Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 297–309 | Cite as

Integrating spatial and temporal variability into the analysis of fish food web linkages in Tijuana Estuary

  • Janelle M. West
  • Gregory D. Williams
  • Sharook P. Madon
  • Joy B. Zedler
Article

Abstract

Our understanding of fish feeding interactions at Tijuana Estuary was improved by incorporating estimates of spatial and temporal variability into diet analyses. We examined the stomach contents of 7 dominant species (n=579 total fish) collected between 1994 and 1999. General feeding patterns pooled over time produced a basic food web consisting of 3 major trophic levels: (1) primary consumers (Atherinops affinis, Mugil cephalus) that ingested substantial amounts of plant material and detritus; (2) benthic carnivores (Clevelandia ios, Hypsopsetta guttulata, Gillichthys mirabilis, and Fundulus parvipinnis) that ingested high numbers of calanoid copepods and exotic amphipods (Grandidierella japonica); and (3) piscivores (Paralichthys californicus and Leptocottus armatus) that often preyed on smaller gobiids. Similarity-based groupings of individual species' diets were identified using nonmetric multidimensional scaling to characterize their variability within and between species, and in space and time. This allowed us identify major dietary shifts and recognize events (i.e., modified prey abundance during 1997–98 El Ni no floods) that likely caused these shifts.

estuarine fish trophic relationships NMDS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ault, T.R. & C. Johnson. 1998. Spatially and temporally predictable fish communities on coral reefs. Ecol. Monogr. 68: 25–50.Google Scholar
  2. Carter, W.R., III. 1965. Racial variations of the arrow goby, Clevelandia ios (Jordan and Gilbert) 1882 in Puget Sound and on the coast of Washington State. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 88 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18: 117–143.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J.E. 1988. Food webs and community structure. pp. 181–202. In: J. Roughgarden, R.M. May & S.A. Levin (ed.), Perspectives in Ecological Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  5. Desmond, J.S., D.H. Deutschman & J.B. Zedler. 2002. Spatial and temporal variation in estuarine fish and invertebrate assemblages: analysis of an 11-year dataset. Estuaries 25: 552–570.Google Scholar
  6. Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton & M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries. Volume II: Species life history summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, Maryland. 329 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Horn, M. & L. Allen. 1985. Fish community ecology in southern California bays and estuaries. pp. 169–190. In: A. Yañez Arancibia (ed.) Fish Community Ecology in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: Toward an Ecosystem Integration, UNAM Press, México.Google Scholar
  8. Hyslop, E.J. 1980. Stomach contents analysis-a review of methods and their application. J. Fish Biol. 17: 411–429.Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, D. 1993. Multivariate analysis of benthic invertebrate communities: the implication of choosing particular data standardizations, measures of association, and ordination methods. Hydrobiologia 268: 9–26.Google Scholar
  10. Kachigan, S.K. 1991. Multivariate Statistical Analyses: A Conceptual Introduction, 2nd edition. Radius Press, New York. 303 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Kenkel, N.C. & L. Orloci. 1986. Applying metric and nonmetric multidimensional scaling to ecological studies: some new results. Ecology 67: 919–928.Google Scholar
  12. Kwak, T. & J.B. Zedler. 1997. Food web analysis of southern California coastal wetlands using multiple stable isotopes. Oecologia 110: 262–277.Google Scholar
  13. Little, A.S., W.M. Tonn, R.F. Tallman & J.D. Reist. 1998. Seasonal variation in diet and trophic relationships within the fish communities of the lower Slave River, Northwest Territories, Canada. Env. Biol. Fish. 53: 429–443.Google Scholar
  14. Logothetis, E.A. 2000. Assimilation efficiency, gut morphology and pH, and digestive enzyme activity of Atherinops affinis, a stomachless omnivore feeding on macroalgae, M.S. Thesis. California Station University, Fullerton, California. 47 pp.Google Scholar
  15. MacDonald, C.K. 1975. Notes on the family gobiidae from Anaheim Bay. pp. 117–121. In: E.D. Lane & C.W. Hill (ed.) The Marine Resources of Anaheim Bay, Fish Bulletin 165. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.Google Scholar
  16. Madon, S.P., G.D. Williams, J.M. West & J.B. Zedler. 2001. The importance of marsh access to growth of the California killifish, Fundulus parvipinnis, evaluated through bioenergetics modeling. Ecol. Modell. 136: 149–165.Google Scholar
  17. Marcus, L. 1989. The Coastal wetlands of San Diego County. California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California. 64 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Morton, R.M., B.R. Pollock & J.P. Beumer. 1987. The occurrence and diet of fishes in a tidal inlet to a saltmarsh in southern Moreton Bay, Queensland. Austr. J. Ecol. 12: 217–237.Google Scholar
  19. Murphy, B.R. & D.W. Wills. 1996. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 732 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Nordby, C.S. & J.B. Zedler. 1991. Responses of fish and macrobenthic assemblages to hydrologic disturbances in Tijuana Estuary and Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, California. Estuaries 14: 80–93.Google Scholar
  21. Paine, R. 1988. Food webs: road maps of interactions or grist for theoretical development? Ecology 69: 1648–1654.Google Scholar
  22. Pinkas, L., M.S. Oliphant & I.L.K. Iverson. 1971. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito in California waters. Fish Bulletin 152. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 105 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Prochazka, K. 1998. Spatial and trophic partitioning in cryptic fish communities of shallow subtidal reefs in False Bay, South Africa. Environ Biol. Fish. 51: 201–220.Google Scholar
  24. Rozas, L.P. & M.W. Lasalle. 1990. A comparison of the diets of gulf killifish, Fundulus grandis, Baird and Girard, entering and leaving a Mississippi brackish marsh. Estuaries 13(3): 332–336.Google Scholar
  25. Talley, D.M. 2000. Ichthyofaunal utilization of newly-created versus natural salt marsh creeks in Mission Bay, California. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 8: 117–132.Google Scholar
  26. West, J.M. & J.B. Zedler. 2000. Marsh-creek connectivity: fish use of a tidal salt marsh in southern California. Estuaries 23: 699–710.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, G.D., J.S. Desmond, S.P. Madon & J.M. West. 2000. Appendix 6: Habitat functional requirements for common fish species in southern California salt marshes, lagoons, and estuaries. pp. 411–423. In: J.B. Zedler (ed.) Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  28. Williams, G.D., J.M.West & J.B. Zedler. 2001. Shifts in fish and invertebrate assemblages of two southern California estuaries during the 1997–98 El Niño. Bull. Soc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 100: 212–237.Google Scholar
  29. Zedler, J.B. 1996. Tidal wetland restoration: a scientific perspective and southern California focus. California Sea Grant College System, University of California, La Jolla, California. 129 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Zedler, J.B. 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 439 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby & B.E. Kus. 1992. The ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California: a National Estuarine Research Reserve. NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C. 151 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janelle M. West
    • 1
  • Gregory D. Williams
    • 2
  • Sharook P. Madon
    • 3
  • Joy B. Zedler
    • 4
  1. 1.Pacific Estuarine Research LabSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoU.S.A.
  2. 2.Batelle Marine Sciences LaboratorySequimU.S.A
  3. 3.San DiegoU.S.A
  4. 4.Botany DepartmentUniversity of WisconsinMadisonU.S.A

Personalised recommendations