Habitat complexity and food item size modify the foraging behaviour of a freshwater fish

Article English OPEN
Murray, Gregory P D ; Stillman, Richard A. ; Britton, J.R. (2016)

The functional response describes the relationship between feeding rate and prey density, and is important ecologically as it describes how foraging behaviour may change in response to food availability. The effects of habitat complexity and food item size were experimentally tested on the foraging parameters and functional responses of the freshwater fish roach Rutilus rutilus. Habitat complexity was varied through the manipulation of substrate and turbidity, and food item size was varied by using fishmeal pellets in two sizes. As water turbidity and substrate complexity increased, the reaction distance and consumption rate (per number) significantly decreased. Increased food item size significantly decreased consumption rates (per number) but had no influence on any other foraging parameter. Analysis of the interactions between substrate complexity, turbidity and food item size revealed food item size had the greatest influence on consumption rate (per number). Turbidity had the least effect on all the foraging parameters tested. Across all experiments, the functional responses were best described by the Type II response, a relatively consistent finding for R. rutilus. These outputs reveal that fish foraging behaviours and functional responses are highly context dependent, varying with environmental parameters and the availability of food resources of different sizes.
  • References (29)
    29 references, page 1 of 3

    0.01 and adjusted R2 = 0.96, F1,3 = 64.86, P < 0.01 respectively) compared to a Type I functional response (adjusted R2 = 0.92, F1,3 = 53.55, P < 0.01; adjusted R2= 0.94, F1,3 = 72.52, P < 0.01). Similarly, the Type II functional response was a better fit when compared to a simple linear increase (adjusted R2 = 0.91, F1,3 = 68.65, P < 0.01; adjusted R2 = 0.92 F1,3 = 77.87, P < 0.01). Lastly, the predicted Type II functional response was a better fit than Type I for both the substrate and non-substrate treatment according to AIC (predicted Type II: substrate AIC = -51.15; non-substrate AIC = -44.96; predicted Type I: substrate AIC = - 31.42; non-substrate AIC = -14.97).

    Abrams, P. A., 1982. Functional Responses of Optimal Foragers. The American Naturalist 120: 382-390.

    Aksnes, D. L. & C. W. Utne, 1997. A revised model of visual range in fish. Sarsia 82: 137- 147.

    Alexander, M. E., J. T. A. Dick & N. E. O'Connor, 2013. Trait-mediated indirect interactions in a marine intertidal system as quantified by functional responses. Oikos 122: 1521-1531.

    Alexander, M. E., J. T. A. Dick, N. E., O'Connor, N. R. Haddaway & K. Farnsworth, 2012. Functional responses of the intertidal amphipod Echinogammarus marinus: effects of prey supply, model selection and habitat complexity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 468: 191- 202.

    Allouche, S. & P. Gaudin, 2001. Effects of avian predation threat, water flow and cover on growth and habitat use by chub, Leuciscus cephalus, in an experimental stream. Oikos 94: 481-492.

    Bollache, L., J. T. A. Dick, K. D. Farnsworth & W. I. Montgomery, 2008. Comparison of the functional responses of invasive and native amphipods. Biology Letters 4: 166-9.

    Bond, N., D. McMaster, P. Reich, J. R. Thomson & P. S. Lake, 2010. Modelling the impacts of flow regulation on fish distributions in naturally intermittent lowland streams: an approach for predicting restoration responses. Freshwater Biology 55: 1997-2010.

    Britton, J. R., J. Pegg, D. Baker & C. Williams, 2012. Do lower feeding rates result in reduced growth of a cyprinid fish infected with the Asian tapeworm? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 21: 172-175.

    Brabrand, A. & B. Faafeng, 1993. Habitat shift in roach (Rutilus rutilus) induced by pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) introduction: predation risk versus pelagic behaviour. Oecologia 95: 38-46.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark