Field experiments on depth selection by juvenile plaice Pleuronectes platessa

Abstract

After settlement on sandy beaches in spring, juvenile (0-group) plaice Pleuronectes platessa L. spend the summer and autumn months at depths < 5 m. During this time, there is a strong length-depth relationship in which the smaller fish are most common at the shallow end of their depth range. Mark and recapture experiments with fish caught at depths of 0.5 and 2.5 m demonstrated that nearly all fish subsequently released at their depth of capture stayed at that depth, and few moved to other depths. In contrast, many fish reciprocally transplanted between these depths returned to their depth of capture within 2 d, and very few remained at the transplant depth. The results indicate that juvenile plaice have a fidelity to, and can actively select, a particular depth, although there may be some movement between depths, most of which at the time of the experiment (August/September) was directed offshore.

Fine‐scale movements and habitat use of juvenile southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma in an estuarine seascape

“…Aside from habitat, bathymetric features, including depth and slope, can influence distributions of marine fishes. Fishes within estuaries often demonstrate depth preferences (Gibson et al ., ), and depth has been shown to influence an individual's predation risk (Ryer et al ., ). Water depth was identified as the most influential variable in the GAM analysis, with juvenile P. lethostigma using deeper waters (>50 cm relative depth) within the VPS array.…”

Straying from the flatfish retinal plan: Cone photoreceptor patterning in the common sole (Solea solea) and the Senegalese sole (Solea senegalensis)

“…In general, recently metamorphosed juveniles inhabit nursery areas that range from ~0.5-50 m in depth (McCracken, 1963;Gibson et al, 2002;Reum & Essington, 2011;Ryer et al, 2012). But even in rearing estuaries of less than 5 m in depth, there can be spatial segregation between younger and older juveniles (Gibson et al, 2011), as well as between species (Marchand, 1988;Vinagre et al, 2006Vinagre et al, , 2009, depending on slight differences in ecotype and predation pressure (Vinagre et al, 2009;Gibson et al, 2002;Ryer et al, 2012). As flatfishes grow, they expand their ranges into deeper waters, with different species seemingly favouring different depths (Sohn et al, 2016;Fernández-Zapico et al, 2017;Sobocinski et al, 2018;Rau et al, 2019) likely as a result of multiple factors including substrate type (often correlated with prey type, Vinagre et al, 2009;Perry et al, 1994;Fernández-Zapico et al, 2017;Rau et al 2019), complexity of habitat structure (e.g., presence of large rocks, sponges, bryozoan colonies; Ryer et al, 2012), oxygen availability (Sobocinski et al, 2018), temperature (Perry et al, 1994;Vinagre et al, 2009;van Hal et al, 2016;Rau et al, 2019), salinity (Vinagre et al, 2009;Rau et al, 2019) and risk of predation (Hurst et al, 2007;Reum and Essington, 2011;Yeung and Yang, 2018).…”

“…But even in rearing estuaries of less than 5 m in depth, there can be spatial segregation F I G U R E 1 0 Spatial analysis of single cone distributions from the same mosaics shown in Figure 9. Presentation of data as in Figure 9 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] between younger and older juveniles (Gibson, Burrows, & Robb, 2011), as well as between species (Marchand, 1988;Vinagre et al, 2006; Vinagre, Maia, Reis-Santos, Costa, & Cabral, 2009), depending on slight differences in ecotype and predation pressure (Gibson et al, 2002;Ryer et al, 2012;Vinagre et al, 2009) Perry, Stocker, & Fargo, 1994;Fernández-Zapico et al, 2017;Rau et al, 2019), complexity of habitat structure (e.g., presence of large rocks, sponges, bryozoan colonies; Ryer et al, 2012), oxygen availability (Sobocinski et al, 2018), temperature (Perry et al, 1994;Rau et al, 2019; van Hal, van Kooten, & Rijnsdorp, 2016;Vinagre et al, 2009), salinity (Rau et al, 2019;Vinagre et al, 2009), and risk of predation (Hurst, Ryer, Ramsey, & Haines, 2007;Reum & Essington, 2011;Yeung & Yang, 2018). Different flatfish species also vary in their displacement behavior (remaining primarily on the bottom or frequently swimming in the water column; Hurst et al, 2007;Vollen & Albert, 2008), camouflage capabilities (active mimicry by changing skin pattern or digging into the substrate; Ryer, Stoner, & Titgen, 2004;Ryer, Lemke, Boersma, & Levas, 2008), and prey spectrum (consuming more demersal species, like amphipods or polychaete worms, or pelagic species, such as mysids, euphausids and fish; Martell & McClelland, 1994).…”

Macroalgal vegetation on a north European artificial reef (Loch Linnhe, Scotland): biodiversity, community types and role of abiotic factors

“…Numerous studies have explored the biodiversity and geochemistry of the natural environment of Loch Linnhe. Examples include the planktonic ecosystem (Heath 1995), rocky reef fish populations (Magill and Sayer 2002;Magill and Sayer 2004), sandy bay flatfish (Gibson et al 2011), macrofaunal populations (Sayer and Poonian 2007) and rare brown algae (Yang et al 2014).…”