits utilized similar coral microhabitats; 72% of C. parasema and 85% of D. melanurus used corymbose and bottlebrush growth forms of Acropora. One microhabitat type, Pocillopora sp. coral, was commonly used by D. melanurus but rarely by C. parasema. The patch reef experiment revealed that both microhabitat and interspecific competition influence abundance of recently settled C. parasema. Microhabitat had the strongest influence on survival of C. parasema. In the absence of interspecific competitors, ~85% of C. parasema survived for 5 days after transplantation to high-complexity bottlebrush Acropora reefs when compared to only 25% survival of Pocillopora reefs. In both microhabitats, interspecific competition with D. melanurus, but not intraspecific competition, significantly decreased the survival of C. parasema. Taken together, these results suggest that the observed distribution of C. parasema results from specialized microhabitat requirements and competition for space in those microhabitats. This study demonstrates that interspecific competition and microhabitat type can interact to influence early post-settlement survival in coral reef fishes, though, whether and how these factors influence survival will depend on the behavioural attributes and strength of habitat associations among potential competitors.

Keywords

Asymmetric competition Habitat specialization Microhabitat complexity Survivorship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the traditional owners of Schumann Island and Tamare-Kilu reefs for allowing us access to their reefs, and to Mahonia na Dari Research and Conservation Centre for logistical support. Also thank you to J. Livingstone and K. Markey for their assistance in the field. Funding was provided by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reefs Studies and a James Cook University Competitive Research Incentive Grant to GRA.

