Literature DB >> 28312867

Bluegill growth as modified by plant density: an exploration of underlying mechanisms.

Jacqueline F Savino1, Elizabeth A Marschall1, Roy A Stein2.   

Abstract

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochira) growth varies inconsistently with plant density. In laboratory and field experiments, we explored mechanisms underlying bluegill growth as a function of plant and invertebrate density. In the laboratory, bluegills captured more chironomids (Chironomus riparius) than damselflies (Enallagma spp. and Ischnura spp.), but energy intake per time spent searching did not differ between damselfly and chironomid treatments. From laboratory data, we described prey encounter rates as functions of plant and invertebrate density. In Clark Lake, Ohio, we created 0.05-ha mesocosms of inshore vegetation to generate macrophyte densities of 125, 270, and 385 stems/m2 of Potamogeton and Ceratophyllum and added 46-mm bluegill (1/m2). In these mesocosms, invertebrate density increased as a function of macrophyte density. Combining this function with encounter rate functions derived from laboratory data, we predicted that bluegill growth should peak at a high macrophyte density, greater than 1000 stems/m2, even though growth should change only slightly beyond 100 stems/m2. Consistent with our predictions, bluegills did not grow differentially, nor did their use of different prey taxa differ, across macrophyte densities in the field. Bluegills preferred chironomid pupae, which were relatively few in numbers but vulnerable to predation, whereas more cryptic, chironomid larvae, which were associated with vegetation but were relatively abundant, were eaten as encountered. Bluegills avoided physid snails, which were abundant. Contrary to previous work, vegetation did not influence growth or diet of bluegill beyond relatively low densities owing to the interaction between capture probabilities and macroinvertebrate densities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Feeding behavior; Preference; Structural complexity

Year:  1992        PMID: 28312867     DOI: 10.1007/BF00317212

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  3 in total

1.  The importance of predation, substrate and spatial refugia in determining lotic insect distributions.

Authors:  Alexander S Flecker; J David Allan
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Fish predation on Notonecta (Hemiptera): relationship between prey risk and habitat utilization.

Authors:  W L Cook; F A Streams
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Predator foraging success and habitat complexity: quantitative test of the threshold hypothesis.

Authors:  Vytenis Gotceitas; Patrick Colgan
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.225

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.