The influence of prey size, sediment thickness and fish size on consumption in common sole (Solea solea L.)

Abstract

SummaryThis study determined prey consumption in common sole as a function of prey size (0-0.5, 1-1.5, 2-2.5 and 4-5 g), sediment thickness (20 cm and 2 cm) and fish size (50 g, 125 g or 300 g). Prey consumption (in numbers of prey eaten per fish per day) was reduced with increasing prey size and sediment thickness, and was increased with increasing fish size (p < .001 for all factors). All 3 factors showed significant two way interactions (p < .001) when expressed in numbers of prey eaten. Prey consumption decreased with prey size when prey could not escape by burying (2 cm of sediment thickness) irrespective of fish size. We suggest that increasing effort to ingest and handle larger prey played a role. Prey consumption increased with fish size when prey could not bury (2 cm of sediment thickness). However, when prey was able to bury (at 20 cm sediment thickness) prey consumption was similar irrespective of fish size (p < .001 for interaction fish size × sediment). This interaction suggests that with increasing fish size there is an increasing mismatch between foraging adaptation and prey burial depth. This may explain the dominance of crustaceans in the diet of adult common sole in nature, despite the high abundance of polychaetes.

Low turbidity in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) reduces feeding behavior and increases stress-related physiological parameters in pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) during grow-out

“…In a natural environment, however, there are multiple other factors that control feed intake. These factors are prey (or feed item) size, shape and smell of prey (or feed item), abundance and distribution of prey, predatory avoidance, and habitat complexity ( Holling, 1965 ; Werner, 1974 ; Bence and Murdoch, 1986 ; Chesson, 1989 ; Ebersole and Kennedy, 1995 ; Zwarts et al, 1996 ; Mattila, 1997 ; Mattila and Bonsdorff, 1998 ; Nilsson and Brönmark, 2000 ; Cogni et al, 2002 ; Gawlik, 2002 ; Brown, 2003 ; Smallegange and Van Der Meer, 2003 ; Aljetlawi et al, 2004 ; Barata et al, 2009 ; Sun et al, 2010 ; Fossette et al, 2012 ; Ende et al, 2018a , 2018b ).…”

Evaluating the rainwater killifish (Lucania parva) as an indicator of Everglades restoration

“…Warren 1996), and how predator-prey body size ratios affect trophic interactions, which is likely taxon dependent (Emmerson & Raffaelli 2004). A large part of the predator-prey relationship is vulnerability of prey, and a major factor influencing vulnerability of prey is prey size (Ende et al 2018 and references therein). If environmental attributes are related to L. parva body size, changes to those attributes may have effects on the food web that would likely go beyond those imparted by limitations on density of prey.…”

Marmara Denizi'nde Solea solea' nın (Linnaeus, 1758) Yaş, Büyüme ve Üreme Özellikleri

“…The scientific knowledge on the common sole has been published in various aspects. The feeding ecology and diet (Molinero and Flos;Cabral, 2000;Ende et al, 2018), the early life ecology (Le Pape et al, 2007;Parma et al, 2013;Di Pane et al, 2020); culture potential (Imsland et al, 2003;Avella et al, 2011); genetic (Ferraresso et al, 2016;Deconinck et al, 2020) and physiology (Davoodi and Claireaux 2007;Frapiccini et al, 2018) of the common sole have been studied by several authors. The previous studies have been centered on the length-weight relationship of common sole (Djbali et al, 1993;Deniel, 1990;Ramos, 1982;Girardin et al, 1986;Costa, 1990;Vianet et al, 1989;Jennings et al, 1998;Campillo, 1992;De Veen, 1976;Koutrakis and Tsikliras, 2003;Vianet et al, 1989;Duncker, 1923;Dorel, 1986;Deniel, 1984;Coull et al, 1989;Demirel and Dalkara, 2012;Hoşsucu et al,1992;Özaydın et al, 2007;Kınacıgil et al, 2008;Gökçe et al, 2010;Türkmen, 2003;Bök et al, 2011).…”