EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,214,146
Abstracts:
29,074,682
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Selection between densities of artificial vegetation by young bluegills avoiding predation


Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(1): 40-49
Selection between densities of artificial vegetation by young bluegills avoiding predation
Young (35-50 mm, standard length) bluegills Lepomis macrochirus are restricted to vegetated habitats by predation pressure. Vegetation provides refuge by hindering predator foraging success. In this study, we tested the ability of bluegills to actively perceive and select densities of vegetation where they are "safe" from predation. Bluegills were presented with two plots of artificial vegetation (cover plots) of different densities (1,000, 250, 100, and 50 stems/m2) in an experimental arena and then confronted with a predator, a largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Prey distribution in the arena before, during, and after exposure to the predator, as well as the predator's foraging activities, were recorded for each trial. Before predator introduction, bluegills in all combinations of cover plots spent most of their time in or around the thicker plot of vegetation in the arena. With the predator present in combinations with cover plot 1,000, prey chose this plot as a refuge when attacked. Cover plot 250 was selected as often as positions at the water-air interface, and plots 100 and 50 were ignored as refuges. After removal of the predator, only in combinations with cover plot 1,000 did prey remain around the thicker cover plot present. Predator success (number of prey caught/total number of attacks) was lowest in trials with cover plot 1,000 present. When confronted with a predator, young bluegills appear capable of perceiving and selecting plots of vegetation offering safety from predation.

(PDF same-day service: $19.90)

Accession: 006380322

DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659(1987)116<40:sbdoav>2.0.co;2



Related references

Effects of stem density of artificial vegetation on abundance and growth of age-0 bluegills and predation by largemouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125(3): 422-433, 1996

Selection between densities of vegetation by juvenile bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): effects of foraging success and predation pressure. Dissertation Abstracts International B Sciences and Engineering, 488: 2181, 1988

Predator-prey interactions between largemouth bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated, submersed vegetation Freshwater fishes, feeding habits, predation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111(3): 255-266, 1982

The effects of artificial predation on the behavior and population densities of pogonomyrmex badius. ASB Bulletin 14(2): 29, 1967

Corvid (Corvidae) densities and predation on artificial nests in relation to landscape structure. Gibier Faune Sauvage 15(2): 151-165, 1998

High water roost selection by waders: maximizing feeding opportunities or avoiding predation?. Ibis 148(1): 88-97, 2006

Corvid Corvidae densities and predation on artificial nests in relation to landscape structure Densite de corvides Corvidae et predation de nids artificiels en relation avec la structure du paysage. Gibier Faune Sauvage. Juin; 152: 151-166, 1998

Microhabitat selection by marine mesoconsumers in a thermally heterogeneous habitat: behavioral thermoregulation or avoiding predation risk?. Plos One 8(4): E61907-E61907, 2013

The effect of vegetation structure on predation of artificial Greater Sage-Grouse nests. Ecoscience 9(3): 314-319, 2002

Effects of spatial scale and vegetation cover on predation of artificial ground nests. Wildlife Biology 1(2): 73-80, 1995