Spatial variation in feeding, prey distribution and food limitation of juvenile flounder Rhombosolea tapirina Günther

https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(92)90286-JGet rights and content

Abstract

The feeding and prey distribution of juvenile greenback flounder Rhombosolea tapirina Günther was compared between Swan Bay, a sheltered bay with muddy sediments and a well-developed seagrass-detrital system, and an adjacent area of Port Phillip Bay, a more exposed area with coarser sandy sediments. Meiofauna was dominated by benthic harpacticoid copepods in both bays. Harpacticoids in Port Phillip Bay, however, were mainly interstitial while epibenthic species were dominant in Swan Bay. The diet of juvenile flounder in Swan Bay was almost entirely composed of epibenthic harpacticoids. Juvenile flounder in Port Phillip Bay ate epibenthic harpacticoids, harpacticoid nauplii and gammaridean amphipods; interstitial harpacticoids were apparently not susceptible to flatfish predation. In Swan Bay, there was a rapid increase in the number of prey consumed with fish size but the mean size of prey was constant, reflecting the size distribution of harpacticoids in the environment. At one site in Port Phillip Bay, the pattern was similar except that the increase in prey number with growth was much lower. At a second site, prey number decreased while prey size increased with increasing fish size, due to a replacement of harpacticoid nauplii with much lower numbers of gammaridean amphipods. Consumption of prey in terms of weight increased allometrically with fish size at all sites. The rate was significantly higher (80%) in Swan Bay, suggesting that fish in Port Phillip Bay were food-limited. Gut clearance times for juvenile flounder feeding on epibenthic harpacticoids was estimated to be ≈ 13 h. Feeding rate, in terms of prey number, was approximately three to four times higher in Swan Bay relative to Port Phillip Bay. Although abundance of juvenile flounder in Swan Bay was higher than in Port Phillip Bay, prey abundances were also much higher, and predatory impact was estimated to be insignificant. Impact of predation also appeared insignificant in Port Phillip Bay although more data are needed.

References (30)

  • J.S. Collie

    Life history and production of three amphipod species on Georges Bank

    Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

    (1985)
  • C.M. Crawford

    An ecological study of the Tasmanian flounder

  • L.T. De Morais et al.

    Predation on meiofauna by juvenile fish in a western Mediterranean flatfish nursery ground

    Mar. Biol.

    (1984)
  • R.J. Feller et al.

    Size selective predation by juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) on epibenthic prey in Puget Sound

    J. Fish. Res. Board Can.

    (1975)
  • G.R. Fitzhugh et al.

    Goby (Pisces:Gobiidae) interactions with meiofauna and small macrofauna

    Bull. Mar. Sci.

    (1986)
  • Cited by (39)

    • Field evidence of differential food utilization of phytal harpacticoids collected from Fucus serratus indicated by δ<sup>13</sup>C and δ<sup>15</sup>N stable isotopes

      2010, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Harpacticoid copepods are small, mostly benthic, crustaceans found in marine, brackish, and freshwater habitats around the world. Despite their importance in the food webs (e.g. Alheit and Scheibel, 1982; Shaw and Jenkins, 1992; Clarke, 1999; Ingólfsson and Kristjánsson, 2002) their trophic relationships and seasonal variations in utilization of food sources are poorly known. Based on gut content and on observations, they are known to feed on many different food items, diatoms, detritus, macroalgal tissues, bacteria and fungi (review by Hicks and Coull, 1983).

    • Are flatfish nursery grounds richer in benthic prey?

      2009, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      The presence of abundant food resources in the nursery grounds does not necessarily imply the full availability of it for the juvenile flatfishes. Shaw and Jenkins (1992) found the impact of juvenile flatfishes on the abundance of their prey to be generally insignificant, or at least insufficient to reduce prey levels to a point where they become limiting. However, benthic macro invertebrates are intensively consumed by a variety of predators, such as aquatic birds and nekton (mostly fish and crustaceans) and this interspecific competition might result in limitation of the food resources (Rosa et al., 2008).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text