Skip to main content
Log in

Food acquisition by competing surfperch on a patchy environmental gradient

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

Synopsis

Black surfperch, Embiotoca jacksoni, and striped surfperch, Embiotoca lateralis, coexisted along steep sloping rocky habitats at Santa Cruz Island, California. The range of depths occupied (to 15 m) was characterized by a strong gradient in abundance of prey and a changing mosaic of substrate types from which surfperch harvested food. Availability of prey and diversity of benthic substrates were greatest in shallowest areas and both declined with increasing depth. Individuals of both surfperch species were residential within a narrow range of depths, with the result that different segments of their populations were consistently exposed to different foraging environments. These two phenomena (residential behavior combined with a gradient in availability of resources) resulted in variation in foraging behaviors and diets among individuals that resided at different depths. The pattern of within-population variation differed between the surfperch species. Black surfperch individuals achieved similar taxonomic diets and expended similar foraging effort at all depths, but deep-water foragers captured much less prey biomass per unit effort. The taxonomic composition of striped surfperch diets differed among depths, and although similar amounts of prey biomass were captured everywhere, individuals in deep areas expended much greater effort to obtain that level of food return. For both species, habitat profitability (food return to foraging effort) declined with depth. The difference in habitat profitability appeared to influence fitness components of both surfperches. Individuals occupying deep habitats were about 5% shorter in standard length than conspecifics of the same chronological age living in shallow areas; the disparity in body size resulted in an estimated difference in clutch size of 10–18%.

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

  • Alevizon, W.S. 1975a. Comparative feeding ecology of a kelpbed embiotocid (Embiotoca lateralis). Copeia 1975: 608–615.

  • Alevizon, W.S. 1975b. Spatial overlap and competition in congeneric surfperches (Embiotocidae) off Santa Barbara, California. Copeia 1975: 352–356.

  • Allen, K.R. 1941. Studies on the biology of the early stages of the salmon (Salmo salar). 2. Feeding habits. J. Anim. Ecol. 10: 47–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltz, D.M. 1984. Life history variation among female surfperches (Perciformes: Embiotocidae). Env. Biol. Fish. 10: 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, J.E. & P.A. Larkin. 1972. Food specialization by individual trout. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29: 1615–1624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, W.E.S. & C.A. Adams. 1973. Food habits of juvenile marine fishes occupying seagrass beds in the estuarine zone near Crystal River, Florida. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102: 511–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302–1310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J.H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35: 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, E.F. & D. Simberloff. 1979. The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60: 1132–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, E.F. & D. Simberloff. 1983. Neutral models of species' co-occurrence patternrs. pp. 316–331. In: D.R. Strong, Jr., D. Simberloff, L.G. Abele & A.B. Thistle(ed.) Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyer, J.A. 1979. The invertebrate assemblage associated with Macrocystis pyrifera and its utilization as a food source by kelp forest fishes. PhD Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 364 pp.

  • Diamond, J.M. 1978. Niche shifts and the rediscovery of interspecific competition. Amer. Sci. 66: 322–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling, A.W. & D.R. Laur. 1986. Foraging in surfperches: resource partitioning or individualistic responses? Env. Biol. Fish. 16: 123–133 (this issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, J.P., C. Terry & J.S. Stephens, Jr. 1979. Food resource utilization among five species of embiotocids at King Harbor, California, with preliminary estimates of caloric intake. Mar. Biol. 52: 161–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G.D. 1980. Ecological aspects of ontogenetic shifts in prey size utilization in the bay goby (Pisces: Gobiidae). Oecologia 47: 233–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G.D., R. Coffin & P.B. Moyle. 1980. Feeding ecology of the bay goby (Pisces: Gobiidae). Effects of behavioral, ontogenetic, and temporal variation on diet. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 44: 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldorson, L. & M. Moser. 1979. Geographic patterns of prey utilization in two species of surfperch (Embiotocidae). Copeia 1979: 567–572.

  • Hixon, M.A. 1979. Competitive interactions and spatiotemporal patterns among California reef fishes of the genus Embiotoca. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. 213 pp.

