Fishery Bulletin/U S Dept of Commerce National Oceanic

FEEDING RELATIONSHIPS OF TELEOSTEAN FISHES ON CORAL REEFS IN KONA, HAWAII EDMUND S. HOBSON! ABSTRACT Feeding relationships ofteleostean fishes on coral reefs atKona, Hawaii, were studied during 1969 and 1970. Fishes that have a generalized feeding mechanism, including those carnivores whose morphologies place them close to the main line ofteleostean evolution, are predominantly nocturnal or crepuscular. These include holocentrids, scorpaenids, serranids, apogonids, priacanthids, and lutjanids. The major prey of the nocturnal species are small, motile crustaceans, which are most available to the direct attacks of generalized predators when they leave their shelters after dark. The major prey of the crepuscular species are smaller fishes, whose defenses against direct attacks of generalized predators are less effective during twilight. Feeding by generalized predators during the day depends largely on being within striking distance ofprey that make a defensive mistake, a position best attained by those predators that ambush their prey from a concealed position, or by those that stalk. Ambushing and stalking tactics have produced some highly specialized forms that, during the day, prey mostly on smaller fishes. Diurnal ambushers include the highly cryptic synodontids, scorpaenids, and bothids; diurnal stalkers include aulostomids, fistulariids, belonids, and sphyraenids-al1 ofthem long, attenuated fishes. Some predators-most notably the muraenid eels-are specialized to hunt deep in reef crevices, and here they capture some of the many small animals that shelter themselves in those crevices, day and night, when resting, injured, or distressed. Mullids use their sensory barbels to detect small animals thathave sheltered themselves amid the superficial covering on the reef, or in the surroundingsand; at least some mullids further use their barbels to drive these prey into the open. Most of the fishes on Kona reefs are among the more highly evolved teleosts, having reached, or passed, the percoid level ofstructural development. The adaptability ofthe feeding apparatus in these more advanced groups has given rise to a wide variety ofspecialized species, including both carnivores and herbivores, that have diverged from one another mostly on the basis ofdiffering food habits. These fishes, most ofwhich are diurnal, include the chaetodontids, pomacentrids, labrids, scarids, blenniids, acanthurids, and Zanclus. among the perciforms; and the balistids, monacanthids, ostraciontids, tetraodontids, canthigasterids, and the nocturnal diodontids, among the tetraodontiforms. With their specialized feeding structures and techniques, these fishes consume organisms like sponges, coelenter ates, large mollusks, tunicates, and tiny or cryptic crustacea that are protected by behavioral or anatomical features from fishes not appropriately specialized. Many important ecological relations among greater emphasis on detailed analysis of food marine fishes are understood only by considering habits. in broad overview during both day and night the Several other workers adopted broad overviews different forms living together under natural con in considering fishes of various areas. Limbaugh ditions. With this in mind, I undertook a broad (1955) studied fishes in California kelp beds dur study ofreeffishes at Kona, Hawaii, between June ing the day, whereas Starck and Davis (1966) 1969 and August 1970. A segment of this study described the habits offishes in the Florida Keys dealing with the twilight situation was published at night; both of these studies present extensive earlier (Hobson, 1972). The present report de direct observations of activity, but little data on scribes the situations that prevail throughout day food habits. On the other hand, Hiatt and Stras and night. The work is centered on direct observa burg (1960), as well as Randall (1967), and Quast tions of activity in the fishes, as was my earlier (1968), treatedextensively the food habits offishes study of predatory behavior of shore fishes in the collected during daylight in the Marshall Islands, Gulf ofCalifornia (Hobson, 1968a), but here with the West Indies, and southern California, respec tively, but offered relatively few direct observa M 1S?uthwest Fisheries Center Tiburon Laboratory, National tions ofactivity. Suyehiro (1942) comprehensively arIne Fisheries Service,_ NOAA, P.O. Box 98, Tiburon, CA 94920. treated the feeding morphology offishes in Japan Manuscript accepted February 1974, FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 72, NO.4, 1974. 915 FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 72. NO.4 and included data on food habits; however, he in Food habits change over the life ofat least most cluded little information on activity. The 1970 fishes, usually along with recognizable changes in United States Tektite II program provided many behavior and morphology. Unless otherwise indi scientists with the opportunity to make direct ob cated, specimens selected for this study showed servations on a Virgin Island reef, and reports behavior and morphologyjudgedtypical ofadults. concerning the fishes have been published in one The collections were spreadovertime and space, volume (Collette and Earle, 1972). Many other so that possible effects of transient localized, reports oflimited scope are scattered through the perhaps atypical, situations were reduced. Gener literature, most ofthem beingfragmented data on ally, only a single individual of anyone species food habits; nevertheless, accounts of activity was collected during a single period of observa based on direct observations are sparse, especially tions; thus, for a given species, most individuals of nocturnal activity. each represent a separate collecting station. For The great variety of feeding mechanisms for these reasons, I judge the data from the food habit which teleostean fishes are so well known occur analysis to accurately represent the situation ex among coral-reef fishes far more so than among isting on Kona reefs over the 15 mo ofthis study. the fishes ofany otherhabitat. I take advantage of The collections were spaced throughout day and this circumstance in the discussion that concludes night, so that relative digestion of gut contents the present report and consider the feeding rela supplements direct observations ofactivity in de tionships among fishes on Kona reefs in the con termining specific feeding times. All specimens text of teleostean evolution. were sealed in individual plastic bags im mediately after being speared, most while still METHODS underwater. Gut contents of specimens collected while snorkeling were preserved immediately by Direct Observations injecting a concentrated formaldehyde solution directly into the gut cavity, whereas gut contents I observed activity of the fishes during 632 h offishes taken by scuba were preserved as soon as underwater at all periods of day and night using possible after emerging from the water. I was un scuba and by snorkeling. Except when collecting able to see a difference in the digestion undergone specimens, I tried not to influence the fishes or by material collected in each of these two ways, their environment, hoping that events were tak suggesting that digestion is sharply curtailed by ing a natural course. Fishes considered in this the death of the fish. Where practical, report are those thatcan be seen by an underwater identifications ofitems inthe guts were carriedfar observer at some time during day or night. Al enoughto establish such general prey characteris though this includes by far most ofthe reeffishes, tics as habitat and mode of life. some abundant species are not included because they remain secreted in the reef at all hours. Quantifying Food Habits Food Habits l<'or those species represented by enough num bers in the analysis ofgut contents, I state: 1) the The gut contents of 1,547 fish specimens of 102 number offish ofthat species containingeach food species were analyzed. With a few isolated excep item, and 2) the mean percent ofthat item in the tions, noted below, all the specimens were col diet volume, which is the total volume ofgut con lected with spears. I find spearing the most effec tents in all specimens ofthat species. This second tive way to collect fishes for study offood habits. figure was calculated from estimates of the per Using this method, specimens were collected in cent each item taken by the species contributed to specific locations atthetimes ofday and night that the gut contents of each individual fish (0 to best define diurnal-nocturnal activity patterns. 100%). The food items are listed in order of a Because I speared all the specimens myself, I ranking index, which is computed by multiplying know what each individual was doing when cap the ratio offish containingthe item to the number tured, and this knowledge significantly influenced of fish sampled, by the mean percent that item analysis of the data. Even the response of the represented ofthe diet volume. Thus, for example, various fishes to being stalked and speared (or for Holocentrus sammara (Table 10), the number missed) provided.certain behavioral insights. one prey, xanthid crabs, has a ranking index of 916 HOBSON: FEEDING RELATIONSHIPS OF FISHES 12/17 x 52.5 = 37.05. The data are tabulatedwhen Keawekaheka Point just north of Kealakekua there are more than a few items in the gut con Bay, to Alahaka Bay, south ofHonaunau (Figure tents of a given species. 1). This is part ofwhat is known as the Kona coast. In species with a well-defined stomach, usually Except for short

Load more