Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 31–41 | Cite as

Hierarchical and interactive habitat selection in response to abiotic and biotic factors: The effect of hypoxia on habitat selection of juvenile estuarine fishes



Habitat selection is a shared process among animals where individuals choose areas that differ in biotic and abiotic characteristics to maximize individual fitness. We used manipulative laboratory mesocosm choice experiments to examine hierarchical and interactive relationships influencing this habitat selection process of estuarine fishes. We assessed selection among substrate, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, food availability, and predation risk using two common juvenile estuarine fish species, pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) and Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus). For both species oxygen concentration greatly influenced selection patterns; fishes strongly avoided low DO conditions, while in higher levels of DO factors such as substrate or food influenced selection patterns. However, both species strongly avoided predators even when alternative habitat was severely oxygen limited. These results suggest that predation risk may be the greatest determinant of habitat selection of the factors considered. Expansion of low DO areas in the world’s oceans is a major anthropogenic disturbance and is rapidly increasing. Assessing impacts of hypoxia on habitat usage of mobile organisms is critical as changes in environmental metrics including predator distribution and DO levels may alter habitat selection patterns disrupting critical ecosystem processes and trophic interactions. Our results indicate that juvenile fishes may forgo emigration from hypoxia due to predation risk. If similar patterns occur for juvenile fishes in estuaries they may potentially suffer from reduced growth, reproductive output, and survivorship.


Habitat selection Hypoxia Abiotic Biotic Predation Dissolved oxygen 



Funding for this study was provided by the Texas Research Development Fund. We thank the members of the Fisheries Ecology Laboratory at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi for their help with this project. Special thanks to M. Reese and L. Brown for their field and laboratory assistance.


  1. Altieri AH (2008) Dead zones enhance key fisheries species by providing predation refuge. Ecology 89:2808–2818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebaum S, Montagna PA, Ritter C (2005) Status and trends of dissolved oxygen in Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, U.S.A. Environ Monitor Assess 107:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, Halpern B, Hays CG, Hoshino K, Minello TJ, Orth RJ, Sheridan PF, Weinstein MR (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell GW, Eggleston DB (2005) Species-specific avoidance responses by blue crabs and fish to chronic and episodic hypoxia. Mar Biol 146:761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breitburg D (2002) Effects of hypoxia, and the balance between hypoxia and enrichment, on coastal fishes and fisheries. Estuaries 25:767–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breitburg DL (1992) Episodic hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay: Interacting effects of recruitment, behavior, and physical disturbance. Ecol Monogr 62:525–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burfeind DD, Stunz GW (2006) The effects of boat propeller scarring intensity on nekton abundance in subtropical seagrass meadows. Mar Biol 148:953–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caley MJ, Carr MH, Hixon MA, Hughes TP, Jones GP, Menge BA (1996) Recruitment and the local dynamics of open marine populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chabot D, Dutil JD (1999) Reduced growth of Atlantic cod in non-lethal hypoxic conditions. J Fish Biol 55:472–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diaz JR, Rosenburg R (2008) Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321:926–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eby LA, Crowder LB, McClellan CM, Peterson CH, Powers MJ (2005) Habitat degradation from intermittent hypoxia: Impacts on demersal fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 291:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard: Test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68:1856–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Bruno JF, Casey KS, Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R, Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER, Spalding M, Steneck R, Watson R (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heck KL, Hays G, Orth RJ (2003) Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 253:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heck KL, Valentine JF (2007) The primacy of top-down effects in shallow benthic ecosystems. Estuaries Coasts 30:371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huey RB (1991) Physiological consequences of habitat selection. Am Nat 137:S91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan F, Bartolini M, Nelson C, Patterson PE, Soulen HL (1997) Risk of predation affects habitat selection by the pinfish Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 208:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Landry et al (2007) Long Term Hypoxia suppresses reproductive capacity in the estuarine fish. Comp Biochem Physiol A 143:317–323Google Scholar
  20. Lenihan HS, Peterson CH, Byers JE, Grabowski JH, Thayer GW, Colby DR (2001) Cascading of habitat degradation: Oyster reefs invaded by refugee fishes escaping stress. Ecol App 11:764–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levin P, Petrik R, Malone J (1997) Interactive effects of habitat selection, food supply and predation on recruitment of an estuarine fish. Oecologia 112:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levin PS, Stunz GW (2005) Habitat triage for exploited fishes: Can we identify essential fish habitat?. Est Coast Mar Sci. 70–78Google Scholar
  23. Long WC, Seitz RD (2008) Trophic interactions under stress: hypoxia enhances foraging in an estuarine food web. Mar Eco Prog Ser 362:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Kay MC, Kidwell SM, Kirby MX, Peterson CH, Jackson JBC (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312:1806–1809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menge BA, Sutherland JP (1987) Community regulation: variation in disturbance, competition, and predation in relation to environmental stress and recruitment. Am Nat 130:730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Montagna PA, Ritter C (2006) Direct and indirect effects of hypoxia on benthos in Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, U.S.A. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 330:119–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montagna PA, Froeschke J (2009) Long-term biological effects of coastal hypoxia in Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, USA. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 381:S21–S30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris DW (2003) Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petrik R, Levin PS, Stunz GW, Malone J (1999) Recruitment of Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus: do postsettlement processes disrupt or reinforce initial patterns of settlement? Fish Bull 97:954–961Google Scholar
  30. Pihl L, Baden SP, Diaz RJ (1991) Effects of periodic hypoxia on distribution of demersal fish and crustaceans. Mar Biol 108:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Scavia D (2002) Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and the Mississippi River. BioScience 52:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Gupta BKS, Platon E, Parsons ML (2007) Sediments tell the history of eutrophication and hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Ecol App 17:S129–S143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reese MM, Stunz GW, Bushon AM (2008) Recruitment of estuarine-dependentnekton through a new tidal inlet: the opening of Packery Channel in Corpus Christi, TX, USA. Estuaries Coasts 31:1143–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stierhoff KL, Targett TE, Miller K (2006) Ecophysiological responses of juvenile summer and winter flounder to hypoxia: experimental and modeling analyses of effects on estuarine nursery quality. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 325:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stierhoff KL, Tyler RM, Targett TE (2009) Hypoxia tolerance of juvenile weakfish (Cynoscion regalis): Laboratory assessment of growth and behavior avoidance responses. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 381:S173–S179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stunz GW, Levin PS, Minello TJ (2001) Selection of estuarine nursery habitats by wild-caught and hatchery-reared juvenile red drum in laboratory mesocosms. Environ Biol Fish 61:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stunz GW, Minello TJ, Levin PS (2002) A comparison of early juvenile red drum densities among various habitat types in Galveston Bay, Texas. Estuaries 25:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Switzer TS, Chesney EJ, Baltz DM (2009) Habitat selection by flatfishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for susceptibility to hypoixa. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 381:S51–S64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Utne-Palm AC, Salvanes AGV, Currie B, Kaartvedt S, Nilsson GE, Braithwaite VA, Stecyk JAW, Hundt M, van der Bank M, Flynn B, Sandvik GK, Klevjer TA, Sweetman AK, Brüchert V, Pittman K, Peard KR, Lunde IG, Strandabø RAU, Gibbons MJ (2010) Trophic structure and community stability of an overfished ecosystem. Science 329:333–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vaquer-Sunyer R, Duarte CM (2008) Thresholds of hypoxia for marine biodiversity. PNAS 105:15452–15457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wannamaker CM, Rice JA (2000) Effects of hypoxia on movements and behavior of selected estuarine organisms from the southeastern United States. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 249:145–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico, Studies and Department of Life SciencesTexas A&M University-Corpus ChristiCorpus ChristiUSA
  2. 2.Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management CouncilTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations