2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.seares.2007.08.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Drift algae reduce foraging efficiency of juvenile flatfish

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, because the presence of Ulva mats induced a decrease in D. trunculus (Table 4) and because interspecific competition for space exists between the 2 Donacidae species (Guillou 1982), D. vittatus could find an available niche at SBs where macroalgae get stranded. Also, macroalgal mats induce a decrease of the foraging success of juvenile flatfish (Nordström & Booth 2007) and of the biomass of polychaete predators (Table 4; results in line with Weston 1990); consequently, predation pressure on D. vittatus recruits decreases, which may explain the high abundance of the bivalve where green tides occurred.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…In addition, because the presence of Ulva mats induced a decrease in D. trunculus (Table 4) and because interspecific competition for space exists between the 2 Donacidae species (Guillou 1982), D. vittatus could find an available niche at SBs where macroalgae get stranded. Also, macroalgal mats induce a decrease of the foraging success of juvenile flatfish (Nordström & Booth 2007) and of the biomass of polychaete predators (Table 4; results in line with Weston 1990); consequently, predation pressure on D. vittatus recruits decreases, which may explain the high abundance of the bivalve where green tides occurred.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…The higher occurrence of P. lethostigma in or near bare substrata within Christmas Bay may be because the sand substratum enhances crypsis (e.g. burial and camouflage), which is known to decrease predation rates (Fairchild & Howell, 2004;Ryer et al ., 2008) and increase foraging efficiency (Gronkjaer et al ., 2007;Nordstrom & Booth, 2007). Other habitat types may still be important for prey production, as invertebrate densities are often highest in seagrass beds (Beck et al ., 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, speciesspecific attributes with respect to the phenology, morphology and biology of different species can influence the structure of associated communities through a number of mechanisms (Wernberg et al 2000, Bégin et al 2004, York et al 2006. Increased cover or density can limit movement and foraging activities of mobile species (Nordström & Booth 2007) and provide hiding opportunities for potential prey. Species morphology can directly influence habitat properties by providing microhabitats needed for different taxa or indirectly influence recruitment through passive (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%