Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
138
2016 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 15(1):138–152
Seasonal Specialization and Selectivity of the Eastern
Mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki, toward Planktonic Prey
Joseph M. Dirnberger1,* and Julia Love2
Abstract - Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Mosquitofish) are often characterized as opportunistic
surface feeders. We examined seasonal shifts in prey use, feeding specialization, and
prey electivity to determine whether a feeding bias existed toward small planktonic prey.
We sampled invertebrates (from the water column and from near plant surfaces) and Eastern
Mosquitofish over 4 seasons in a wetland (Cobb County, GA). Gut analysis indicated
seasonal shifts from large to small prey, particularly toward cladocerans, even when larger
prey remained abundant. Small planktonic prey were consumed by all sizes of Eastern Mosquitofish.
Electivities for cladocerans tended to be positive, whereas electivities for other
prey, and especially copepods, were negative. Prey that would be expected to aggregate
at the air–water interface were consumed in much greater proportions than those sampled
elsewhere in the environment, suggesting that Eastern Mosquitofish are able to consume
cladocerans caught in the surface tension.
Introduction
Mosquitofish of the genus Gambusia are often the numerically dominant fish
within shallow, macrophyte-dominated areas (Blanco et al. 2003, Garćia-Berthou
1999, Pyke 2008). Their success as one of the most extensively distributed freshwater
fish genera is likely due to a combination of attributes including rapid
maturation after live birth, multiple broods within a season from stored sperm,
tolerance to a wide variety of physical conditions, and generalist diets (Peck and
Walton 2008, reviewed in Pyke 2005). Dietary habits of Gambusia have been difficult
to characterize. Some studies indicate predation focused on mosquito larvae
(based on reduction in larval density in the presence of mosquitofish; e.g., Hoy et al.
1972, Peck and Walton 2008) and on other macroinvertebrates (e.g., Oliver 1991,
Specziár 2004). Though mosquitofish are reported to feed on insects at the water
surface (Pyke 2005) using a dorsally oriented mouth situated on a flattened head,
several studies note predation on microcrustaceans and rotifers (e.g., Blanco et al.
2003, Gkenas et al. 2012, Mieiro et al. 2001) that typically are an order of magnitude
smaller in length and are often planktonic (e.g., Lair et al. 1996, Pennak 1966).
Some evidence suggests that despite a morphology adapted for surface feeding,
mosquitofish can be effective planktivores. Experimental pond and enclosure
studies suggest that mosquitofish can alter zooplankton assemblages, tending
to reduce abundances of cladocerans relative to other taxa (Blanco et al. 2003,
Hurlbert and Mulla 1981, Ning et al. 2010, Peck and Walton 2008). However, it
1Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Kennesaw State University,
Kennesaw, GA 30144. 2Department of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Boise,
ID 83725. *Corresponding author – jdirnber@kennesaw.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Nathan Dorn
Southeastern Naturalist
139
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
is unclear the degree to which such changes are the result of direct consumption
of planktonic taxa or indirect effects such as shifts in abundance of invertebrate
predators and competitors, and alteration of food resources (Hurlbert and Mulla
1981, Ning et al. 2010, Peck and Walton 2008). Reduction in abundance (Gliwicz
and Rykowska 1992, Jakobsen and Johnsen 1987, Lair et al. 1996, Taleb et
al. 1994), body size (Gliwicz and Rykowska 1992, Hall et al.1979, Werner and
Hall 1988), and clutch size (Gliwicz and Rykowska 1992) of zooplankton in littoral
areas compared to open water have been attributed to several other fish that
are common among macrophytes, like Rutilus rutilus (L.) (Common Roach) or
Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque (Bluegill Sunfish). These fish possess morphologies
including forward-oriented mouths that are characteristic of fishes that feed
away from the water surface (Keast and Webb 1966). For example, the success of
Bluegills as planktivores is attributed to strong suction created by the structure
of a protrusible premaxilla (Stabb et al. 2012). In mosquitofish, the protrusible
premaxilla is dexterous so that mouth position can be altered to allow feeding on
prey in front and below as well as at the surface, though this morphology comes
at a cost of decreased strike velocity (Ferry-Graham et al. 2008) that would likely
diminish the success of planktivory.
In this study, we documented seasonal changes in abundance of invertebrates
and in gut content of Gambusia holbrooki Girard (Eastern Mosquitofish) in situ in
a small wetland. We examined shifts in prey use, feeding specialization, and prey
electivity. We evaluated whether a feeding bias toward smaller-bodied prey that
inhabit the water column exists for a predator that is well-suited for feeding at the
surface and is capable of taking much lar ger prey.
Field Site Description
The study was conducted in a wetland (1.5 ha) formed by Castor canadensis
Kuhl (American Beaver) impounding the upstream section of the Ragsdale Creek
embayment on Lake Acworth, Cobb County, GA (34°02'57"N, 84°41'11"W). The
rooted floating aquatic fern Marsilea mutica Mett. (Australian Water Clover) and
emergent macrophyte Typha latifolia L. (Broadleaf Cattail) dominated shallow (less than 1
m) areas near shore, and surrounded a 25 m x 30 m patch of open water with an
unvegetated silt bottom.
