Contrasting patterns of resource utilization between juvenile estuarine predators: the influence of relative prey size and foraging ability on the ontogeny of piscivory
Abstract
In aquatic systems, ontogenetic patterns of resource utilization strongly influence growth and survival, particularly during early life stages. We compared prey resource use and evaluated potential factors affecting the timing of the shift to piscivorous feeding in two juvenile estuarine fish predators: striped bass ( Morone saxatilis ) and bluefish ( Pomatomus saltatrix ). In New York Bight estuaries, bluefish shift to piscivory earlier in ontogeny and consume larger relative prey fish sizes compared with striped bass. Predator gape allometries are similar and did not determine maximum prey sizes eaten. Experimental results revealed marked differences in foraging abilities between predators, with bluefish realizing much greater foraging efficiency compared with striped bass feeding on identical fish prey. Both predators demonstrated lower feeding efficiency and grew relatively poorly when feeding on invertebrates compared with fish prey. When held together under limited prey conditions, bluefish exploited a greater proportion of available prey at the expense of striped bass. Our findings highlight the importance of the availability of appropriately sized forage fishes to the ontogeny of piscivory and provide evidence that predator–prey size relationships and disparate foraging abilities can generate inter- and intra-specific variation in patterns of resource utilization and predator growth.
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 an ontogenetic shift is a general pattern for numerous piscivores and can result in increased growth rates following the shift.
“Such an ontogenetic shift is a general pattern for numerous piscivores and can result in increased growth rates following the shift (Reñones et al. 2002, Scharf et al. 2009).”
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 Scharf et al. 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Scharf, F. S., Buckel, J. A., & Juanes, F.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 790-801
- ISSN
- 0706-652X (ISSN-L)
- 1205-7533
- OpenAlex
- W2104633616
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
- Hudson River Foundation
- Northeast Fisheries Science Center
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ichthyology and Marine Biology
- Keywords
- Morone saxatilis, bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, foraging efficiency, predator-prey size relationship, resource utilization (natural resources), feed efficiency, interspecific competition
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