Ecomorphology of Centrarchid Fishes

Abstract

From the ecologist's perspective, centrarchid fishes are widely recognized as a model system for investigating the role of phenotypic variation in shaping ecological patterns. To the ichthyologist, this group is considered among the most morphologically and ecologically diverse of North America's freshwater ichthyofauna. This chapter is intended to bring these perspectives together, highlighting the contributions of studies linking resource use patterns to morphology in order to make sense of the ecological, functional, and morphological diversity exhibited within the Centrarchidae. We review literature on feeding and on locomotion.Historically, the diversity represented within this radiation helped inspire the development of ecomorphology, a research perspective that investigates hypothesized associations between organismal design and ecology. Working independently, Werner (1974Werner ( , 1977 and Keast (1978Keast ( , 1985Keast and Webb 1967) were among the first to point out a general association between head and body form and resource use in centrarchid species. Using bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) to represent the range of ecological and morphological diversity in centrarchids, Werner and coworkers developed the first mechanistic insights into the implications of variation in body and head morphology. The diversity of form and feeding habits represented by bluegill, largemouth bass, black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris) motivated Keast's proposal that different suites of morphological features confer varying prey capture and habitat use capabilities on these species and that these differences underlie the capacity for these species to coexist in sympatry. The rationale for ecomorphology research can be seen in both Werner's and Keast's work: an organism's morphology affects its capacity to perform an ecologically relevant task, and this performance capacity affects the resources available for its use.This research program was made more explicit (Werner 1977;Mittelbach 1984;Wainwright 1996) by emphasizing that researchers' ability to explain ecological phenomena through organismal design requires focus on characters whose performance consequences are predictable. This stipulation established a primary role for functional morphology research, which investigates the morphological basis of performance variation. Moreover, the ecomorphology research perspective led to widespread recognition that the choice of an appropriate performance measure is vital to the success of studies that seek to understand the relationship between morphology and resource use. Performance variables range from proximate measures that focus on the mechanical capacities of isolated functional units, such as maximum pharyngeal jaw bite force, to more integrative measures that involve multiple functional units, like prey handling time, which is influenced by the fish's ability to capture and process prey. In either ...

An approach to unraveling the coexistence of snappers (Lutjanidae) using otolith morphology

“…Ecomorphology tries to understand how the ecology and evolutionary processes of an organism are related to its morphology (Luczkovich et al 1995, Wainwright andBellwood 2002). Most ecomorphological studies are focused on feeding mechanisms (Wainwright et al 2001, Collar andWainwright 2009) and locomotion patterns (Robinson andWilson 1994, Pakkasmaa andPiironen 2000) because these factors may play a role in shaping the patterns of abundance and habitat distribution in fishes (Mittelbach 1984, Wainwright 1996. However, this scientific discipline has also been applied in otolithology because certain characteristics of otoliths (e.g.…”

The Early Life History of the Guadalupe Bass: Lessons for Culturing a Threatened Species

“…; Brewer and Orth ). They swallow their prey whole, in theory limiting the maximum prey depth to the gape width of the fish (Lawrence ; Hambright ; Collar and Wainwright ); however, smaller LMB, SMB, and GB have sufficient mouth part flexibility to consume nonrigid prey whose body depths exceed their gape widths (Edwards ). Easton and Orth () reported that wild‐collected SMB were gape‐limited until 35 mm TL and then consumed prey much smaller than their gape width allowed.…”

“…typically shift from predominantly zooplankton to larger invertebrates such as aquatic insect prey when fin ray development is complete (Clark and Mancini 1980;Easton and Orth 1992;Morris and Clayton 2009) near the commencement of the juvenile stage. This is also dependent on prey availability (Parmley et al 1986) and gape size (Wainwright and Richard 1995;Collar and Wainwright 2009). This shift has been reported at around 14 mm TL (Clark and Mancini 1980), 15 mm TL (Easton and Orth 1992), and 20 mm TL (Farquhar and Guest 1991) in SMB, and at 15 mm TL (Rogers 1968), 22-23 mm TL (Parmley et al 1986), and 30.5 mm TL in LMB (Zhang et al 1992).…”

Morphometric variation in bluegill Lepomis macrochirus and green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus in lentic and lotic systems

“…In this study, it was expected that deep‐bodied fishes, such as Lepomis , would partition their use to those areas of the stream or lake that would maximize fitness. Variations in fish morphology within lentic or lotic systems have been demonstrated (Layzer & Clady, ; Ehlinger & Wilson, ; Brinsmead & Fox, ) and suggest that microenvironments or feeding behaviours promote differences in body design (Collar & Wainwright, ). Gaston et al .…”

“…These adaptations allow the fishes to occupy the wide range of niches found in aquatic systems (Motta et al ., ) and are often related to the fishes' ability to move through the water. For most species, swimming is a mandatory component to the ecological functions of reproduction, foraging and predator avoidance (Webb, ; Moyle & Cech, ; Collar & Wainwright, ). Fishes could have a streamlined body in response to continual and long‐term swimming demands or a deep body designed for acceleration and maneuverability (Webb, ; Winemiller, ; Moyle & Cech, ; Pflieger, ).…”