Lake Acworth lies within the Etowah River watershed, part of the Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa drainage basin, placing the study site near known introgression
zones for G. affinis (Baird and Girard) (Western Mosquitofish) and Eastern Mosquitofish
(Angus and Howell 1996, Walters and Freeman 2000). At our site, no Western
Mosquitofish were found, nor any evidence of hybridization based on fin-ray count
criteria used by Angus and Howell (1996) (n = 20 individuals).
Methods
We sampled potential prey from the water column and plant surfaces using 2
independent methods. Because most devices for sampling invertebrates within
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
140
vegetated areas are likely to capture both truly planktonic organisms as well as
those closely associated with macrophyte surfaces (e.g., tow nets and tube samplers
that come in contact with macrophytes; McGavigan 2012; Paggi et al. 2001; Pennak
1962, 1966), we used funnel traps to sample invertebrates that occur in the water
column for all or part of the diel cycle. Funnel traps were placed >5 cm away from
macrophyte surfaces and from the bottom. Taxa caught in traps and that are small
enough to be susceptible to transport by currents are by definition planktonic. Funnel
traps consisted of clear plastic funnels (large opening = 79 cm2, small opening
2.0 = cm2) attached to the opening of wide-mouth transparent jars (modified from
Whiteside and Williams 1975). At each location, we oriented 1 trap upward and 1
downward to capture plankton moving vertically. We suspended funnel traps by tripods
at 3 locations near the shore within Australian Water Clover-dominated beds
at mid-depth (0.2–0.4 m), and also from floats at 3 open-water locations at middepth
(0.5–1.0 m), ~2 m from macrophyte beds. At the end of the 24-h sampling
period, we filtered trap contents through 80-μm mesh and preserved retained organisms
in 70% ethanol for identification and enumeration in the lab. We calculated
abundance for each taxon in the water column as the mean number of individuals
from all 12 traps (3 replicates for 2 orientations at 2 locatio ns).
We quantified invertebrates on or near macrophyte surfaces using clear 2-liter
plastic bags (11 cm diameter). While bags may also have collected individuals from
the water column in addition to those near plant surfaces, individuals that stay on or
near macrophytes would not be collected by traps placed away from macrophytes.
Each bag was submerged sideways within 2 cm adjacent to clusters of Australian
Water Clover, and rapidly pulled over plants down to the base of the plant. We
severed macrophyte stems near the base and closed the bag (Campbell et al. 1982,
Quade 1969). We collected 3 bag samples during each sample period, except in
September 2013 when Australian Water Clover was absent in the study area. We
shook bags to dislodge organisms from plant surfaces, then poured the water and
suspended organisms onto an 80-μm–mesh filter and preserved the retained organisms
in 70% ethanol for identification and enumeration in the la b.
During each sample period, we used dip nets to sample Eastern Mosquitofish at
multiple locations among macrophytes in the same general areas as where we collected
bag and trap samples. For gut analyses, we selected 11 Eastern Mosquitofish
that represented the broadest range of body lengths observed on each date (range ≥
11.5 mm on each date, mean length for each date varied from 23.7 mm in January to
33.1 mm in May). Due to difficulty in determining the sex of juveniles in the field,
we did not use sex as a criterion when selecting fish, but adult males made up 25%
of all individuals sampled. Open-water areas were not sampled because a seining
and electroshocking assessment as well as visual observations indicated that Eastern
Mosquitofish were extremely rare in open water. In the laboratory, we measured
total length of fish using a Vernier caliper. We dissected the entire intestinal tract
from the collected Eastern Mosquitofish, preserved them in 70% ethanol, and examined
the contents under a compound microscope at 100x. The post-abdomen of
cladocerans tended not to be digested, thereby allowing identification to genus and
Southeastern Naturalist
141
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
species for most cladoceran prey. Using an ocular micrometer, we measured total
body length for 10 intact individuals per prey taxon (or however many available if
less than 10). We calculated the mean length of all prey in each mosquitofish gut weighted
by the abundance of each prey taxon.
Every 6–8 weeks during 2013, we collected invertebrates by funnel traps set out
over 24 h and retrieved in late afternoon. We also collected invertebrates near macrophyte
surfaces and sampled Eastern Mosquitofish in late afternoon. In September
2012, we captured Eastern Mosquitofish 5 times over 24 h (0900 h, 1700 h, 2100 h,
0600 h, and 0900 h) to determine the sampling time when guts would be most full.
Mosquitofish guts had the highest number of prey at 1700 h, and were empty after
the 9-h sampling interval that preceded day break (data not shown), supporting
findings from other studies that Gambusia feed primarily during daylight hours
(Oliver 1991, Pyke 2005). Gut contents of Eastern Mosquitofish sampled in late
afternoon and early evening in September 2012 were used for comparisons with
other sampling dates.
