» Articles » PMID: 17713786

Behavioral and Energetic Costs of Group Membership in a Coral Reef Fish

Overview
Journal Oecologia
Date 2007 Aug 24
PMID 17713786
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Animals in social aggregations often spend more time foraging than solitary conspecifics. This may be a product of the relative safety afforded by aggregations: group members can devote more time to foraging and less time to antipredator behaviors than solitary animals (the "risk reduction" effect). All else being equal, risk reduction should result in higher food intake for grouped animals. However, intragroup competition may force group members to spend more time foraging in order to obtain the same food ration as solitary individuals (the "resource competition" effect). We compared these opposing explanations of foraging time allocation in a coral reef fish, bluehead wrasse (Thalassoma bifasciatum). Aggregations of juvenile bluehead wrasse experience safety-in-numbers, and preliminary observations suggested that juveniles in aggregations spent more time foraging for copepods in the water column than solitary juveniles. However, the risk reduction and resource competition hypotheses are indistinguishable on the basis of behavioral observations alone. Therefore, we collected behavioral, dietary, and growth data (using otolith growth rings) for bluehead wrasse at multiple reefs around a Caribbean island. Despite spending more time foraging in the water column, grouped fish did not capture more prey items and had slower growth rates than solitary fish. Thus, the increased foraging time of grouped fish appears to reflect resource competition, not risk reduction. This competition may limit the size and frequency of aggregations among juvenile bluehead wrasse, which have been shown to experience reduced mortality rates in larger groups. Bluehead wrasse recruits also spent less time foraging but grew faster at sites where planktonic copepod prey were more abundant. This suggests the possibility that large-scale spatiotemporal variability in the abundance of planktonic copepods over coral reefs may produce corresponding variability in the dynamics of reef fish populations.

Citing Articles

Decadal shifts in traits of reef fish communities in marine reserves.

Hadj-Hammou J, McClanahan T, Graham N Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):23470.

PMID: 34873242 PMC: 8648868. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03038-9.


Risk-sensitive foraging does not explain condition-dependent choices in settling reef fish larvae.

Bogdan E, Dingeldein A, Bertrand D, White W PeerJ. 2020; 8:e8333.

PMID: 31976178 PMC: 6964687. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8333.


The nose knows: linking sensory cue use, settlement decisions, and post-settlement survival in a temperate reef fish.

Fobert E, Swearer S Oecologia. 2017; 183(4):1041-1051.

PMID: 28233054 DOI: 10.1007/s00442-017-3843-2.


Symbiotic relationships of coral fish influence their infection by macroparasites.

Zhokhov A, Mikheev V Dokl Biol Sci. 2015; 462:134-7.

PMID: 26164333 DOI: 10.1134/S0012496615030072.


The role of parasites in symbiotic associations of coral fish.

Mikheev V, Zykova A Dokl Biol Sci. 2011; 440:324-7.

PMID: 22134823 DOI: 10.1134/S0012496611050164.

References
1.
Courchamp , Grenfell . Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999; 14(10):405-410. DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01683-3. View

2.
Werner E, Anholt B . Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am Nat. 2009; 142(2):242-72. DOI: 10.1086/285537. View

3.
Booth D, Beretta G . Influence of recruit condition on food competition and predation risk in a coral reef fish. Oecologia. 2004; 140(2):289-94. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1608-1. View

4.
White J . Spatially correlated recruitment of a marine predator and its prey shapes the large-scale pattern of density-dependent prey mortality. Ecol Lett. 2007; 10(11):1054-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01098.x. View

5.
Beauchamp G . Group-size effects on vigilance: a search for mechanisms. Behav Processes. 2003; 63(3):111-121. DOI: 10.1016/s0376-6357(03)00002-0. View