Abstract

AbstractCover, both from physical structure or association with social groups, can reduce predation risk and increase foraging, leading to enhanced growth and survival, and is therefore a critical aspect of the niche for many organisms. However, the need for cover, or the need for a specific type of cover, may change as an individual grows in size, leading to niche shifts throughout development to meet these changing needs. In this study, we examine ontogenetic shifts in cover use by wild populations of a temperate reef fish, the southern hulafish, Trachinops caudimaculatus, a small, abundant planktivorous social aggregator found on temperate reefs in southern Australia. Through repeated in situ surveys, we found clear evidence of ontogenetic shifts in both microhabitat use and aggregation patterns by T. caudimaculatus juveniles in the first three months on the reef. The microhabitat associations of juvenile T. caudimaculatus became more similar to those of adult conspecifics over the study period, and over the same time frame, juveniles increasingly aggregated with adult shoals. Our findings also suggest that trade‐offs between structural and social cover are context‐dependent, with juveniles relying on structural cover longer when adult conspecific density (and thus intra‐specific competition) and/or habitat complexity (and thus the availability of shelter) is high. These findings provide rare and important observations into the complex interplay of social aggregations, habitat use, and ontogeny in wild fish populations.

Highlights

  • For many organisms, cover—anything that veils, conceals, shelters, or protects (McElroy et al 2018)—is a critical aspect of the niche, and the availability of appropriate cover can enhance growth and survival (e.g., Birney et al 1976, Caddy 2008, Ktitorov et al 2008)

  • Establishing context Microhabitat availability differed among populations, and a pairwise comparison showed that Point Linley reef had significantly different microhabitat characteristics than Royal Beach reef, and marginally non-significant differences compared to Schnapper Point (Appendix S1: Table S1)

  • Ontogenetic shifts in aggregation patterns The observed temporal changes in microhabitat associations of juvenile T. caudimaculatus in this study coincides with a shift in shoaling strategies, as juveniles increasingly aggregated with adult shoals over the study period

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cover—anything that veils, conceals, shelters, or protects (McElroy et al 2018)—is a critical aspect of the niche, and the availability of appropriate cover can enhance growth and survival (e.g., Birney et al 1976, Caddy 2008, Ktitorov et al 2008). (e.g., vegetation, topography) for cover (e.g., Stamps 1983, Vehanen and Hamari 2004, Pratchett et al 2012). Structural cover can both decrease predation risk, if the cover provides a refuge from predators (Lima and Dill 1990, Tabor and Wurtsbaugh 1991), and/or increase predation risk, if the cover conceals or obstructs the view of an approaching predator or hinders an escape (Savino and Stein 1989, e.g., Lazarus and Symonds 1992). Structural cover that provides refuge from predation can have many benefits for prey organisms; remaining near structural cover can come at a growth and fitness cost, if resources become limited (e.g., Ford et al 2016)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call