We used a graphical analysis of feeding strategy to assess degree of feeding specialization
by plotting prey-specific abundance against frequency of occurrence
(Amundsen et al. 1996). Prey-specific abundance was calculated as all individuals
of a given prey taxon found in the guts on a given date divided by all individuals of
all prey taxa found in the guts of those Eastern Mosquitofish that consumed that prey
taxon, and expressed as a percentage (plotted along the vertica l axis). Frequency of
occurrence was figured as the proportion of individual Eastern Mosquitofish that
have consumed that prey taxon (plotted along the horizontal axis). According to
Amundsen et al. (1996), greater “specialization” is indicated for prey taxa located
toward the top of this 2-dimensional representation. Prey-specific abundance multiplied
by frequency of occurrence yields the percentage that a given prey type makes
up of all prey taken by all Eastern Mosquitofish sampled on a given date.
We also wanted to determine whether particular types of prey were selectively
targeted or avoided on different dates. Ivlev’s electivity index (E) was used to compare
consumption of a prey category (r) relative to abundance of that prey category
in the environment (p) (Ivlev 1961):
Ei = (ri - pi) / (ri + pi)
The value of pi is the mean number of individuals of prey category i sampled from a
given habitat on a given date divided by the sum of the mean number of individuals
from all prey categories sampled in that habitat on that date. The value of ri is the
mean number of individuals of category i found in all guts on a given date divided
by the sum of the mean number of individuals from all categories found in all guts
on that date. The value of E can range from -1 to 1, with a value of 0 indicating food
is taken in proportion to its abundance and positive and negative values indicating
consumption of a prey category at a greater and lesser proportion, respectively, than
occurs in the environment. We used only those taxa or groupings of taxa that made
up >10% of all individuals from all taxa present in a given habitat on a given date
(i.e., pi ≥ 0.1) for analysis to avoid error in estimating electivity associated with low
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
142
abundance (Lechowicz 1982). So that data for most taxa could be included using
this criterion, we grouped rare taxa into larger prey categories based on size and
on taxonomic similarity where multiple taxa within the same order were identifiable
(number of individuals for all taxa within a category were summed prior to
calculating pi and ri).
The Ivlev’s index was chosen in this study because of its conceptual simplicity
while providing reliable rank-order comparisons within multispecies assemblages
(Lechowicz 1982). An inherent flaw in electivity analyses is that the researcher can
rarely be sure that habitats sampled are representative of the habitats from which
the predator is taking prey. In our study, electivity could be calculated based either
on prey abundance in the water column (trap samples) or near macrophyte surfaces
(bag samples). However, feeding location of individual Eastern Mosquitofish could
not easily be observed directly because the mosquitofish were at times spooked by
observers, waters were turbid, and prey were small. Because a central question in
our study was whether Eastern Mosquitofish have a positive bias toward small prey
that inhabit the water column, we reported electivities for each prey category on
each date only for the habitat in which the category occurred in the greatest abundance
relative to the habitat’s total prey assemblage (pi). This approach provides
the most conservative estimate of positive feeding bias. The electivity calculated
from the habitat where pi is lower relative to the other habitat will always yield a
higher electivity value because electivities based on abundances from either habitat
are calculated from the same value of ri. Such calculations based on the habitat
where relative prey abundance is lower will be an overestimation of electivity if the
predator actually feeds mostly from the habitat where that prey is relatively more
abundant. Because electivity derived from the habitat where prey are relatively less
abundant cannot yield a lesser value, in cases where all habitats sampled yield positive
electivities, bias toward that prey is the most likely explanation based on the
habitats sampled. While interpretation of electivity is limited because of unknowns
associated with feeding location, in instances where electivities are extremely high
in all habitats sampled, the possibility that predators may have taken prey from
habitats not considered in the sampling design must be suspecte d.
Results
We identified 41 taxa within the guts of Eastern Mosquitofish, representing 68%
percent of all taxa found away from surfaces in funnel traps, and 76% of taxa found
near plant surfaces collected by bag (Table 1). During the first autumn (September
2012), Eastern Mosquitofish consumed more dipteran larvae and pupae (of the
orders Chironomidae and Ceratopognidae) than other taxa (Fig. 1A). Relatively
few prey items were consumed in January 2013 (only 2% of prey taken over all
sampling dates), with Ceriodaphnia (81% of large cladocerans consumed) and the
small cladoceran Chydorus sphaericus (hereafter Chydorus) being most frequently
taken. In March and May, Chydorus constituted up to 78% of prey items taken by
all Eastern Mosquitofish on a single date (variation among gut contents was high,
ranging from 17 to 155 Chydorus per gut). In June, total number of prey consumed
Southeastern Naturalist
143
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
was low (only 2% of prey taken over all 8 sampling dates), with terrestrial insects,
rotifers, cyclopoid copepods, and aquatic mites being the most frequent diet items.
