Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of mouth morphology and prey size selection among three esocid taxa

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

Abstract

Aquatic organisms, especially fishes, exhibit exceptional diversity in mouth morphology and this variation has been shown to influence foraging patterns. We compared mouth morphology among muskellunge Esox masquinongy, northern pike Esox lucius and their hybrid, tiger muskellunge E. masquinongy x E. lucius. Head and mouth size among the three taxa were similar for juveniles (<400 mm total length), but diverged with increasing length, being greater for northern pike than muskellunge. Tiger muskellunge had a head and mouth size intermediate to the two, but more similar to northern pike than muskellunge. Morphological differences among taxa were related to data examining prey size selection in laboratory and field experiments. In the laboratory, northern pike selected prey that were smaller than their maximum mouth width (widest point between outside corners of mouth), tiger muskellunge selected larger prey, and muskellunge size-selection was intermediate between the other two taxa. Among the three esocids, muskellunge had the smallest increase in handling time with increasing prey body depth relative to predator mouth width. In a common garden field experiment in three lakes containing mainly deep-bodied prey, results generally followed morphological patterns, with northern pike selecting larger prey compared to muskellunge. Although morphology predicted most of the variation in greatest body depth of prey consumed, the best predictor of prey size was a model that included predator mouth width, taxon, and interaction. Information comparing prey size selection among esocid taxa is useful for understanding how to manage esocid populations based on system-specific prey characteristics and also for understanding how variations in morphological characteristics of apex predators can influence prey vulnerability and ecosystem structure.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albertson RC (2008) Morphological divergence predicts habitat partitioning in a Lake Malawi cichlid species complex. Copeia (3):689–698. https://doi.org/10.1643/cg-07-217

  • Bevelhimer MS, Stein RA, Carline RF (1985) Assessing significance of physiological differences among 3 esocids with a bioenergetics model. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42(1):57–69. https://doi.org/10.1139/f85-008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brautigan F, Lucas J (2008) Muskellunge management plan. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Augusta, Maine

    Google Scholar 

  • Bystrom P, Karlsson J, Nilsson P, Van Kooten T, Ask J, Olofsson F (2007) Substitution of top predators: effects of pike invasion in a subarctic lake. Freshw Biol 52(7):1271–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01763.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1993) The trophic cascade in lakes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Casselman JM, Crossman EJ, Ihssen PE, Reist JD, Booke HE (1986) Identification of muskellunge northern pike, and their hybrids. Pages 14-46 in G.E. Hall, editor. Managing Muskies: A Treatise on the Biology and Propagation of Muskellunge in North America. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No 15, Bethesda

  • Day T, McPhail JD (1996) The effect of behavioural and morphological plasticity on foraging efficiency in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus sp). Oecologia 108(2):380–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Detmer TM, McCutchan JH, Lewis WM (2017) Predator driven changes in prey size distribution stabilize secondary production in lacustrine food webs. Limnol Oceanogr 62(2):592–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombeck MP (1986) Muskellunge habitat with guidelines for habitat management. Pages 208-215 in G.E. Hall, editor. Managing Muskies: A Treatise on the Biology and Propagation of Muskellunge in North America. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No 15, Bethesda

  • Einfalt LM, Parkos JJ, Wahl DH (2015) Effect of Predator Size and Prey Characteristics on Piscivory of Juvenile Largemouth Bass. Trans Am Fish Soc 144(4):682–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2015.1027002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einfalt LM, Wahl DH (1997) Prey selection by juvenile walleye as influenced by prey morphology and behavior. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54(11):2618–2626. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-54-11-2618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser D, Adams CE, Huntingford FA (1998) Trophic polymorphism among Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus L., from Loch Ericht, Scotland. Ecol Freshw Fish 7(4):184–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.1998.tb00185.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton TW (1904) The rate of growth of Fishes. Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland xxii(iii):pp. 141–241

  • Graeb BDS, Galarowicz T, Wahl DH, Dettmers JM, Simpson MJ (2005) Foraging behavior, morphology, and life history variation determine the ontogeny of piscivory in two closely related predators. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62(9):2010–2020. https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm MP, Klinge M (1996) Pike and some aspects of its dependence on vegetation. In: Craig JF (ed) Pike: biology and exploitation. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 125–156

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hambright KD, Drenner RW, McComas SR, Hairston NG (1991) Gape-limited picivores, planktivore size. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 121(4):389–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart P, Hamrin SF (1988) Pike as a selective predator – effects of prey size, availability, cover and pike jaw dimensions. Oikos 51(2):220–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindar K, Jonsson B (1993) Ecological polymorphism in arctic charr. Biol J Linn Soc 48(1):63–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1993.tb00877.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle JA, Keast A (1987) The effect of prey morphology and size on handling time in a piscivore, the largemouth bass (Micropters salmoides). Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 65(8):1972–1977. https://doi.org/10.1139/z87-300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulsey CD, De Leon FJG (2005) Cichlid jaw mechanics: linking morphology to feeding specialization. Funct Ecol 19(3):487–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.00987.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt BP, Carbine WF (1951) Food of young pike, Esox lucius, L., and associated fishes in Peterson’s ditches, Houghton Michigan. Trans Am Fish Soc 80:67–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inskip PD (1982) Habitat suitability index models: northern pike. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.17

  • Inskip PD (1986) Negative associations between abundances of muskellunge and northern pike: evidence and possible explanations. Pages 135-150 in G.E. Hall, editor. Managing Muskies: A Treatise on the Biology and Propagation of Muskellunge in North America, American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 15, Bethesda

  • Juanes F (1994) What determines prey size selectivity in piscivorous fishes? In: Stouder DJ, Fresh KL, Feller RJ (eds) Theory and application in fish feeding ecology. S Carolina University Press, Columbia, pp 79–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Juanes F (2016) A length-based approach to predator-prey relationships in marine predators. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73(4):677–684. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalff J (2001) Limnology: inland water ecosystems. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpouzi VS, Stergiou KI (2003) The relationships between mouth size and shape and body length for 18 species of marine fishes and their trophic implications. J Fish Biol 62(6):1353–1365. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00118.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr SR, Dickie LM (2001) The biomass spectrum. Columbia University Press, New York.

  • Knouft JH (2004) Latitudinal variation in the shape of the species body size distribution: an analysis using freshwater fishes. Oecologia 139(3):408–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1510-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koenker R (2016) Quantile Regression R package quantreg. Comprehensive R Archive Network

  • Lepak JM, Cathcart CN, Stacy WL (2014) Tiger muskellunge predation on stocked salmonids intended for recreational fisheries. Lake and Reservoir Management 30(3):250–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2014.912701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Magnhagen C, Heibo E (2001) Gape size allometry in pike reflects variation between lakes in prey availability and relative body depth. Funct Ecol 15(6):754–762. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0269-8463.2001.00576.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon HR, Skobe E (1970) The fisheries of Lake Simcoe. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Mboko SK, Kohda M, Hori M (1998) Asymmetry of mouth-opening of a small herbivorous cichlid fish Telmatochromis temporalis in Lake Tanganyika. Zool Sci 15(3):405–408. https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.15.405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelbach GG, Persson L (1998) The ontogeny of piscivory and its ecological consequences. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55(6):1454–1465. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-55-6-1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New JG (2002) Multimodal integration in the feeding behaviors of predatory teleost fishes. Brain Behav Evol 59(4):177–189. https://doi.org/10.1159/000064905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson PA, Bronmark C (1999) Foraging among cannibals and kleptoparasites: effects of prey size on pike behavior. Behav Ecol 10(5):557–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/10.5.557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson PA, Bronmark C (2000) Prey vulnerability to a gape-size limited predator: behavioural and morphological impacts on northern pike piscivory. Oikos 88(3):539–546. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880310.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson PA, Nilsson K, Nystrom P (2000) Does risk of intraspecific interactions induce shifts in prey-size preference in aquatic: predators? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48(4):268–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650000235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson L, Andersson J, Wahlstrom E, Eklov P (1996) Size-specific interactions in lake systems: Predator gape limitation and prey growth rate and mortality. Ecology 77(3):900–911. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna Austria. Available: https://www.R-project.org. 28

  • Scott WB, Crossman EJ (1973) Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. 382 pp

  • Scharf FS, Juanes F, Rountree RA (2000) Predator size - prey size relationships of marine fish predators: interspecific variation and effects of ontogeny and body size on trophic-niche breadth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 208:229–248. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps208229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schluter D (1993) Adaptive radiation in sticklebacks – size, shape, and habitat use efficiency. Ecology 74(3):699–709. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sondergaard M, Jeppesen E, Berg S (1997) Pike (Esox lucius L) stocking as a biomanipulation tool .2. Effects on lower trophic levels in Lake Lyng, Denmark. Hydrobiologia 342:319–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1017084600712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staudinger MD, Juanes F (2010) A size-based approach to quantifying predation on longfin inshore squid Loligo pealeii in the northwest Atlantic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 399:225–241. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theis A, Ronco F, Indermaur A, Salzburger W, Egger B (2014) Adaptive divergence between lake and stream populations of an East African cichlid fish. Mol Ecol 23(21):5304–5322. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wahl DH, Stein RA (1993) Comparative population characteristics of muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), northern pike (E. lucius), and their hybrid (E. masquinongy x E. lucius). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50(9):1961–1968. https://doi.org/10.1139/f93-218

  • Weithman AS, Anderson RO (1977) Survival, Growth, and Prey of Esocidae in Experimental Systems. Trans Am Fish Soc 106 (5):424–430

  • Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interaction in size structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS (1975) The Adequacy of Body Size as a Niche Difference. The American Naturalist 109 (970):769–784

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many individuals associated with the Aquatic Ecology Laboratory at the Ohio State University provided assistance with this study and we thank R. Stein, D. Bryson, K. Bruner, D. Imhoff, L. Riley, J. Farwick, J. Bohne, B. Johnson, P. Cunningham, A. Turner, F. Rahel, M. Mather, J. Wahl, and C. Habicht. Esocids were generously provided by the Ohio Division of Natural Resources (ODNR). This study was supported in part by funds from the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act under Project F-57-R funded through the ODNR. All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kaskaskia Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, 1235 CR 1000N, Sullivan, IL, 61951, USA

    Thomas M. Detmer, Lisa M. Einfalt, Joseph J. Parkos III & David H. Wahl

Authors
  1. Thomas M. Detmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa M. Einfalt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph J. Parkos III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David H. Wahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas M. Detmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Detmer, T.M., Einfalt, L.M., Parkos, J.J. et al. Comparison of mouth morphology and prey size selection among three esocid taxa. Environ Biol Fish 101, 449–458 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0710-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0710-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation