3.8 Article

Conditional use of mangrove habitats by fishes: Depth as a cue to avoid predators

Journal

ESTUARIES
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 966-976

Publisher

ESTUARINE RESEARCH FEDERATION
DOI: 10.1007/BF02803423

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Hooded intertidal zone in coastal estuarine systems (e.g., mangroves and salt marshes) is thought to provide nekton with both food and refuge from predators. The primary aim of this study was to identify the relative contribution of root structure, shading, and leaf litter, all characteristic features of mangrove forests, in shaping the intertidal distribution of tidally migrating fishes. We manipulated the structure and shade in 9-m(2) sample plots in a shallow, mangrove-fringed, intertidal embayment in Tampa Bay, Florida. In a separate field experiment, we compared fish association with standing mangrove leaf litter and bare sand substrate. Shade and leaf litter had a water depth-dependent effect on the distribution of the fish; no effect was associated with the presence of mangrove roots. In shallow water (< 45 cm), fish were captured primarily in plots without shade, but this distribution shifted progressively with increasing water depth, so that when water was greater than 55 cm most fish were captured in shaded plots. Fish were more frequently associated with, and feeding in, plots covered in leaf titter than bare sand plots. This relationship did not persist at depths greater than 15 cm because fish abundance declined greatly. Tethering experiments using Cyprinodon variegatus demonstrated that predation pressure was quadratically correlated with water depth (inflexion point approximately 60 cm). Our results suggest that small fishes will abandon well-lighted foraging grounds in favor of the potential refuge of shaded waters as water depth increases. We suggest that studies of intertidal nekton should be carefully interpreted in the context of water depth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available