  • Hixon, M.A. 1980. Competitive interactions between California reef fishes of the genus Embiotoca. Ecology 61: 918–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, S.J. & R.J. Schmitt. 1984. Experimental analysis of patch selection by foraging black surfperch (Embiotoca jacksoni). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 79: 39–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, A. 1965. Resource division amongst cohabiting fish species in a bay, Lake Opinicon, Ontario. pp. 106–132. In: Proc. 8th Conf. Gr. Lakes Res., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  • Keast, A. 1968. Feeding of some Great Lake fishes at low temperatures. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25: 1199–1218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, A. 1977a. Mechanisms expanding niche width and minimizing intraspecific competition in the rock bass and bluegill sunfish (Centrarchidae). Evol. Biol. 10: 333–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, A. 1977b. Feeding and food overlaps between the year classes relative to the resource base, in the yellow perch, Perca flavescens. Env. Biol. Fish. 2: 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, A. 1978. Trophic and spatial interrelationships in the fish species of an Ontario temperate lake. Env. Biol. Fish. 3: 7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laur, D.F. & A.W. Ebeling. 1983. Predator-prey relationships in a guild of surfperches. Env. Biol. Fish. 8: 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemly, A.D. & J.F. Dimmick. 1982. Growth of young-of-the-year and yearling Centrarchids in relation to zooplankton in the littoral zone of lakes. Copeia 1982: 305–321.

  • MacPherson, E. 1979. Ecological overlap between macrourids in the western Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biol. 53: 149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M. 1982. Optimal foraging: the influence of intraspecific competition on diet selection. Behav. Ecol. and Sociobiol. 11: 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelbach, G.C. 1984. Predation and resource partitioning in two sunfishes (Centrarchidae). Ecology 65: 499–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, N. 1963. Interaction between trout and char in Scandinavia. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 92: 276–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringler, N.H. 1983. Variation in foraging tactics of fishes. pp. 159–171. In: D.L.G. Noakes, D.G. Lindquist, G.S. Helfman & J.A. Ward (eds.) Predators and Prey in Fishes, Dev. Env. Biol. Fish. 2, Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.

  • Ross, S.T. 1977. Patterns of resource partitioning in searobins (Pisces: Triglidae). Copeia 1977: 561–571.

  • Schmitt, R.J. & J.A. Coyer. 1982. The foraging ecology of sympatric marine fish in the genus Embiotoca (Embiotocidae): importance of foraging behavior in prey size selection. Oecologia 55: 369–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, R.J. & J.A. Coyer. 1983. Variation in surfperch diets between allopatry and sympatry: circumstantial evidence for competition. Oecologia 58: 402–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, R.J. & S.J. Holbrook. 1984a. Gape-limitation, foraging tactics, and prey size selectivity of two microcarnivorous species of fish. Oecologia 63: 6–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, R.J. & S.J. Holbrook. 1984b. Ontogeny of prey selection by black surfperch, Embiotoca jacksoni (Pisces: Embiotocidae): the roles of fish morphology, foraging behavior, and patch selection. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 18: 225–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener, T.W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Targett, T.E. 1978. Food resource partitioning by the pufferfishes Sphoeroides spengleri and S. testudineus from Biscayne Bay, Florida. Mar. Biol. 49: 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E.E. 1979. Niche partitioning by food size in fish communities. pp. 311–322. In: H. Clepper(ed.) Predator-prey Systems in Fisheries Management, Sport Fish Inst., Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E.E., G.G. Mittelbach & D.J. Hall. 1981. The role of foraging profitability and experience in habitat use by the bluegill sunfish. Ecology 62: 116–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E.E., G.G. Mittelbach, D.J. Hall & J.F. Gilliam. 1983a. Experimental tests of optimal habitat use in fish: the role of relative habitat profitability. Ecology 64: 1525–1539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E.E., J.F. Gilliam, D.J. Hall & G.G. Mittelbach. 1983b. An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64: 1540–1548.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holbrook, S.J., Schmitt, R.J. Food acquisition by competing surfperch on a patchy environmental gradient. Environ Biol Fish 16, 135–146 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005166

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005166

Keywords

Navigation