Prey composition shifted to dominance by another small cladoceran, Bosmina longirostris
(hereafter Bosmina), making up to 93% of prey items taken in late summer
and September of the second year (ranging from 0 to 402 Bosmina per gut).
Seasonal trends in the 2 small cladocerans, Chydorus and Bosmina, consumed by
Eastern Mosquitofish paralleled changes in their abundance within the water column
over the study period. Chydorus was first abundant near plant surfaces in winter (Fig.
1C), and became more abundant in the water column and in mosquitofish guts during
the spring (Fig. 1A, B). On dates when Bosmina were abundant in the water column,
Bosmina became a dominant part of the diet of Eastern Mosquitofish (e.g., September
2013) (Spearman rank-order correlation of mean Bosmina abundance in the water
column versus gut: rs = 0.97, P = 0.00007, n = 8 sampling dates). In contrast, copepod
nauplii made up the majority (61%) of other smaller taxa in the water column
during the first autumn, but were rarely consumed by Eastern Mosquitofish (mean
Table 1. Total number of all prey taxa found in Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Mosquitofish) guts (total
for all 8 sampling dates, 11 fish per date). Electivity indices were calculated for taxa and categories
with “*” (rarer taxa were grouped into larger categories based on size and taxonomic similarity so
that data for most taxa could be included using the sample-size criterion discussed in the text; values
within parentheses indicate mean length and standard deviation for categories with multiple taxa).
Items listed under “miscellaneous taxa” differed from taxa not included in this category because either
they do not actively move and hence would not be effectively sampled by plankton traps (ephippial
eggs, algae and detritus), or they could not be confidently identified as free-living prey (nematodes
and acanthocephalans).
Taxa # found Taxa # found
Bosmina longirostris (O.F.M.) (0.29 mm)* 799 Dipteran larvae and pupae (4.53 mm + 1.47)*:
Chydorus sphaericus (O.F.M.) (0.29 mm)* 907 Chironomid larva 55
Large cladocerans (0.78 mm ± 0.32)*: Ceratopognid larva 23
Daphnia sp. 2 Ceratopognid pupa 3
Diaphanosoma sp. 1 Dipteran pupa 19
Ceriodaphnia sp. 208 Other large taxa (2.49 mm + 0.97)*:
Eurycercus lamellatus (O.F.M.) 41 Odonata larva 1
Camptocercus sp. 109 Ephemeropteran larva 14
Scapholeberis mucronata (O.F.M.) 222 Trichopteran larva 1
Leydigia quadrangularis (Leydig) 4 Terrestrial insect 70
Simocephalus serrulatus (Koch) 17 Terrestrial spider 1
Alonella sp. 9 Amphipod 12
Alona sp. 5 Coiled snail 2
Sida crystallina (O.F.M.) 54 Oligochaete annelid 11
Unidentified cladoceran 24 Unidentified annelid 1
Cyclopoid copepod (1.03 mm)* 144 Miscellaneous taxa (0.38 mm ± 0.30):
Ostracod (0.50 mm)* 8 Ephippial egg 48
Other small taxa (0.41 mm + 0.36)*: Alga (Closterium sp.) 28
Calanoid copepod 5 Alga (Micrasterias sp.) 1
Harpacticoid copepod 7 Unidentified alga 2
Copepod nauplius 2 Nematode 5
Mite (Arrenurus sp.) 29 Acanthocephalan 11
Rotifer 17 Plant detritus 2
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
144
abundance in the water column versus gut: rs = -0.25, P = 0.547, n = 8 sampling
dates). Dipterans and other large-bodied taxa (80% of which were annelids) were relatively
more abundant near plant surfaces (48% of individuals sampled) than in the
water column (less 1%), showed less seasonality (Fig. 1C), and were not strongly linked
to Eastern Mosquitofish diet. Number of dipterans and other large-bodied individuals
per bag was not correlated with mean number consumed by all Eastern Mosquitofish
(P = 0.645 and 0.638 for dipterans and other large-bodied taxa, respectively, n = 7
sampling dates), nor with mean number consumed by Eastern Mosquitofish larger
than the median size of 29.5 mm (i.e.. those that were more likely to prey on these
larger taxa; P = 0.702 and 0.900 for dipterans and other large-bodied taxa, respectively,
n = 7 sampling dates).
Bias toward small prey was suggested by the tendency of all sizes of Eastern Mosquitofish
to consume small prey. Smaller-bodied specimens tended to take primarily
small prey (less than 1.0 mm), while larger bodied individuals were capable of taking large
prey (>1.0 mm) as well (Fig. 2). Only on 1 date was mean prey length significantly
related to mosquitofish length (linear regression for September 2012, P = 0.013, r2 =
0.512, n = 11). On several dates larger Eastern Mosquitofish consumed mostly small
prey taxa, even though densities of large-bodied prey in the environment (e.g., dipteran
larvae; Fig. 1) were similar to those at other times of year.
