Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:14:38.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A predator-prey size relationship for Plaice larvae feeding on Oikopleura

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

J. E. Shelbourne
J. E. Shelbourne
Affiliation:
Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Pelagic plaice larvae in the southern North Sea normally feed exclusively on the appendicularian Oikopleura dioica, and the size of prey eaten can be estimated from the Oikopleura faecal pellets found in the larval gut

Predator-prey size measurements show that smaller plaice larvae are restricted to smaller prey, and that, as larval growth proceeds, so their feeding versatility increases, to include all sizes of Oikopleura at a late pelagic stage of development. Competition for food will therefore be keenest in the early larval stages, when prey-size restriction prevails. This accords with Hjort's hypothesis regarding brood strengths.

As growth proceeds, so plaice larvae begin to discriminate for prey size. At the close of the pelagic phase, the degree of size selection is roughly equal to that of a 6o-mesh to i in. plankton net.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 1962 , pp. 243 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, K. R., 1935. The food and migration of the perch (Percafluviatilis) in Winder-mere. J. Anitn. Ecol., Vol. 4, pp. 264–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, W. E., 1954. The food of pike, Esox lucius L., in Windermere. J. Anim. Ecol., Vol. 23, pp. 339–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjort, J., 1914. Fluctuations in the great fisheries of northern Europe viewed in the light of biological research. Rapp. Cons. Explor. Mer, Vol. 20, 288 pp.Google Scholar
Hjort, J., 1926. Fluctuations in the year classes of important food fishes. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynes, H. B. N., 1950. The food of fresh-water sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus and Pygosteus pungitius), with a review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes. J. Anim. Ecol., Vol. 19, pp. 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, H. M., 1898. The post-larval stages of the plaice, dab, flounder, long rough dab and lemon dab. 16th Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scotland, 1897, Part 3, pp. 225–47.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V., 1919. The food of post-larval fish. II. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, E. Steemann, 1958. The balance between phytoplankton and zooplankton in the sea. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 23, pp. 178–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville, A., 1958. Mesh selection in plankton nets. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 23, pp. 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A., 1922. On the food of young plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). J. mar. biol.Ass. U.K., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 678–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelbourne, J. E., 1953. The feeding habits of plaice post-larvae in the Southern Bight. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 32, pp. 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelbourne, J. E.,1957. The feeding and condition of plaice larvae in good and bad plankton patches. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 36, pp. 539–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar