Chapter 9 Small Particulate Feeding

⬇ Download this chapter

9.1 Overview

Filter feeding is a foraging behavior in which fish consume suspended particulate matter (SPM) while moving through estuarine and coastal systems, linking food availability directly to hydrodynamic transport processes. In this submodel, agents evaluate neighboring patches based on SPM concentration and selectively feed where energetic return is highest, following optimal foraging principles that maximize net energy gain relative to the costs of searching, handling, and movement (Townsend and Winfield 1985). Filtration capacity scales with body size, metabolic demand, and digestion efficiency, consistent with bioenergetic constraints on intake and processing capacity (Norin and Gamperl 2018), and is reduced under competition from other filter-feeding fish.

Within this submodel, SPM includes both inorganic particles and organic material such as algae, detritus, and zooplankton, acting as both a food resource and a vector for contaminant transport in estuarine systems (Kjelland, Piercy, et al. 2015; Kjelland, Woodley, et al. 2015). As a result, contaminant exposure through this pathway is directly linked to feeding behavior, where assimilated biomass carries associated mercury and methylmercury that are incorporated into internal stores through biomagnification processes (Lavoie et al. 2013). This formulation allows feeding-driven exposure to emerge from the interaction between hydrodynamic SPM fields, foraging decisions, and physiological constraints, rather than being treated as a static uptake rate.

9.2 Purpose and Patterns

The purpose of this submodel is to simulate ecologically realistic filter feeding behavior in migratory fish using suspended particulate matter as a food resource. This behavior links hydrodynamic particle fields to energy gain, contaminant exposure, and movement decisions. Filter feeding only occurs when spatial conditions and energetic returns are favorable, and incorporates competition, biomagnification, and digestion constraints.

This submodel represents the following ecological patterns:

  • Filtration capacity increases with body size, metabolism, and digestive efficiency
    Larger individuals with higher metabolism filter more water and assimilate more prey mass.

  • Gaussian SPM preference centered on optimal SPM
    Feeding intensity is highest near an optimal SPM range and decreases away from that peak.

  • Crowding penalty from con-specifics
    Filtration benefit decreases when multiple individuals feed in the same patch.

  • Movement toward highest benefit
    Fish move toward the patch with the highest filtration benefit based on SPM and competitive pressure.

  • Contaminant assimilation tied directly to filtration
    Mercury and methylmercury are assimilated proportionally to SPM concentration and biomagnification factors derived from empirical trophic magnification relationships.

9.3 Entities, State Variables, and Scales

9.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Scales

Spatial Unit: Patch (3 m x 3 m resolution)
Temporal Unit: 5 minute time steps (tick)

9.3.2 Global Variables

Global Variable Definition
spm-sd Standard deviation for Gaussian SPM preference curve (controls width of feeding preference)
max-filter-distance Maximum distance within which patches can be evaluated (optional, model dependent)
BMF-MeHg Biomagnification factor for methylmercury (≈ 1.74; after Lavoie et al. 2013)
BMF-Hg Biomagnification factor for inorganic Hg (≈ 1.38; after Lavoie et al. 2013)
previous-x X-coordinate of agent’s previous location (used to compute travel distance and energy cost)
previous-y Y-coordinate of agent’s previous location (used with previous-x)

9.3.3 Patch Variables

Variable Name Definition
SPM Suspended particulate matter concentration in the water column
mercury Inorganic mercury concentration at the patch
methylmercury Methylmercury concentration at the patch
patch-terrain Identifies water or land patches

9.3.4 Agent Variables

Variable Name Definition
size Body size used to scale filtration capacity
weight Biomass used in base filtration scaling (from metabolism submodel)
metabolism-rate Metabolic rate that modulates filtration intensity
digestion-efficiency Fraction of filtered biomass digested
optimal-SPM SPM concentration where filtration is most efficient
filter-feed? Boolean indicating whether the agent engages in filter feeding
energy Current energy reserves
E-swim Energy cost of swimming per meter
swim-efficiency Efficiency of movement based on metabolic state
speed Swimming speed
stomach-contents Biomass currently held in the stomach
stomach-capacity Maximum biomass that can be held
stomach-contents-Hg Inorganic mercury within stomach contents
stomach-contents-MeHg Methylmercury within stomach contents
hg-total Total cumulative inorganic mercury body burden
mehg-total Total cumulative methylmercury body burden
hg-exposure-total Cumulative Hg exposure from all pathways
mehg-exposure-total Cumulative MeHg exposure from all pathways
hg-exposure-total-normalized Normalized inorganic mercury exposure
mehg-exposure-total-normalized Normalized methylmercury exposure
previous-x (if not global) Previous x-location for travel-distance calculation
previous-y (if not global) Previous y-location

9.4 Process Overview and Scheduling

  1. Compute filtration capacity based on size, metabolism, and digestion efficiency.
  2. Evaluate neighboring patches using a Gaussian suitability curve around optimal SPM, reflecting unimodal feeding performance where filtration efficiency and energetic return peak at intermediate resource concentrations and decline at both low and high extremes due to limitation or processing constraints (Hirzel and Le Lay 2008).
  3. Apply a competition penalty based on the number of conspecifics feeding on each patch to represent density-dependent foraging, where increased local competition reduces per-capita resource availability and filtration efficiency, consistent with optimal foraging predictions under shared resource use (Townsend and Winfield 1985) and observed density-dependent feeding dynamics in SPM-mediated systems (Kjelland, Piercy, et al. 2015).
  4. Select the patch with the highest filtration benefit.
  5. Move toward the chosen patch with travel distance reduced by swimming efficiency.
  6. Apply swimming energy cost (energy units).
  7. Filter feed by assimilating SPM scaled biomass from the chosen patch.
  8. Assimilate mercury and methylmercury using biomagnification factors from (Lavoie et al. 2013).
  9. Add assimilated biomass (g) and contaminants (ng) to stomach contents .

9.5 Design Concepts

Basic Principles: Small particulate feeding reflects how pelagic and estuarine fish forage on suspended particles while migrating (Janssen and Brandt 1980). Filtration scales with size and metabolic demand consistent with bioenergetic scaling principles (Norin and Gamperl 2018). Suspended particulate matter (SPM) influences both food availability and contaminant exposure pathways in estuarine systems (Kjelland, Piercy, et al. 2015; Kjelland, Woodley, et al. 2015; Lavoie et al. 2013).

Emergence: Feeding hotspots emerge where hydrodynamic SPM fields align with optimal SPM and competition is minimal. Contaminant loads emerge from local mercury and methylmercury concentrations and biomagnification.

Adaptation: Agents adjust their direction and feeding behavior based on SPM quality, filtration capacity, and local competition.

Sensing: Agents sense SPM, mercury, methylmercury, competition from conspecifics, stomach fullness, and their own metabolic and digestive state.

Stochasticity: Variation in SPM quality, contaminant concentrations, and local competition create variability in feeding and assimilation outcomes.

Interaction: Competition reduces filtration benefit when multiple conspecifics occupy the same patch, consistent with density-dependent foraging dynamics in spatially structured systems (Kjelland, Piercy, et al. 2015).

Observation: The model tracks biomass intake, mercury and methylmercury assimilation, stomach contents, and contaminant load added per patch.

9.6 Initialization

Variable Initialized Value Justification
stomach-contents 0 No biomass in the stomach at model start
stomach-contents-Hg 0 No initial inorganic mercury from feeding
stomach-contents-MeHg 0 No initial methylmercury
digestion-efficiency Species specific Determines fraction of filtered biomass assimilated
optimal-SPM Species specific Represents preferred SPM concentration

9.7 Submodels

9.7.1 Filtration Capacity

Filtration scales with size, metabolism, and digestion efficiency, consistent with bioenergetic constraints derived largely from studies of ectothermic aquatic organisms, particularly fishes (Norin and Gamperl 2018):

\[ Filter_{base} = \left(\frac{size}{100}\right) \cdot Met_{tick} \cdot Eff_{digest} \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.1)} \]

Where:

  • \(Met_{tick}\) is the total metabolic rate for the current simulation tick ((energy units) tick⁻¹).
  • \(Eff_{digest}\) is efficiency factor controlling digestion and filtration (%). User-defined value.
  • \(Filter_{base}\) is the baseline filtration capacity for SPM feeding (g tick⁻¹).

9.7.2 SPM Interest (Gaussian Suitability)

Suitability peaks at the optimal SPM concentration and declines with deviation from that optimum following a Gaussian performance curve (Hirzel and Le Lay 2008), capturing a unimodal response to environmental gradients, representing maximal feeding performance at intermediate SPM and reduced suitability at both lower and higher concentrations:

\[ A_{interest} = e^{-\frac{(SPM - SPM_{optimal})^2}{2 \cdot \sigma^2}} \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.2)} \]

Where:

  • \(A_{interest}\) is the suitability weight for SPM-based feeding (dimensionless).
  • \(SPM_{optimal}\) is the optimal SPM concentration for feeding suitability (\(\frac{kg}{m^3}\)).
  • \(SPM\) is the suspended particulate matter (SPM) concentration on the patch (\(\frac{kg}{m^3}\)).
  • \(\sigma\) is the standard deviation tolerance for suitability curve (\(\frac{kg}{m^3}\)).

9.7.3 Resource Benefit Calculation

Benefit for each neighboring patch:

\[ A_{benefit} = SPM \cdot A_{interst} \cdot Filter_{base} \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.3)} \]

Where:

  • \(A_{benefit}\) is the relative feeding benefit score for a candidate patch (dimensionless).
  • \(A_{interest}\) is the suitability weight for SPM-based feeding (dimensionless).
  • \(SPM\) is the suspended particulate matter (SPM) concentration on the patch (\(\frac{kg}{m^3}\)).
  • \(Filter_{base}\) is the baseline filtration capacity for SPM feeding (g tick⁻¹).

If con-specifics are present:

\[ A_{benefit} = \frac{A_{benefit}}{N_{conspecifics}} \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.4)} \]

Where:

  • \(A_{interest}\) is the suitability weight for SPM-based feeding (dimensionless).
  • \(N_{conspecifics}\) is the number of conspecifics on a patch (agents).

9.7.4 Movement

Travel distance is reduced by swimming efficiency:

\[ D_{travel} = min(D_{to-patch},\ A_{speed} \cdot swim_{Eff}) \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.5)} \]

Where:

  • \(D_{travel}\) is the distance traveled in the current tick (patch units).
  • \(D_{to-patch}\) is the distance to a candidate target patch (patch units).
  • \(A_{speed}\) is the actual swimming speed used for movement (m tick⁻¹).
  • \(swim_{Eff}\) is the efficiency multiplier applied to swimming energetics (%).

Energy cost of swimming:

\[ E_{agent} = E_{agent} - (E_{swim} \cdot D_{travel}) \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.6)} \]

Where:

  • \(E_{agent}\) is the total internal energy available to the agent (energy units).
  • \(E_{swim}\) is the energy cost of swimming for the tick ((energy units) patch⁻¹).
  • \(D_{travel}\) is the distance traveled in the current tick (patch units).

9.7.5 Feeding and Stomach Loading

Assimilated biomass:

\[ M_{intake} = min(M_{prey},\ stomach_{max} - M_{stomach}) \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.7)} \]

Where:

  • \(M_{intake}\) is the biomass actually ingested by the agent (g).
  • \(M_{prey}\) is the biomass available from SPM filtration (g).
  • \(stomach_{max}\) is an agent’s maximum stomach capacity (g).
  • \(M_{stomach}\) is the biomass currently stored in the stomach (g).

9.7.6 Contaminant Assimilation and Biomagnification

Biomagnification factors follow Lavoie et al. (2013):

\[ BMF_{MeHg} = 10^{(0.24 \cdot \Delta TP)} \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.8)} \] Where:

  • \(\Delta TP = 1\) is the trophic position difference for biomagnification.
  • \(BMF_{MeHg}\) is the biomagnification factor for methylmercury (dimensionless).

\[ BMF_{MeHg} = 10^{0.24} \approx 1.74 \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.9)} \]

Where:

  • \(BMF_{MeHg}\) is the biomagnification factor for methylmercury (dimensionless).

Assimilation equations:

\[ MeHg_{intake} = SPM \cdot MeHg_{patch} \cdot BMF_{MeHg} \cdot M_{intake} \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.10)} \]

Where:

  • \(MeHg_{intake}\) is the methylmercury biomass actually ingested by the agent (ng).
  • \(SPM\) is the suspended particulate matter (SPM) concentration on the patch (\(\frac{kg}{m^3}\)).
  • \(MeHg_{patch}\) is the patch-level methylmercury used in feeding uptake (ng g⁻¹).
  • \(BMF_{MeHg}\) is the biomagnification factor for methylmercury.
  • \(M_{intake}\) is the biomass actually ingested by the agent (g).

Stomach contaminant update:

\[ MeHg_{stomach} = MeHg_{stomach} + MeHg_{intake} \hspace{2cm} \text{(9.11)} \]

Where:

  • \(MeHg_{stomach}\) is the methylmercury currently stored in the stomach (ng).
  • \(MeHg_{intake}\) is the methylmercury biomass actually ingested by the agent (ng).

9.8 Netlogo Implementation

References

Hirzel, Alexandre H., and Gwenaëlle Le Lay. 2008. “Habitat Suitability Modelling and Niche Theory.” Journal of Applied Ecology 45 (5): 1372–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01524.x.
Janssen, John, and Stephen B. Brandt. 1980. “Feeding Ecology and Vertical Migration of Adult Alewives ( Alosa Pseudoharengus ) in Lake Michigan.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37 (2): 177–84. https://doi.org/10.1139/f80-023.
Kjelland, Michael E., Candice D. Piercy, Tahirih Lackey, and Todd M. Swannack. 2015. “An Integrated Modeling Approach for Elucidating the Effects of Different Management Strategies on Chesapeake Bay Oyster Metapopulation Dynamics.” Ecological Modelling 308 (July): 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.03.012.
Kjelland, Michael E., Christa M. Woodley, Todd M. Swannack, and David L. Smith. 2015. “A Review of the Potential Effects of Suspended Sediment on Fishes: Potential Dredging-Related Physiological, Behavioral, and Transgenerational Implications.” Environment Systems and Decisions 35 (3): 334–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9557-2.
Lavoie, Raphael A., Timothy D. Jardine, Matthew M. Chumchal, Karen A. Kidd, and Linda M. Campbell. 2013. “Biomagnification of Mercury in Aquatic Food Webs: A Worldwide Meta-Analysis.” Environmental Science & Technology 47 (23): 13385–94. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403103t.
Norin, Tommy, and A. Kurt Gamperl. 2018. “Metabolic Scaling of Individuals Vs. Populations: Evidence for Variation in Scaling Exponents at Different Hierarchical Levels.” Functional Ecology 32 (2): 379–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12996.
Townsend, Colin R., and Ian J. Winfield. 1985. “The Application of Optimal Foraging Theory to Feeding Behaviour in Fish.” In Fish Energetics, edited by Peter Tytler and Peter Calow. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-7918-8_3.