Feeding-strategy analyses indicated that when guts contained the largest number
of items (March and September 2013), Bosmina and Chydorus constituted large
Figure 1. (A) Mean number of prey consumed by Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Mosquitofish)
by sampling date (error bars are 1 standard deviation to illustrate variation in prey
taken among fish). (B) Mean invertebrate abundances in the water column by sampling date.
(C) Mean invertebrate abundances near plant surfaces by sampling date. Marsilea mutica
(Australian Water Clover) died off during late summer of 2013 so invertebrates near macrophyte
surfaces could not be sampled by bag in September of that year. Abundance is plotted
on a log-10 scale so that rare prey categories are more easily compared.
Southeastern Naturalist
145
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
portions of prey taken (78% and 84%, respectively) and were taken by most individuals
(Fig. 3). During those times, prey taxa other than Bosmina and Chydorus
tended to constitute smaller portions of prey items in the diet compared to dates
when overall food intake was lowest (January and June 2013; Fig. 3). When food
intake was lower, use of those same taxa (e.g., copepods, mites, and large-bodied
taxa such as chirnomids, oligochaetes, and terrestrial insects) increased such that
diets were more generalized; Eastern Mosquitofish did not show strong specialization
toward any particular prey species (with Ceriodaphnia being the taxon that
they consumed in the greatest portion at 20% of prey taken in J anuary).
Electivities tended to be positive for Bosmina and larger cladocerans, but mixed
for Chydorus depending on date (Fig. 4). Electivities were typically strongly
negative for copepods, ostracods, other small taxa (composed mostly of nauplii),
dipterans larvae and pupae, and other lar ge taxa.
Discussion
In this study, mosquitofish consumed a wide variety of prey types that varied
dramatically from season to season both in terms of planktonic behavior and body
size by over an order of magnitude in length (which would be approximately 3 orders
of magnitude in biovolume). Ontogenetic shifts from consumption of cladocerans
and rotifers by younger individuals toward much larger insect prey by larger,
Figure 2. Mean length of prey consumed by individual Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Mosquitofish)
as a function of total body length. The line of best fit is included for September
2012, the only date when mean prey length was significantly related to mosquitofish length
(see text for details).
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
146
older individuals have been observed for mosquitofish (e.g., Blanco et al. 2003,
Garćia-Berthou 1999). Mieiro et al. (2001) observed a decrease in insect prey and an
increase in microcrustacean consumption by mosquitofish in non-summer months
related to shifts in the abundance of these prey types, though Garćia-Berthou (1999)
and Gkenas et al. (2012) noted little seasonal variation. In our study, shifts in prey
types reflected shifts in abundance of cladocerans. Ontogenetic shifts did not appear
to be strong in our study system, as both small and large-bodied Eastern Mosquitofish
commonly consumed small prey (mostly microcrustaceans) over most dates, even
though larger prey were also present at these times. Some laboratory experiments
note a similar phenomenon. Mattingly and Butler (1994) did not consistently find a
selection bias for larger prey by larger Crenicichla alta Eigenmann (Pike Cichlid),
and Bence and Murdoch (1986) observed that patterns in profitability as a function
of prey size did not differ among Western Mosquitofish that differed in body length.
In our study, energetic cost associated with capturing a high number of small prey
(Brooks and Dodson 1965, Werner and Hall 1974) is presumably offset by favorable
attributes (such as accessibility) associated with cladocerans, or by lower success
Figure 3. Feeding strategy of Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Mosquitofish) over 4 dates. Feeding
strategy is evaluated as a prey taxon’s contribution to diet as a function of the proportion
of individuals that consume that taxon (see text for details). Prey taxa with gut abundances
greater than 1% of all individuals consumed on a date (calculated as prey-specific abundance
multiplied by frequency of occurrence) are labeled. Dates were selected to compare the dates
with the emptiest guts (44 individuals consumed in January and 63 in June) with dates with
the highest numbers of prey per gut (804 in March and 657 in September).
Southeastern Naturalist
147
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
rates and longer attack times associated with larger prey (Bence and Murdoch 1986).
As indicated in the graphical analysis of feeding strategy, there were times when
Eastern Mosquitofish strongly specialized on cladocerans while other prey taxa including
larger taxa tended to be taken less often and were taken by fewer individuals.
The actual biovolume of prey consumed was not evaluated in our study, so specialization
in the context of our study is a reflection of the number of prey captures (which
relates to energetic costs) rather than contribution of calories.
Cladocerans consumed in our study generally shared attributes of size (ranging
0.2–1.0 mm) and shape (compressed laterally and roughly round in profile). Larger
cladocerans, for which electivities were mostly positive, were frequently found in
the water column. Though Chydorus sphearicus is typically described as littoral
(e.g., Pennak 1966, Ward and Whipple 1918), it is reported to consistently leave
its substrate (Whiteside et al. 1978). In our study, Chydorus were rarely taken in
January 2013 when abundant near macrophyte surfaces, but were taken frequently
in subsequent months when they became abundant in the water column (Fig. 1).
Bosmina was rarely found near macrophyte surfaces (less than 1% of all occurrences) and
is widely reported in the plankton of open waters (e.g., Geraldes and Boavida 2004,
Taleb et al. 1994). The specialization and high importance of Bosmina in some
seasons indicates the Eastern Mosquitofish took smaller prey at a distance from
plant surfaces. Regardless of where Eastern Mosquitofish were taking these prey, a
feeding bias existed for prey that constitute plankton assembla ges.
Figure 4. Electivity for prey categories consumed by Gambusia holbrooki (Eastern Mosquitofish)
by sampling date. Electivity compares prey consumed to occurrence of prey in
the environment. Black bars are electivity based on abundance of prey in the water column,
and gray bars are electivity based on abundance of prey near macrophyte surfaces. No electivities
were zero, so lack of bar indicates that the prey was not included in the electivity
analysis for that period (electivity was calculated for only the habitat with the highest relative
abundance and only for those prey categories that constituted >10% of total abundance
in the habitat; see text for details).
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
148
Being planktonic and small did not in itself result in a positive feeding bias. Despite
an abundance of copepod nauplii in the water column in September 2012, no
nauplii were consumed, suggesting that nauplii (typically less than 0.2 mm) were energetically
unfavorable prey. Cyclopoid copepodites and adults were frequently found in
the water column, but consistently occurred less frequently in Eastern Mosquitofish
guts. Ostracods were also rarely consumed despite extremely high abundances
most of the year both near macrophytes and in the water column.
Biases toward one prey type versus another as indicated by electivity can be the
result of several factors associated with predator and prey attributes including ability
of prey to escape, ability of predators to detect prey (i.e., handling and search
time), and active choice based on palatability or energetics and density of prey (e.g.,
Lewis 1977, Werner and Hall 1974). Alternatively, electivity can be an artifact of
sampling design if locations where prey were sampled do not accurately reflect
abundances of prey where predators actually fed. The air–water interface was not
sampled in our study, so relative availability for prey items that are common on
the surface was underestimated, potentially inflating our estimates of electivity
for these items. Of all invertebrate taxa consumed by Eastern Mosquitofish in our
study, the 3 prey that were most rare in the water column and near macrophyte surfaces
relative to their occurrence in the gut were terrestrial insects, ephippia, and
the cladoceran Scaphaloberis mucronata (O.F.M) (mean electivities over all dates
and both habitats were 0.98, 0.97, and 0.86, respectively). There is good reason to
believe that Eastern Mosquitofish take these prey at the air–water interface. Terrestrial
insects are likely be caught on the water surface to which they fall, ephippia
are known to float (Ślusarczyk and Pietrzak 2008), and S. mucronata inhabit the
underside of the surface tension created at the air–water interface (Gladyshev 2002,
Ward and Whipple 1918). A congener, S. ramneri Dumont & Pensaert, was the most
common prey item in the guts of Eastern Mosquitofish studied by Garćia-Berthou
(1999). Mosquitofish have long been reported to feed at the surface (Hildebrand
1919) as would be expected given their dorsally oriented mouth situated anteriorly
on a flattened head.
Cladocerans have been observed caught in the surface tension. Rose et al. (2012)
noted Daphnia on the surface in mesocosms, and Gladyshev (2002) reported Bosmina,
Chydorus, and Alona attached to the surface film, but not copepods or other
non-cladoceran taxa. Cladocerans (particularly Bosmina) tend to clump together
when caught by surface tension (J.M. Dirnberger, pers. observ.), as do other negatively
buoyant objects (Vella and Mahadevan 2005), potentially making small prey
easier to spot, and foraging energetically more efficient. Consumption of such
rafts would explain the poor relationship between prey size and predator size, and
the higher electivities for cladocerans, as well as the high variability in number of
Bosmina and Chydorus consumed among individual Eastern Mosquitofish because
dense, isolated patches would be encountered only occasionally. While positive
feeding bias by Eastern Mosquitofish toward cladocerans found in our study suggest
that it has the potential to alter zooplankton assemblages, the impact of this
species on zooplankton assemblages would depend in part on the degree to which
Southeastern Naturalist
149
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
it takes planktonic prey from the water surface as opposed to from the water column.
Because mortality is presumably imminent for most zooplankton caught in
the surface tension (Gladyshev 2002), surface-feeding predation would not directly
impact those prey populations.
Mosquitofish have been widely introduced for mosquito control, and where
introduced are often implicated as the agent responsible for declines in native
amphibian and fish populations, earning them an alternative name, plague minnow
(Pyke 2008). Predation has been implicated as a factor in these declines (e.g.,
Meffe 1985), though the ability of mosquitofish to displace native vertebrates has
been called into question in some systems (e.g., Ling 2004). Mosquitofish efficacy
for mosquito control has also been seriously questioned in many systems because
earlier evidence was largely anecdotal and has been often contradicted by more
recent studies using larger sample sizes and randomized treatments (Pyke 2008).
