Variability in the numbers of post-settlement King George whiting (Sillaginidae: Sillaginodes punctata, Cuvier) in relation to predation, habitat complexity and artificial cage structure

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(01)00368-9Get rights and content

Abstract

The importance of predation by fish in altering abundances of juvenile King George whiting (Sillaginodes punctata) was examined at multiple locations in Port Phillip Bay, Australia, by manipulating the numbers of piscivorous fish in unvegetated sand and seagrass habitats using cages. Additional information regarding the local abundances of, and habitat use by, the most common piscivorous fish, Western Australian salmon (Arripidae: Arripis truttacea, Cuvier), was gathered using netting surveys and underwater video. Regardless of habitat, abundances of S. punctata were similar in partial cages and uncaged areas. In unvegetated sand, S. punctata were more abundant inside cages than partial cages or uncaged areas. In seagrass, there was no difference in the numbers of S. punctata between caging treatments. Patterns in abundances of S. punctata between cage treatments in each habitat were consistent between sites, but the relative difference in the abundances of S. punctata between habitats was site specific. Abundances of A. truttacea varied significantly between sites, and they consumed a variety of epibenthic fishes including atherinids, clupeids, gobiids, syngnathids and pleuronectids. At one site in Port Phillip Bay (Blairgowrie), A. truttacea occurred more commonly in patches of unvegetated sand than seagrass. Over unvegetated sand, abundances of A. truttacea varied little between partial cages and uncaged areas. The numbers of S. punctata varied between caging treatments and habitats in a manner that was consistent with a model whereby seagrass interferes with foraging by predatory fish and provides juvenile fish with a refuge from predation. The almost total absence of A. truttacea in seagrass habitats and the lack of S. punctata in their diets implies, however, that patterns in S. punctata in seagrass/unvegetated sand mosaics are driven by processes other than direct predation.

Introduction

Predation is thought to be a major determinant of the assemblage structure of fishes in marine ecosystems, and amongst the most common predators in marine systems are other fishes (Choat, 1982). The importance of predatory fishes has commonly been inferred from gut contents and the relative abundances of predatory fish in relation to their prey Hall et al., 1995, Connell and Kingsford, 1997, Hansson, 1998. In the past decade, manipulative experiments have demonstrated that predatory fishes influence assemblages of fish by altering survival and recruitment (Steele, 1999), densities of adults (Tupper and Boutilier, 1997), sizes and growth of juveniles (Levin et al., 1997), and habitat selection Gotceitas and Brown, 1993, Lindholm et al., 1999. Most research about predation on fish has been in coral reefs (see review by Hixon, 1991).

Structural complexity is thought to influence the potential for predatory fish to alter assemblages of fish. The shape and size of crevices and their location in relation to alternative habitats have received considerable attention Sale, 1991, Friedlander and Parrish, 1998, Steele, 1999. Algae and seagrasses also provide structural complexity in many marine systems Carr, 1994, Tupper and Boutilier, 1997, Gillanders and Kingsford, 1998. Amount Heck and Thoman, 1981, Gotceitas et al., 1997 or type (Stoner, 1982) of plants can influence numbers of fish Orth et al., 1984, Orth, 1992, efficiency of predators (Mattila, 1995) and choice of prey (Stoner, 1982). There has been little study of predatory fish in seagrass habitats, despite the often quoted importance of these vegetated areas as nurseries for juvenile fish (Connolly et al., 1999).

Seagrass beds generally have greater species diversity and larger numbers of fishes than adjacent unvegetated areas Orth, 1992, Butler and Jernakoff, 1999. This is thought to reflect the provision of refuge from biological and environmental perturbations, greater levels of food and more stable substrata Orth, 1992, Keough and Jenkins, 1995. Heck and Orth (1980) and Orth et al. (1984) suggested that the larger numbers of fish associated with seagrass may reflect reduced predation. Gotceitas et al. (1997) have shown that predation decreases (as the latency to capture increases) with increasing density of eelgrass. Bell et al., 1987, Bell et al., 1988, Bell and Pollard (1989) and Ferrell et al. (1993) presented an alternative model that processes influencing recruitment, particularly larval supply, are important in determining the initial, broad-scale variability in assemblages of fish amongst locations with seagrass. Following recruitment, variability in abundances of fish amongst alternative habitats is due to fish selecting particular regions within a seagrass bed which favours survival Bell and Westoby, 1986a, Bell and Westoby, 1986b—for example, areas that provide adequate levels of food or relief from environmental or biological perturbations.

