The effect of vegetation density on juvenile bluegill diet and growth

Shoup, Daniel E.; Nannini, Michael A.; Wahl, David H.

doi:10.1080/02705060.2011.641357

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings provide indirect support for this pattern, based on the interpretation of multiple lines of evidence. Juvenile bluegill often aggregate near vegetated habitats in both lentic and lotic environments (Dewey, Richardson & Zigler, ; Harrel & Dibble, ; Mittelbach & Osenberg, ; Shoup et al., ). Juvenile bluegill in this experiment derived a sizeable portion of their energy from macroinvertebrates commonly associated with vegetated habitats in all treatments, which is consistent with the aforementioned studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first mechanism posits that the reduction in zooplankton by bighead carp will reduce the growth and survival of bluegill. The second mechanism posits that bighead carp can indirectly facilitate bluegill by shifting zooplankton to vegetated habitats where juvenile bluegill reside (Harrel & Dibble, 2001;Mittelbach & Osenberg, 1993;Shoup, Nannini, & Wahl, 2012). For example, zooplankton will avoid predation by moving vertically or laterally into nearby habitats (Burks et al, 2002;Lauridsen & Lodge, 1996;Moss et al, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The facilitation of the native bluegill sunfish by the invasive bighead carp

Collins¹,

Nelson

DeBoom

et al. 2017

Freshwater Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communities of organisms are shaped by a complex suite of positive and negative species interactions. Ecological phenomena like biological invasions typically evoke notions of negative effects on native communities. Yet, negative effects within specific food‐web components can also have positive feedbacks that manifest elsewhere within the food web. We designed an experiment to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of invasive bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis: Cyprinidae) on planktonic and benthic invertebrates and the growth and survival of juvenile bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus: Centrarchidae). Our experiment indicated that the presence of bighead carp indirectly facilitated bluegill growth and survival. The underlying processes driving predator–predator facilitation stemmed from a combination of indirect interactions occurring through invertebrates in planktonic and vegetated habitats. Individual bluegill consumed more cladocerans and predatory macroinvertebrates in the presence of bighead carp. The presence of bighead carp appears to have indirectly influenced interactions among cladocerans, invertebrate predators, and bluegill. Understanding the cumulative direct and indirect effects of bigheaded carp on aquatic ecosystems requires the documentation of both negative and positive effects. Although one taxon benefitted from the presence of an invader, our findings demonstrate that this response occurred because bigheaded carp caused imbalances within the food web. We urge that future studies consider a priori how positive and negative interspecific interactions shape the structure of food webs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The facilitation of the native bluegill sunfish by the invasive bighead carp

Collins¹,

Nelson

DeBoom

et al. 2017

Freshwater Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although our study was not designed to directly test the mechanisms involved, it is possible that changes in foraging return and/or predation risk were cues that were at least in part responsible for this behavior, as predicted by Shoup et al (2003). When large-bodied zooplankton are abundant in the pelagic zone (Mittelbach 1981;Werner and Hall 1988), or when littoral habitat has complex cover (Gotceitas 1990b;Pothoven et al 1999;Shoup et al 2007Shoup et al , 2012, Bluegills typically experience greater returns by foraging in the pelagic zone, but are often confined to vegetation during daylight hours by predation risk (Mittelbach 1981;Werner et al 1983;Gotceitas and Colgan 1987). We observed nocturnal acoustic returns consistent with large vertically migrating (Lampert 1989;Dodson 1990) zooplankton species (i.e., −64 -−60 dB; Echmann 1998; Jones and Xie 1994; Knudsen et al 2006), and sampling zooplankton on two dates (N = 4 for each time of day) validated these targets as primarily Chaoborus and calanoid copepods (D. E. Shoup, unpublished data).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diel Littoral–Pelagic Movements by Juvenile Bluegills in a Small Lake

