Skip to main content
Log in

Bluegill growth as modified by plant density: an exploration of underlying mechanisms

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochira) growth varies inconsistently with plant density. In laboratory and field experiments, we explored mechanisms underlying bluegill growth as a function of plant and invertebrate density. In the laboratory, bluegills captured more chironomids (Chironomus riparius) than damselflies (Enallagma spp. and Ischnura spp.), but energy intake per time spent searching did not differ between damselfly and chironomid treatments. From laboratory data, we described prey encounter rates as functions of plant and invertebrate density. In Clark Lake, Ohio, we created 0.05-ha mesocosms of inshore vegetation to generate macrophyte densities of 125, 270, and 385 stems/m2 of Potamogeton and Ceratophyllum and added 46-mm bluegill (1/m2). In these mesocosms, invertebrate density increased as a function of macrophyte density. Combining this function with encounter rate functions derived from laboratory data, we predicted that bluegill growth should peak at a high macrophyte density, greater than 1000 stems/m2, even though growth should change only slightly beyond 100 stems/m2. Consistent with our predictions, bluegills did not grow differentially, nor did their use of different prey taxa differ, across macrophyte densities in the field. Bluegills preferred chironomid pupae, which were relatively few in numbers but vulnerable to predation, whereas more cryptic, chironomid larvae, which were associated with vegetation but were relatively abundant, were eaten as encountered. Bluegills avoided physid snails, which were abundant. Contrary to previous work, vegetation did not influence growth or diet of bluegill beyond relatively low densities owing to the interaction between capture probabilities and macroinvertebrate densities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambrose RF (1984) Food preferences, prey availability, and the diet of Octopus bimaculatus Verrill. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 77:29–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson O (1984) The role of fish predation and spatial heterogeneity in determining benthic community structure. Ecology 65:455–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett BS, Schneider RW (1974) Fish populations in dense submersed plant communities. Hyacinth Control J 12:12–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett GW (1948) The bass-bluegill combination in a small artificial lake. Bull Ill Nat Hist Surv 24:377–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook WL, Streams FA (1984) Fish predation on Notonecta (Hemiptera): relationship between prey risk and habitat utilization. Oecologia 64:177–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope OB, Wood EM, Wallen GH (1970) Some chronic effects of 2,4-D on the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Trans Am Fish Soc 99:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Coull BC, Wells JBJ (1983) Refuges from fish predation: experiments with phytal meiofauna from the New Zealand rocky intertidal. Ecology 64:1599–1609

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowder LB, Cooper WE (1982) Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63:1802–1813

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins KW, Wuycheck JC (1971) Caloric equivalents for investigations in ecological energetics. Int Assoc Theor Appl Limnol Comm 18:1–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassett NC (1980) A manual of aquatic plants. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish PA, Savitz J (1983) Variations in home ranges of largemouth bass, yellow perch, bluegills, and pumpkinseeds in an Illinois Lake. Trans Am Fish Soc 112:147–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Flecker AS, Allan JD (1984) The importance of predation, substrate and spatial refugia in determining lotic insect distributions. Oecologia 64:306–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz ES (1974) Total diet comparison in fishes by Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Copeia 1974:210–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerking SD (1957) A method of sampling the littoral macrofauna and its application. Ecology 38:219–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerrish N, Bristow JM (1979) Macroinvertebrate associations with aquatic macrophytes and artificial substrates. J Great Lakes Res 5:69–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilinsky E (1984) The role of fish predation and spatial heterogeneity in determining benthic community structure. Ecology 65:455–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass NR (1971) Computer analysis of predation energetics in the largemouth bass. In: Patten BC (ed) Systems analysis and simulation ecology, vol 1, Academic Press, New York, pp 325–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotceitas V, Colgan P (1989) Predator foraging success and habitat complexity: quantitative test of the threshold hypothesis. Oecologia 80:158–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1973) Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource partitioning. Ecology 61:65–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd J, Taub S (1973) The effects of the ecological changes on Buckeye Lake, Ohio with emphasis on largemouth bass and aquatic vascular plants. Ohio Biol Surv Biol Notes No 6

  • Marschall EA, Chesson PL, Stein RA (1989) Foraging in a patchy environment: prey-encounter rate and residence time distributions. Anim Behav 37:444–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Minello TJ, Zimmerman RJ (1983) Fish predation on juvenile brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecuus Ives: the effect of simulated Spartina structure on predation rates. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 72:211–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelbach GG (1984) Predation and resource partitioning in two sunfishes (Centrarchidae). Ecology 65:499–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnyak DF, Murnyak MO, Wolgast LJ (1984) Growth of stunted and nonstunted bluegill sunfish in ponds. Prog Fish-Cult 46:133–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver DR (1971) Life history of the Chironomidae. Annu Rev Entomol 16:211–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Regier HA (1962) On the evolution of bass-bluegill stocking policies and management recommendations. Prog Fish-Cult 24:99–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Savino JF, Stein RA (1982) Predator-prey interaction between largemouth bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated, submersed vegetation. Trans Am Fish Soch 111:255–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Savino JF, Stein RA (1989a) Behavioural interactions between fish predators and their prey: effects of plant density. Anim Behav 37:311–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Savino JF, Stein RA (1989b) Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Env Biol Fish 24:287–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Schramm HL, Jirka KJ (1989) Epiphytic macroinvertebrates as a food resource for bluegills in Florida lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 118:416–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinyard GL (1980) Differential prey vulnerability and predator selectivity: effects of evasive prey on bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus) predation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:2294–2299

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Mittelbach GG, Hall DJ, Gilliam JF (1983a) Experimental tests of optimal habitat use in fish: the role of relative habitat profitability. Ecology 64:1525–1539

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittelbach GG (1983b) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley JJ, Gorden RW, Waite SW, Powless T (1984) The relationship between aquatic macrophytes and sport fish production in Illinois ponds: a simple model. N Am J Fish Man 4:111–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Windell JT (1967) Rates of digestion in fishes. In: Gerking SD (ed) The biological basis of freshwater fish production. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 151–173

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The unit is sponsored jointly by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, and The Wildlife Management Institute

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Savino, J.F., Marschall, E.A. & Stein, R.A. Bluegill growth as modified by plant density: an exploration of underlying mechanisms. Oecologia 89, 153–160 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317212

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317212

Key words

Navigation