Manipulative field experiments potentially provide the most rigorous and persuasive tests of hypotheses in predation studies (Raffaelli and Moller, 2000). Cages are commonly used to manipulate abundances of predatory fishes Doherty and Sale, 1985, Hall et al., 1990, Steele, 1996, Connell, 1997, Levin et al., 1997. The artificial structure used to exclude predators, however, may mask or mimic predation effects by altering abundances of fish Bell et al., 1985, Bohnsack et al., 1997, Carr and Hixon, 1997, Clarke and Aeby, 1998. Physical (e.g. particle size and organic composition of sediment) and biological (e.g. abundances of epifauna/meiofauna that are sources of food for small fish) attributes of the environment may also be altered by cage structure Virnstein, 1978, Hall et al., 1990. Partial cages (cage controls), which allow predatory fishes to forage in areas enclosed by cage structure, are necessary to separate predation effects from effects caused by artificial structure Virnstein, 1978, Steele, 1996, Connell, 1997. Research by ourselves (Hindell et al., in press), Schrijvers et al. (1998) and Mattila and Bonsdorff (1989) have shown that caging materials do not always alter meiofaunal abundances or sediment characteristics. Direct observations are needed, however, to determine whether caging materials attract fishes or differentially alter foraging by predatory fishes inside cage controls compared to uncaged areas (see Connell, 1997). Underwater video affords researchers an opportunity to quantify predatory fish whose temporal patchiness and transient nature often precludes the use of divers Burrows et al., 1994, Hixon and Carr, 1997, Morrisey et al., 1998.

In Port Phillip Bay, recruitment of juvenile King George whiting, Sillaginodes punctata, to seagrass beds varies considerably between locations Jenkins et al., 1997b, Jenkins et al., 1998, Jenkins and Wheatley, 1998. Larval supply and environmental disturbance (wave action) explain a significant amount of this broad-scale variability Jenkins and Black, 1994, Jenkins et al., 1997a. Hindell et al. (2000) have shown that sites with high numbers of predatory fish, such as Western Australian salmon (Arripis truttacea), correspond to sites where the recruitment of juvenile S. punctata is low. This pattern implies that predatory fish may influence abundances of small fish in seagrass beds.

In this study, we assessed whether (a) numbers of juvenile S. punctata varied between areas with and without predatory fish, and (b) patterns in numbers of S. punctata across caging treatments were consistent between seagrass and unvegetated sand, and at different locations. To answer these questions, we manipulated the numbers of predatory fish using cages in patches of seagrass and unvegetated sand at several locations in Port Phillip Bay. We also measured the numbers of piscivorous A. truttacea in seagrass and unvegetated sand at different locations, and amongst caging treatments to assess how the potential for predation varied.

Section snippets

Study sites

The caging experiments and predator surveys were carried out at three sites in Port Phillip Bay: Blairgowrie, Grand Scenic and Kilgour (Fig. 1). At each site, there are large contiguous beds of the seagrass Heterozostera tasmanica (Martens ex Ascherson) den Hartog, which are interspersed with patches of unvegetated sand and rocky reef in shallow (<3 m) water close to the shoreline. The currents around Grand Scenic and Kilgour are weak (≈10 cm s−1), but currents in the vicinity of Blairgowrie

Results

The numbers of S. punctata varied in a complex way between sites, habitats and caging treatments (Table 1). There was a significant three-way interaction between sites, caging and habitats, averaging data across times (Table 1, Fig. 3). The numbers of S. punctata were, on average, larger in unvegetated sand than seagrass at Kilgour, but smaller in unvegetated sand than seagrass at Blairgowrie (Fig. 3). There was no difference in the numbers of S. punctata between cage treatments in seagrass at

Discussion

Structural aspects of the environment, regardless of whether they are biogenic or not, often provide small fish with a refuge from predation Heck and Crowder, 1991, Beukers and Jones, 1997, and thereby influence patterns in survival and recruitment (Steele, 1999). In our study, larger numbers of juvenile S. punctata in uncaged areas of seagrass than unvegetated sand, and similar numbers of fish inside cages over unvegetated sand and any of the caging treatments in seagrass, implied that

Conclusion

Despite the attention given to determining the importance of predation in structuring assemblages of small fish that live in vegetated marine environments Bell and Pollard, 1989, Gotceitas et al., 1997, Rangeley and Kramer, 1998, the importance of predation by fish has remained controversial. For juveniles of S. punctata, predation strongly influences their inter-habitat distribution within a location, probably through behaviourally mediated antipredator measures rather than direct predation,

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was greatly improved by comments from A.J. Underwood, J. Mackie, R. Connolly, S. Connell and an anonymous reviewer. Thanks to M. Hendricks, L. McGrath, M. Wheatley and R. Watson for assistance in the field and at the research station. We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (1999/215), the Australian Research Council and a University of Melbourne Research Scholarship. Research was conducted using the facilities at the Queenscliff

References (72)

  • G.P. Jenkins et al.

    The influence of habitat structure on nearshore fish assemblages in a southern Australian embayment: comparison of shallow seagrass, reef algal and unvegetated sand habitats, with emphasis on their importance to recruitment

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1998)
  • G.P. Jenkins et al.

    Comparison of fish assemblages associated with seagrass and adjacent unvegetated habitats of Port Phillip Bay and Corner Inlet, Victoria, Australia, with emphasis on commercial species

    Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci.

    (1997)
  • G.P. Jenkins et al.

    The contribution of habitat structure and larval supply to broad-scale recruitment variability in a temperate zone, seagrass-associated fish

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1998)
  • J.P. Manderson et al.

    Predation by striped searobin (Prionotus evolans, Triglidae) on young-of-the-year winter flounder (Psedopleuronectes americanus, Walbaum): examining prey size selection and prey choice using field observations and laboratory experiments

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1999)
  • J. Mattila et al.

    The impact of fish predation on shallow soft bottoms in brackish waters (SW Finland): an experimental study

    Neth. J. Sea Res.

    (1989)
  • J. Schrijvers et al.

    The infaunal macrobenthos under East African Ceriops tagal mangroves impacted by epibenthos

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1998)
  • M.A. Steele

    Effects of predators on reef fishes: separating cage artifacts from effects of predation

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1996)
  • M.A. Steele

    Effects of shelter and predators on reef fishes

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1999)
  • A.W. Stoner

    The influence of benthic macrophytes on the foraging behavior of pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus)

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1982)
  • R.W. Virnstein

    Predator caging experiments in soft sediments: caution advised

  • Anonymous

    Environmental Study of Port Phillip Bay. Report on Phase One, 1968–1971

    (1973)
  • J.D. Bell et al.

    Ecology of fish assemblages and fisheries associated with seagrasses

  • J.D. Bell et al.

    Abundance of macrofauna in dense seagrass is due to habitat preference, not predation

    Oecologia

    (1986)
  • J.D. Bell et al.

    Variation in seagrass height and density over a wide spatial scale: effects on common fish and decapods

    J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

    (1986)
  • J.S. Beukers et al.

    Habitat complexity modifies the impact of piscivores on a coral reef fish population

    Oecologia

    (1997)
  • K. Black et al.

    Locally and externally driven dynamics of a large semi-enclosed bay in southern Australia

    J. Coastal Res.

    (1993)
  • J.A. Bohnsack et al.

    Artificial reef research: is there more than the attraction-production issue

    Fisheries

    (1997)
  • A. Butler et al.
  • M.H. Carr

    Effects of macroalgal dynamics on recruitment of a temperate reef fish

    Ecology

    (1994)
  • M.H. Carr et al.

    Predation effects on early post-settlement survivorship of coral-reef fishes

    Mar. Ecol.: Prog. Ser.

    (1995)
  • M.H. Carr et al.

    Artificial reefs: the importance of comparisons with natural reefs

    Fisheries

    (1997)
  • J.H. Choat

    Fish feeding and the structure of benthic communities in temperate waters

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

    (1982)
  • T.A. Clarke et al.

    The use of small mid-water attraction devices for investigation of the pelagic juveniles of carangid fishes in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii

    Bull. Mar. Sci.

    (1998)
  • S.D. Connell et al.

    The utility of descriptive information for assessing the impact of coral reef piscivores on their prey

    Proc. 8th Int. Coral Reef Symp.

    (1997)
  • R. Connolly et al.

    Links between seagrass dynamics and fisheries sustainability

  • P.J. Doherty et al.

    Predation on juvenile coral reef fishes: an exclusion experiment

    Coral Reefs

    (1985)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Edge effects in patchy seagrass landscapes: The role of predation in determining fish distribution

      2011, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Seagrass provides small fish species with a refuge from predators (Jackson et al., 2001), and changes in seagrass structure and presence of predators can affect the refuge value of patches (Horinouchi, 2007b). Survival time in seagrass positions was generally greater than sand positions, supporting the premise that the presence of seagrass structure provides a refuge from predators (Hindell et al., 2002). Survival time of King George whiting recruits in outer patches was the exception, where survival time was lower in seagrass than sand.

    • Evaluating the importance of predation on subtidal benthic assemblages in sandy habitats around rocky reefs

      2005, Acta Oecologica
      Citation Excerpt :

      Among the most common manipulations in marine ecology are caging experiments. They have been done in many different habitats, such as salt marshes (e.g., Kneib, 1988; Sarda et al., 1998), intertidal flats (e.g., Quammen, 1984; Raffaelli and Milne, 1987; Raffaelli et al., 1989; Fernandes et al., 1999; Richards et al., 1999; Thrush, 1999), seagrass beds (e.g., Fishman and Orth, 1996; Macia, 2000; Spitzer et al., 2000; Hindell et al., 2002), kelp beds (e.g., Kennelly, 1991; Sala, 1997), coastal lagoons (e.g., Irlandi and Mehlich, 1996; McArthur, 1998), mangroves (e.g., Schrijvers et al., 1998), coral reefs (e.g., Russ, 1987; Connell, 1997), artificial structures (e.g., Connell, 2001) and on subtidal mud-bottoms (e.g., Hines et al., 1990). There have been, however, few studies on subtidal sandy bottoms, possibly due to logistical difficulties involved in the construction and maintenance of the cages in such an exposed habitat.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text