Advertisement

Predator-prey relationships in surfperches

  • David R. Laur
  • Alfred W. Ebeling
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes book series (DEBF, volume 2)

Synopsis

Five species of relatively large surfperches (Embiotocidae) exploit the small prey in benthic ‘turf’ on a kelp-forested reef off southern California. Turf contained inorganic debris and ‘items of doubtful food value’ (plants, colonial animals, etc.) which fish mostly rejected, and ‘items of food value’ (amphipods, etc.) which they selected. In mode of food handling, two species selected their food by taking careful bites and swallowing all items, either by picking out small amphipods etc. from algae or plucking larger prey and crushing it between strong pharyngeal teeth. The three others selected food by winnowing bites of turf in their mouth and spitting out the cast. For each species, distribution of foraging effort among microhabitats differed significantly from random, for one species more noticeably so than for the others. All species generally preferred microhabitats with highest densities of valued food items. All but one foraged during the day only. Functional morphological specializations may constrain their foraging modes and diets. The presumed most generalized mode is ‘browser-picker’; ‘crunching’ and ‘oral-winnowing’ are more specialized. The surfperches’ elaborate pharyngognathy is a likely basis of these specializations for greater foraging efficiency.

Keywords

California Diel patterns Embiotocidae Feeding behavior Food availability Kelp bed Microhabitat Reef Resource partitioning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Alevizon, W.S. 1975a. Spatial overlap and competition in congeneric surfperches (Embiotocidae) off Santa Barbara, California. Copeia 1975: 352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alevizon, W.S. 1975b. Comparative feeding ecology of a kelpbed embiotocid (Embiotoca lateralis). Copeia 1975: 608–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow, G.W. & J.W. Munsey. 1976. The red devil — midas — arrow cichlid species complex in Nicaragua, pp. 359–369. In: T.B. Thorson (ed.) Investigations of the Ichthyofauna of Nicaraguan Lakes, School of Life Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.Google Scholar
  4. Brett, J.R. 1979. Some morphological and behavioural adaptations of pile perch (Rhacochilus vacca) feeding on mussels (Mytilus edulis). Can. J. Zool. 57: 658–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chao, L.N. & J.A. Musick. 1977. Life history, feeding habits, and functional morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the York River Estuary, Virginia. U.S. Fish. Bull 75: 657–702.Google Scholar
  6. Chess, J.R. 1969. An airlift sampling device for benthic organisms. Research Memo 69-151-Ocean-Ml, Westinghouse Res. Lab., Pittsburg.Google Scholar
  7. DeMartini, E.E. 1969. A correlative study of the ecology and comparative feeding mechanism morphology of the Embiotocidae (surf-fishes) as evidence of the family’s adaptive radiation into available ecological niches. Wasmann J. Biol. (Univ. San Francisco) 27: 177–247.Google Scholar
  8. Ebeling, A.W. 1957. The dentition of eastern Pacific mullets, with special reference to adaptation and taxonomy. Copeia 1957: 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebeling, A.W. & R.N. Bray. 1976. Day versus night activity of reef fishes in a kelp forest off Santa Barbara, California, U.S. Fish. Bull. 74: 703–718.Google Scholar
  10. Ebeling, A.W., R.J. Larson & W.S. Alevizon. 1980a. Habitat groups and island-mainland distribution of kelp-bed fishes off Santa Barbara, California, pp. 403–431. In. D.M. Power (ed.) Multidisciplinary Symposium on the California Islands, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  11. Ebeling, A.W., R.J. Larson, W.S. Alevizon & R.N. Bray. 1980b. Annual variability of reef-fish assemblages in kelp forests off Santa Barbara, California, U.S. Fish. Bull. 78: 361–377.Google Scholar
  12. Eigenmann, C.H. 1894. Cymatogaster aggregata Gibbons: a contribution to the ontogeny of viviparous fishes. Bull. U.S. Fish Commission for 1892 12: 401–478.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emlen, J.M. 1968. Optimal choice in animals. Amer. Nat. 102: 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gatz, A.J., Jr. 1979. Community organization in fishes as indicated by morphological features. Ecology 60: 711–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, D. 1980. Foraging costs and relative prey size. Amer. Nat. 116: 743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haldorson, L. & M. Moser. 1979. Geographic patterns of prey utilization in two species of surfperch (Embiotocidae). Copeia 1979: 567–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiatt, R.W. & D.W. Strasburg. 