Foraging behaviour and invasiveness: do invasive Gambusia exhibit higher feeding rates and broader diets than their noninvasive relatives?
Abstract
– Serious impacts by nonindigenous species often occur via predation. The magnitude of impact is expected to be closely tied to the invading species niche breadth. For predatory impacts, diet breadth should be particularly important. We examined the relationship between a species foraging behaviour and its invasiveness and impact by comparing the feeding behaviour of four Gambusia species, two invasive and of high impact and two noninvasive. Individual feeding rates, feeding preferences, and diet breadths were tested across three prey items in a sequence of four laboratory feeding trials. Invasive Gambusia consistently fed at higher rates, but no species differences were found in feeding preferences or diet breadth. All Gambusia preferred Daphnia, avoided Lirceus, and consumed Drosophila in proportion to their availability. Female size affected most feeding variables. Larger fish consumed more prey per unit time and were able to incorporate larger prey items into their diets, thus increasing diet breadth.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Such predation strategies likely aid invasive species during establishment in novel environments where the food base may differ from the species' natural range, providing an abundance of diverse potential prey resources that would only rarely be limiting.
“Such predation strategies likely aid invasive species during establishment in novel environments where the food base may differ from the species' natural range (Grabowska & Grabowski 2005, Pine et al. 2005), providing an abundance of diverse potential prey resources that would only rarely be limiting (Grabowska & Grabowski 2005, Rehage et al. 2005).”
From Diet of invasive lionfish on hard bottom reefs of the Southeast USA: insights from stomach contents and stable isotopes (2011) · cites this paper as Rehage et al. 2005
Cites
On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment
MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282454 · Cited by 4,593 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Muñoz, R., Currin, C., & Whitfield, P. (2011) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps09154 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rehage, J. S., Barnett, B. K., & Sih, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Kentucky (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Venue
- Ecology of Freshwater Fish
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-07-28
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 352-360
- ISSN
- 0906-6691 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0633
- OpenAlex
- W2080774354
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ecology Of Freshwater Fish (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Division of Environmental Biology
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Ecology and Invasive Species
- Keywords
- Gambusia, invasive species, foraging behavior, feeding rate, diet breadth, feeding preference, predation, introduced species, Daphnia, Drosophila, female body size, prey size, freshwater fish
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review