Experimental manipulations of prey densities may elucidate whether conditions
that favor the entrainment and subsequent concentration of planktonic prey at the
surface alter the impact of mosquitofish on mosquito and other larval insect populations,
or whether plankton are an alternative prey choice only after mosquitofish
have reduced populations of larger prey. Quantifying available surface prey in heterogeneous
shallow ponds and lakes will be a future challenge for understanding
the effects of mosquitofish on prey assemblages.
Acknowledgments
We thank Marina Kasearum, Eric Iversen, Marielle Kromis, Lauren Lee, Nicole Lynch,
Ryan McWilliams, Marjan Mirkheshti, Elena Petra, Daniel Rhiner, Nazanin Gerami Sarabi,
and Amber Wilson for assistance in the field and lab, and William Ensign, Amy Whitney,
and 2 anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript.
Literature Cited
Amundsen, P.A., M. Gabler, and F.J. Staldvik. 1996. A new approach to graphical analysis
of feeding strategy from stomach contents data: Modification of the Costello (1990)
method. Journal of Fish Biology 48:607–614.
Angus, R.A., and W.M. Howell. 1996. Geographic distributions of Eastern and Western
Mosquitofishes (Poeciliidae: Gambusia): Delineation of ranges using fin-ray counts.
Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings 33:1–6.
Bence, J.R., and W.W. Murdoch. 1986. Prey-size selection by the mosquitofish: Relation to
optimal diet theory. Ecology 67:324–336.
Blanco, S., S.Romo, M.J. Villena, and S. Martínez. 2003. Fish communities and food-web
interactions in some shallow Mediterranean lakes. Hydrobiologia 506:473–480.
Brooks, J.L., and S.I. Dodson. 1965. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton.
Science 150:28–35.
Campbell, J.M., W.J. Clark, and R. Kosinski. 1982. A technique for examining microspatial
distribution of Cladocera associated with shallow-water macrophytes. Hydrobiologia
97:225–232.
Ferry-Graham, L.A., A.C. Gibb, and L.P. Hernandez. 2008. Premaxillary movements in
cyprinodontiform fishes: An unusual protrusion mechanism facilitates “picking” prey
capture. Zoology 111:455–466.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
150
Garćia-Berthou, E. 1999. Food of introduced mosquitofish: Ontogenetic diet shift and prey
selection. Journal of Fish Biology 55:135–147.
Geraldes, A.M., and M.J. Boavida. 2004. Do littoral macrophytes influence the crustacean
zooplankton distribution? Limnetica 23:57–64.
Gkenas, C., A. Oikonomou, A. Economoue, F. Kiosse, and I. Leonardos. 2012. Life-history
pattern and feeding habits of the invasive mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki in Lake
Pamvotis (NW Greece). Journal of Biological Research-Thessalon 17:121–136.
Gladyshev, M. 2002. Biophysics of the Surface Microlayer of Aquatic Ecosystems. International
Water Association. London, UK. 160 pp.
Gliwicz, Z.M., and A. Rykowska. 1992. “Shore avoidance” in zooplankton: A predatorinduced
behavior or predator-induced mortality? Journal of Plankton Research
14:1331–1342.
Hall, D.J., E.E. Werner, J.F. Gilliam, G.G. Mittelbach, D. Howard, C.G. Doner, J.A.
Dickerman, and A.J. Stewart. 1979. Diel foraging behavior and prey selection in the
Golden Shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Journal of Fisheries Research Board Canada
36:1029–1039.
Hildebrand, S.F. 1919. Notes on the life history of the minnows Gambusia affinis and Cyprinodon
variegatus. Annual Report for the United States Commission on Fish 6:3–15.
Hoy, J.B., E.E. Kauffman, and A.G. O’Berg. 1972. A large-scale test of Gambusia affinis
and Chlorpyrifos for mosquito control. Mosquito News 32:161–169 .
Hurlbert, S.H., and M.S. Mulla. 1981. Impacts of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation
on plankton communities. Hydrobiologia 83:125–151.
Ivlev, V.S. 1961. Experimental Ecology of the Feeding of Fishes. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT. 302 pp.
Jakobsen, P.J., and G.H. Johnsen. 1987. The influence of predation on horizontal distribution
of zooplankton species. Freshwater Biology 17:501–507.
Keast, A., and D. Webb. 1966. Mouth and body form relative to feeding ecology in the fish
fauna of a small lake, Lake Opinicon, Ontario. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada 23:1845–1874.
Lair, N., T.H. Taleb, and P. Reyes-Marchant. 1996. Horizontal distribution of the rotifer
plankton of Lake Aydat (France). Aquatic Sciences 58:253–268.
Lechowicz, M.J. 1982. The sampling characteristics of electivity indices. Oecologia
52:22–30.