1960. Ecological relationships of the fish fauna on coral reefs of the Marshall Islands. Ecol. Monogr. 30: 65–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hixon, M.A. 1980. Competitive interactions between California reef fishes of the genus Embiotoca. Ecology 61: 918–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hixon, M.A. 1981. An experimental analysis of territoriality in the California reef fish Embiotoca jacksoni (Embiotocidae). Copeia 1981: 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ivlev, V.S. 1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes (English transí, from Russian by D. Scott). Yale Univ. Press, New Haven. 302 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, R.S. 1968. Ecological relationships in Hawaiian and Johnston Island Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes). Micronesica 4: 309–361.Google Scholar
  23. Keast, A. & D. Webb. 1966. Mouth and body form relative to feeding ecology in the fish fauna of a small lake, Lake Opinicon, Ontario, J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25: 1845–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keenleyside, M.H.A. 1979. Diversity and adaptation in fish behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York. 208 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Liem, K.F. & P.H. Greenwood. 1981. A functional approach to the phylogeny of the pharyngognath teleosts. Amer. Zool. 21: 83–101.Google Scholar
  26. Limbaugh, C. 1955. Fish life in the kelp beds and the effects of kelp harvesting. Univ. of California Institute of Marine Resources, IMR Ref. 55–9. 158 pp.Google Scholar
  27. MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New York. 269 pp.Google Scholar
  28. MacArthur, R.H. & R. Levins. 1964. Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S. 51: 1207–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maynard Smith, J. 1978. Optimization theory in evolution. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systematics 9: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norris, K.S. & J.H. Prescott. 1959. Jaw structure and tooth replacement in the opaleye, Girella nigricans (Ayres) with notes on other species. Copeia 1959: 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olla, B.L., A.J. Bejda & A.D. Martin. 1975. Activity, movements and feeding behavior of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus, and comparison of food habits with the young tautog, Tautoga onitus off Long Island, New York. U.S. Fish. Bull. 73: 895–900.Google Scholar
  32. Quast, J.C. 1968. Observations on the food of kelp-bed fishes, pp. 109–142. In: W.J. North & C.L. Hubbs (ed.) utilization of Kelp-bed Resources in Southern California. Calif. Dep. Fish Game Fish Bull. 139.Google Scholar
  33. Risk, M.J. 1972. Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 153: 1–6.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt, R.J. & J.A. Coyer. 1982. The foraging ecology of sympatric surfperch congeners (Embiotoca): importance of foraging behavior in prey size selection. Oecologia (in press).Google Scholar
  35. Schoener, T.W. 1969a. Models of optimal size for solitary predators. Amer. Nat. 103: 277–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoener, T.W. 1969b. Optimal size and specialization in constant and fluctuating environments: an energy-time approach. pp. 103–114. In: M. Dienes & R. Brown (ed.) Diversity and Stability in Ecological Systems, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Tanaka, S.K. 1973. Suction feeding by the nurse shark. Copeia 1973: 606–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tarp, F.H. 1952. A revision of the family Embiotocidae (the surfperches). Calif. Dep. Fish Game Fish Bull. 88: 1–99.Google Scholar
  39. Terry, C.B. & J.S. Stephens, Jr. 1976. A study of the orientation of selected embiotocid fishes to depth and shifting seasonal vertical temperature gradients. Bull. Southern California Academy of Sciences 75: 170–183.Google Scholar
  40. Turner, C.H., E.E. Ebert & R.R. Given. 1969. Man-made reef ecology. Calif. Dep. Fish Game Fish Bull. 146: 1–221.Google Scholar
  41. Ware, D.M. 1972. Predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri): the influence of hunger, prey density, and prey size. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29: 1193–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Werner, E.E. & D.J. Hall. 1979. Foraging efficiency and habitat switching in competing sunfishes. Ecology 60: 256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Laur
    • 1
  • Alfred W. Ebeling
    • 1
  1. 1.Marine Science Institute and Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations