palmata, in a different intertidal locale on the Maine 

 coast. Fish were found attached to 12 of these 

 species of algae, Zostera marina, and 1 inverte- 

 brate—the blue mussel, Mytiliis edulis. Only two 

 lumpfish were encountered free-swimming, without 

 a substrate or algal association, during these day- 

 light observations. In 39% of the observations, 

 juveniles were primarily associated with one of three 

 species of Laminaria. In areas without Laminaria, 

 but with Zostera marina, however, fish were fre- 

 quently associated with Z. marina (Table 2). 



Associations with Laminaria were significantly 

 higher (x^ = 251.4; P < 0.01) than with Z. marina 

 but, because algal species composition varies with 

 locale, associations were also analyzed by location 

 (Table 2). In West Side Pool, which contained almost 

 no Laminaria spp., 76% of the associations were 

 with Zostera marina. No one algal species was domi- 

 nant in West Pond Pool. In Blueberry Pool, Lami- 

 naria is much more abundant (but <50% of algal 

 surface area), and 67% of the associations were with 

 that genus. 



As juvenile lumpfish increase in size, fewer were 

 associated with Z. marina and more with Asco- 

 phyllum nodosum (Table 2). The difference was 

 significantly in favor of attachments to Z. marina 

 for fish <19 mm, but significantly in favor of at- 

 tachments to A. nodosum for lumpfish over 26 mm 

 (P < 0.05, paired comparison t tests and chi-square 

 tests). Areas containing Z. marina may thus be ex- 

 tremely important to juveniles <20 mm long, but the 

 protective function of the plant decreases as fish size 

 increases. 



Discussion 



Juvenile lumpfish in Maine appear to use inter- 

 tidal areas seasonally during more than one year of 

 life. An array of sizes of C. lumjtus can be taken 



within a single tidepool (e.g., lengths of 9-49 mm 

 from a single pool in August). Although most juve- 

 niles in intertidal areas were age 0, fish of age 1 

 were not rare, and one fish collected was prob- 

 ably age 2. An adult was also observed guarding 

 a nest in a deep tidepool near Blueberry Pool in 

 1982. 



The food of juveniles is less diverse than that of 

 adults (as reported by others), probably because the 

 younger fish have smaller mouths and less ability 

 to capture prey. The availability of larger prey items 

 may also be limited in tidepools; ctenophores and 

 coelenterates are generally uncommon in such 

 waters. However, the consumption of copepods and 

 amphipods by more than half the juveniles examined 

 in this study coincides well with the studies of 

 Daborn and Gregory (1983) of juvenile lumpfish in 

 surface waters offshore. Although it is commonly 

 believed that adult lumpfish feed only during winter 

 (Cox and Anderson 1922; Collins 1976), the juveniles 

 assuredly feed in summer: <5% of the stomachs that 

 I examined were empty. 



The information presented here dealing with juve- 

 nile lumpfish and algae are field observations of in 

 situ associations. Given a choice between several 

 genera or species of algae, the algal preference 

 might be different. However, data from Blueberry 

 Pool, where Z. marina and at least 13 species of 

 algae were present, showed that 67% of the juvenile 

 lumpfish were encountered with Laminaria spp., 

 even though those three species made up less than 

 one half of the submerged algal surface area (visual 

 estimation). 



Because juvenile lumpfish are typically observed 

 attached to marine algae or to Z. marina, the ques- 

 tion remains why associations are with specific 

 algae? There may be several possible explanations, 

 including functional morphology of the fish species, 

 coloration, hydraulics, and adhesion. 



Table 2— Algal and plant associations by Cyclopterus lumpus (%) by pool and total length. 



235 