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diel littoral-pelagic migrations by juvenile fish have been suggested as a mechanism that optimizes the trade-off between predation risk and foraging return in open-water habitats. However, previous study designs have not been able to conclusively demonstrate this behavior in the field. We applied a horizontally oriented hydroacoustic transducer, set at the open-water edge of littoral vegetation, to observe diel fish behavior during two summers in Ridge Lake, Illinois, where the fish community is dominated by Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides and Bluegills Lepomis macrochirus. Based on acoustically tracked targets, most juvenile fish moved away from vegetated habitat at night and towards vegetation during the day. A greater number of predator-sized fish were observed in the open water during the day than at night and weak acoustic targets, most likely zooplankton, were more abundant in the open-water habitat at night. Therefore, it is likely that the reduced predator abundance and/or activity combined with potentially greater food availability in the open-water habitat prompted an offshore migration at night that was reversed after sunrise. Diel horizontal migration patterns could affect the timing and location of interspecific interactions in systems where they occur and further research is needed to determine whether diel migrations alter ecosystem function.Many fishes change habitats in response to changes in their environment (see reviews by

show abstract

“…; Shoup et al. ; Stahr and Shoup , ) and may also lead to changes in diet if certain prey types require more energy to capture in certain environments (Mittelbach ), ultimately resulting in habitat‐specific differences in diet (Schramm and Zale ; Dibble and Harrel ). Thus, prey selection in a given type of habitat will likely be a function of the way habitat complexity alters predator and prey behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optimal foraging theory predicts that organisms will forage in a way that maximizes their net energy gain (MacArthur and Pianka 1966). Habitat complexity affects foraging rates and growth in many species of fish (Bettoli et al 1992;Dibble and Harrel 1997;Miranda and Pugh 1997;Olson et al 1998;Reid et al 1999;Shoup et al 2012;Shoup 2015, 2016) and may also lead to changes in diet if certain prey types require more energy to capture in certain environments (Mittelbach 1981), ultimately resulting in habitat-specific differences in diet (Schramm and Zale 1985;Dibble and Harrel 1997). Thus, prey selection in a given type of habitat will likely be a function of the way habitat complexity alters predator and prey behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Vegetation Density on the Ontogeny to Piscivory of Juvenile Largemouth Bass

Shoup

Broderius

2018

N American J Fish Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First‐year overwinter survival is a frequent bottleneck to the recruitment of Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides. Early ontogeny to piscivory provides increased overwinter survival through increased growth and the accumulation of lipids. This ontogeny is thought to be slowed by dense and complex vegetative habitats, but this hypothesis has not been directly tested. To address this question, we conducted enclosure experiments for 5 weeks during the typical time that juvenile Largemouth Bass would transition to piscivory (i.e., midsummer). Thirty‐two enclosures were constructed across two 0.10‐ha ponds and given one of four stem densities of simulated vegetation (0, 50, 250, and 500 stems/m2). Three juvenile Largemouth Bass and 30 juvenile Bluegills Lepomis macrochirus were added to each enclosure. All fish were sampled twice per week. Largemouth Bass growth was measured on all sample dates, and stomach samples were collected to determine diets on one date each week. Bluegill sizes and densities were manipulated to maintain the number of fish at 30 fish that were 25–35% of Largemouth Bass TL after each sampling event. Largemouth Bass stomach contents (percent by weight) were initially dominated by insects, and the bass transitioned to mostly fish prey by the end of the experiment. The use of fish prey, as measured by the presence of surviving Bluegills in the enclosures, significantly increased at the beginning of the second week at all stem densities, but fewer fish prey were eaten by bass in the 250‐stems/m2 treatment than in all other treatments throughout the experiment. Largemouth Bass also grew less in the 250‐stems/m2 treatment. We concluded that vegetation density does affect the foraging rate of piscivorous juvenile Largemouth Bass, but not necessarily the timing of the ontogeny to piscivory. However, differing results between this experiment and other previously published studies suggests vegetation may have an interactive effect with available prey types.

show abstract

The effect of vegetation density on juvenile bluegill diet and growth

Cited by 10 publications

References 56 publications

The facilitation of the native bluegill sunfish by the invasive bighead carp

The facilitation of the native bluegill sunfish by the invasive bighead carp

Diel Littoral–Pelagic Movements by Juvenile Bluegills in a Small Lake

Effects of Vegetation Density on the Ontogeny to Piscivory of Juvenile Largemouth Bass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About