Lewis, W.M. 1977. Feeding selectivity of a tropical Chaoborus population. Freshwater
Biology 7:311–325.
Ling, N. 2004. Gambusia in New Zealand: Really bad or just misunderstood? New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38:473–480.
Mattingly, H.T., and M.J. Butler. 1994. Laboratory predation on the Trinidadaian Guppy:
Implications for the size-selective predation hypothesis and guppy life-history evolution.
Oikos 69:54–64.
McGavigan, C. 2012. A quantitative method for sampling littoral zooplankton in lakes: The
active tube. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 10:289–295.
Meffe, G.K. 1985. Predation and species replacement in American southwestern fishes: A
case study. The Southwestern Naturalist 30:173–187.
Mieiro, L., J.A. Cabral, and J.C. Marques. 2001. Predation pressure of introduced mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki Girard), on the native zooplankton community. A case study
from representative habitats in the lower Mondego river Valley (Portugal). Limnetica
20:279–292.
Southeastern Naturalist
151
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
Ning, N.S.P., D.L. Nielsen, T.J. Hillman, and P.J. Suter. 2010. The influence of planktivorous
fish on zooplankton communities in riverine slackwaters. Freshwater Biology
55:360–374.
Oliver, J.D. 1991. Consumption rates, evacuation rates and diets of Pygmy Killifish, Leptolucania
ommata, and mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, in the Okefenokee Swamp.
Brimleyana 17:89–103.
Paggi, J.C., R.O. Mendoza, C.J. Debonis, and S.B. José de Paggi. 2001. A simple and inexpensive
trap-tube sampler for zooplankton collection in shallow waters. Hydrobiologia
464:45–49.
Peck, G.W., and W.E Walton. 2008. Effect of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and sestonic
food abundance on the invertebrate community within a constructed treatment wetland.
Freshwater Biology 53:2220–2233.
Pennak, R.W. 1962. Quantitative zooplankton sampling in littoral vegetation. Limnology
and Oceanography. 7:487–489.
Pennak, R.W. 1966. Structure of zooplankton populations in the littoral macrophyte zone of
some Colorado lakes. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 85:329–349.
Pyke, G.H. 2005. A review of the biology of Gambusia affinis and G. holbrooki. Reviews
in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15:339–365.
Pyke, G.H. 2008. Plague minnow or mosquito fish? A review of the biology and impacts of
introduced Gambusia species. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
39:171–191.
Quade, H.W. 1969. Cladoceran faunas associated with aquatic macrophytes in some lakes
in northwestern Minnesota. Ecology 50:170–179.
Rose, K.C., C.E. Williamson, J.M. Fischer, S.J. Connelly, M. Olson, A.J. Tucker, and D.A.
Noe. 2012. The role of ultraviolet radiation and fish in regulating the vertical distribution
of Daphnia. Limnology and Oceanography 57:1867–1876.
Ślusarczyk, M., and B. Pietrzak. 2008. To sink or float: The fate of dormant offspring is
determined by maternal behaviour in Daphnia. Freshwater Biology 53:569–576.
Specziár, A. 2004. Life-history pattern and feeding ecology of the introduced Eastern Mosquitofish,
Gambusia holbrooki, in a thermal spa under temperate climate, of Lake Hévíz,
Hungary. Hydrobiologia 522:249–260.
Staab, K.L., R. Holzman, L.P. Hernandez, and P.C. Wainwright. 2012. Independently
evolved upper-jaw protrusion mechanisms show convergent hydrodynamic function in
teleost fishes. Journal of Experimental Biology 215:1456–1463.
Taleb, H., P. Reyes-Marchant, and N. Lair. 1994. Effect of vertebrate predation on the
spatio-temporal distribution of cladocerans in a temperature eutrophic lake. Hydrobiologia
294:117–128.
Vella, D., and L. Mahadevan. 2005. The “Cheerios effect”. American Journal of Physics.
73:817–825.
Walters, D.M., and B.J. Freeman. 2000. Distribution of Gambusia (Poeciliidae) in a southeastern
river system and the use of fin-ray counts for species determination. Copeia
2000:555–559.
Ward, H.B., and G.C. Whipple. 1918. Freshwater Biology. John Wilely and Sons, Inc. New
York, NY. 699 pp.
Werner, E.E., and D.J. Hall. 1974. Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the
Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052.
Werner, E.E., and D.J. Hall. 1988. Ontogenetic habitat shifts in Bluegill: The foraging rate–
predation risk trade-off. Ecology 69:1352–1366.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Dirnberger and J. Love
2016 Vol. 15, No. 1
152
Whiteside, M.C., and J.B. Williams. 1975. A new sampling technique for aquatic ecologists.
Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 19:1534–1539.
Whiteside, M.C., J.B. Williams, and C.P. White. 1978. Seasonal abundance and pattern of
chydorid, Caldocera in mud and vegetative habitats. Ecology 59: 1177–1188.