OSU Navigation Bar

The Ohio State University University Libraries Knowledge Bank

The Knowledge Bank is scheduled for regular maintenance on Sunday, April 20th, 8:00 am to 12:00 pm EDT. During this time users will not be able to register, login, or submit content.

Gape-dependent Larval Foraging and Zooplankton Size: Implications for Fish Recruitment across Systems

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/36700

Show full item record

Files Size Format View Description
20071201-AEL-Br ... i_v51_n4_1994_p913-922.pdf 390.8Kb PDF View/Open

Title: Gape-dependent Larval Foraging and Zooplankton Size: Implications for Fish Recruitment across Systems
Creators: Bremigan, Mary T.; Stein, Roy A.
Keywords: larval bluegill
gizzard shad
larval gape
fish recruitment
Issue Date: 1994
Citation: Bremigan, Mary T.; Stein, Roy A. "Gape-dependent Larval Foraging and Zooplankton Size: Implications for Fish Recruitment across Systems," Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 51, no. 4, 1994, pp. 913-922.
Abstract: Small gape of zooplanktivorous larval fish limits their prey size; yet, within constraints set by gape, zooplankton size eaten influences larval growth and ultimately survival. To determine if optimal zooplankton size varied among fish species with different gapes, we conducted foraging trials with larval bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus, 10-26 mm TL) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum, 18-31 mm TL). Larvae (n = 10) fed for 1 h on zooplankton assemblages that varied in size, after which all larvae and remaining zooplankton were preserved. Larval gape was measured; both larval gut contents and available zooplankton were quantified. Bluegill, the large-gaped species, fed on larger zooplankton than did gizzard shad with similar gapes. Further, larger bluegill fed on progressively larger zooplankton whereas all gizzard shad ate small prey (<0.60 mm). As available zooplankton size increased, bluegill prey size increased whereas gizzard shad consistently selected small prey. Therefore, differences in zooplankton size among lakes could differentially affect foraging success of larval fishes. In particular, systems with small zooplankton may represent ideal foraging environments for gizzard shad whereas lakes with large zooplankton may favor larval bluegill. If differential larval foraging translates to differential growth and survival, zooplankton size could influence recruitment success and ultimately fish community composition.
Description: Abstract in English and French
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/36700
Bookmark and Share