References

  1. Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML, Pinshow B, Brown JS, Kotler B, Mitchell WA (1990) Habitat selection - an experimental field-test with two gerbil species. Ecology 71:2358–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almany GR (2003) Priority effects in coral reef fish communities. Ecology 84:1920–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almany GR (2004a) Differential effects of habitat complexity, predators, and competitors on abundance of juvenile and adult coral reef fishes. Oecologia 141:105–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almany GR (2004b) Does increased habitat complexity reduce predation and competition in coral reef fish assemblages? Oikos 106:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Almany GR, Peacock LF, Syms C, McCormick MI, Jones GP (2007) Predators target rare prey in coral reef fish assemblages. Oecologia 152:751–761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthur AD, Pech RP, Dickman CR (2005) Effects of predation and habitat structure on the population dynamics of house mice in large outdoor enclosures. Oikos 108:562–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bay LK, Jones GP, McCormick MI (2001) Habitat selection and aggression as determinants of spatial segregation among damselfish on a coral reef. Coral Reefs 20:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bean K, Jones GP, Caley MJ (2002) Relationships among distribution, abundance and microhabitat specialisation in a guild of coral reef triggerfish (family Balistidae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 233:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beukers JS, Jones GP (1997) Habitat complexity modifies the impact of piscivores on a coral reef fish population. Oecologia 114:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Booth DJ (1995) Juvenile groups in a coral-reef damselfish - density-dependent effects on individual fitness and population demography. Ecology 76:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr MH, Anderson TW, Hixon MA (2002) Biodiversity, population regulation, and the stability of coral-reef fish communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:11241–11245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colwell RK, Fuentes ER (1975) Experimental studies of the niche. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6:281–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danilowicz BS (1996) Choice of coral species by naive and field-caught damselfish. Copeia:735–739Google Scholar
  15. Ebersole JP (1985) Niche separation of two damselfish species by aggression and differential microhabitat utilization. Ecology 66:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardiner NM, Jones GP (2005) Habitat specialisation and overlap in a guild of coral reef cardinalfishes (Apogonidae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 305:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A metaanalysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hixon MA (1980) Competitive interactions between California reef fishes of the genus Embiotoca. Ecology 61:918–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ (2002) Competition for shelter space causes density-dependent predation mortality in damselfishes. Ecology 83:2855–2868Google Scholar
  21. Jones GP (1991) Postrecruitment processes in the ecology of coral reef fish populations: a multifactorial perspecitve. In: Sale PF (ed) The ecology of fishes on coral reefs. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 294–328Google Scholar
  22. Jones GP, Syms C (1998) Disturbance, habitat structure and the ecology of fishes on coral reefs. Aust J Ecol 23:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones GP, McCormick MI (2002) Numerical and energetic processes in the ecology of coral reef fishes. In: Sale PF (ed) Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 221–238Google Scholar
  24. Larson RJ (1980) Competition, habitat selection, and the bathymetric segregation of two rockfish (Sebastes) species. Ecol Monogr 50:221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leis JM, Carson-Ewart BM (2002) In situ settlement behaviour of damselfish (Pomacentridae) larvae. J Fish Biol 61:325–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Limbourn AJ, Jones GP, Munday PL, Srinivasan M (2007) Niche shifts and local competition between two coral reef fishes at their geographic boundary. Mar Freshw Res 58:1120–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  28. McNally RC (1995) Ecological versatility and community ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris DW (2003) Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Munday PL, Jones GP (1998) The ecological implications of small body size among coral-reef fishes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 36:373–411Google Scholar
  31. Munday PL, Jones GP, Caley MJ (1997) Habitat specialisation and the distribution and abundance of coral-dwelling gobies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 152:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munday PL, Jones GP, Caley MJ (2001) Interspecific competition and coexistence in a guild of coral-dwelling fishes. Ecology 82:2177–2189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ohman MC, Munday PL, Jones GP, Caley MJ (1998) Settlement strategies and distribution patterns of coral-reef fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 225:219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML (1981) Competitors and habitat use. Oikos 37:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price MV (1978) The role of microhabitat in structuring desert rodent communities. Ecology 59:910–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rilov G, Figueira WF, Lyman SJ, Crowder LB (2006) Complex habitats may not always benefit prey: linking visual field with reef fish behavior and distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robertson DR (1996) Interspecific competition controls abundance and habitat use of territorial Caribbean damselfishes. Ecology 77:885–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robertson DR, Gaines SD (1986) Interference competition structures habitat use in a local assemblage of coral-reef surgeonfishes. Ecology 67:1372–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenzweig ML (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions - the search for mechanism. Am Nat 137:S5–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandin SA, Pacala SW (2005) Fish aggregation results in inversely density-dependent predation on continuous coral reefs. Ecology 86:1520–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scharf FS, Manderson JP, Fabrizio MC (2006) The effects of seafloor habitat complexity on survival of juvenile fishes: species-specific interactions with structural refuge. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 335:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmitt RJ, Holbrook SJ (1999) Settlement and recruitment of three damselfish species: larval delivery and competition for shelter space. Oecologia 118:76–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Srinivasan M (2003) Depth distributions of coral reef fishes: the influence of microhabitat structure, settlement, and post-settlement processes. Oecologia 137:76–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Srinivasan M, Jones GP, Caley MJ (1999) Experimental evaluation of the roles of habitat selection and interspecific competition in determining patterns of host use by two anemonefishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 186:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steele MA (1999) Effects of shelter and predators on reef fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 233:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson P, Fox BJ (1993) Asymmetric competition in Australian heathland rodents–a reciprocal removal experiment demonstrating the influence of size-class structure. Oikos 67:264–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tolimieri N (1995) Effects of microhabitat characteristics on the settlement and recruitment of a coral-reef fish at two spatial scales. Oecologia 102:52–63Google Scholar
  49. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson SK, Burgess SC, Cheal AJ, Emslie M, Fisher R, Miller I, Polunin NVC, Sweatman HPA (2008) Habitat utilization by coral reef fish: implications for specialists vs generalists in a changing environment. J Anim Ecol 77:220–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young KA (2004) Asymmetric competition, habitat selection, and niche overlap in juvenile salmonids. Ecology 85:134–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. C. Bonin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. Srinivasan
    • 2
  • G. R. Almany
    • 1
  • G. P. Jones
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef StudiesJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.School of Marine & Tropical BiologyJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations