Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 187–194 | Cite as

Patterns of food and microhabitat resource use by two benthic gobiid fishes

  • Masahiro Horinouchi


The mechanisms responsible for different patterns of habitat use by two benthic gobiid fishes, Acentrogobius sp. 1 and A. sp. 2, which displayed identical food use but resided in shallow and deep zones of coarse and fine sediments, respectively, in Lake Hamana, Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan, were investigated by field removal and laboratory sediment-grain size selection experimentation. Following field manipulation, involving removal of both species, the distribution patterns of each were found to be similar in both control and manipulated quadrats, suggesting their differential habitat use patterns may be the outcome not of competition but of differing preferences for habitat characteristics. Results of a sediment-grain size selection experiment in the laboratory suggested a weak preference of A. sp. 2 for fine sediment, while A. sp. 1 showed no grain size preference. The observed difference in the distribution patterns between these two species, therefore, may possibly have resulted from, at least in part, a combination of differences in their preference for sediment grain size and other habitat characteristics such as water depth.


Habitat segregation Removal experiment Grain-size selection experiment Habitat preference Acentrogobius spp. 



I am grateful to Akinori Hino, Yuzuru Suzuki, Hisashi Kurokura, Ken Okamoto, Shigeru Aoki, Naoki Mizuno, Takuhiko Takase, Tadaaki Kubo, Takae Takami, Kimiyo Urushibata, Tsuneko Ushiyama, Atsuko Kurata, Shinji Uehara, Masuo Iida and all the staffs of the Fisheries Laboratory, University of Tokyo, for their generous assistance in the field work. Constructive comments on the manuscript from Graham Hardy, Mitsuhiko Sano, Kouki Kanou, Kouji Seto and anonymous reviewers were much appreciated. I thank the fishermen’s Unions in Lake Hamana for their permission to dive using SCUBA. This study was supported by Grants-in Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (No. 15780134) and Mikimoto Fund for Marine Ecology.


  1. Able KW, Nemerson DM, Bush R, Light P (2001) Spatial variation in Delaware Bay (U.S.A.) marsh creek fish assemblages. Estuaries 24:441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attrill MJ, Power M (2004) Partitioning of temperature resources amongst an estuarine fish assemblage. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 61:725–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaber SJM, Blaber TG (1980) Factors affecting the distribution of juvenile estuarine and inshore fish. J Fish Biol 17:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breitburg DL, Palmer MA, Loher T (1995) Larval distribution and the spatial patterns of settlement of an oyster reef fish: responses to flow and structure. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 125:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke JS, Miller JM, Hoss DE (1991) Immigration and settlement pattern of Paralichthys dentatus and P. lethostigma in an estuarine nursery ground, North Carolina, U.S.A. Neth J Sea Res 27:393–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colwell RK, Futuyma DJ (1971) On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap. Ecology 52:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell JH (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer P (2000) Test of competitive interactions for space between two benthic fish species, burbot Lota lota, and stone loach Barbatula barbatula. Environ Biol Fish 58:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Folk RL, Ward W (1957) Brazos river bar; a study in the significance of grain size parameters. J Sediment Petrol 27:3–26Google Scholar
  11. Gibson RN, Robb L (1992) The relationship between body size, sediment grain size and the burying ability of juvenile plaice, Pleuronectes platessa L. J Fish Biol 40:771–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallacher LE, Roberts DA (1985) Differential utilization of space and food by the inshore rockfishes (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes) of Carmel Bay, California. Environ Biol Fish 12:91–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hixon MA (1980) Competitive interactions between California reef fishes of the genus Embiotoca. Ecology 61:918–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ (1989) Resource overlap, prey dynamics, and the strength of competition. Ecology 70:1943–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horinouchi M (2007) Distribution patterns of benthic juvenile gobies in and around seagrass habitats: effectiveness of seagrass shelter against predators. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 72:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horinouchi M, Sano M (2000) Food habits of fishes in a Zostera marina bed at Aburatsubo, central Japan. Ichthyol Res 47:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horinouchi M, Sano M, Taniuchi T, Shimizu M (1998) Food and microhabitat resource use by Rudarius ercodes and Ditrema temmincki coexisting in a Zostera bed at Aburatsubo, central Japan. Fish Sci 64:563–568Google Scholar
  18. Krebs CJ (1998) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, p 620Google Scholar
  19. Larson RJ (1980) Competition, habitat selection, and the bathymetric segregation of two rockfish (Sebastes) species. Ecol Monogr 50:221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munday PL, Jones GP, Caley MJ (2001) Interspecific competition and coexistence in a guild of coral-dwelling fishes. Ecology 82:2177–2189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phelan BA, Manderson JP, Stoner AW, Bejda AJ (2001) Size related shifts in the habitat associations of young-of-the-year winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus): field observations and laboratory experiments with sediments and prey. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 257:297–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prochazka K, Griffiths CL (1992) Observations on the distribution patterns, behaviour, diets and reproductive cycles of sand-dwelling clinids (Perciformes: Clinidae) from South Africa. Environ Biol Fish 35:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robertson DR (1996) Interspecific competition controls abundance and habitat use of territorial Caribbean damselfishes. Ecology 77:885–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogers SI (1992) Environmental factors affecting the distribution of sole (Solea solea (L.)) within a nursery area. Neth J Sea Res 29:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ross ST (1977) Patterns of resource partitioning in searobins (Pisces: Triglidae). Copeia 1977:561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sano M (1990) Patterns of habitat and food utilization in two coral-reef sandperches (Mugiloididae): competitive or noncompetitive coexistence? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 140:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sano M, Shimizu M, Nose Y (1984) Food habits of teleostean reef fishes in Okinawa Island, southern Japan. The University Museum, the University of Tokyo Bulletin 25:1–128Google Scholar
  28. Scroder GD, Rosenzweig ML (1975) Perturbation analysis of competition and overlap in habitat utilization between Dipodomys ordii and Dipodomys merriami. Oecologia 19:9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suzuki T, Shibukawa K, Yano K (2004) Acentrogobius sp. A, Acentrogobius sp. B and Acentrogobius sp. C. In: Senou H (ed) A photographic guide to the Gobioid fishes of Japan. Japanese text and Plates Heibon-sha Press, Tokyo, pp 416–418Google Scholar
  30. Tracy CR, Christian KA (1986) Ecological relations among space, time, and thermal niche axes. Ecology 67:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zaret TM, Rand AS (1971) Competition in tropical stream fishes: support for the competitive exclusion principle. Ecology 52:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Coastal Lagoon EnvironmentsShimane UniversityMatsueJapan

Personalised recommendations