Scanning electron microscope and image analysis techniques were used to construct a profile of otolith growth from June 1987–June 1988 in immature Notothenia coriiceps. Growth was found to fluctuate seasonally with a large decrease between August and late November 1987. Examination of stomach fullness showed that fish continued to feed during winter. Increases in absolute light levels and sea temperature during spring were found to coincide approximately with increasing growth. Conclusive evidence distinguishing between hypotheses for limitation of growth either by seawater temperature or by resource availability was not found.

In Potter Cove, King George Island, Antarctica, macroalgae provide a significant food resource for herbivores. The demersal fish Notothenia coriiceps feeds on macroalgae. Eighteen algal species were identified in stomach contents: two chlorophytes, ten rhodophytes and six phaeophytes. Among these the rhodophyte Palmaria decipiens, the phaeophyte Desmarestia menziesii and the chlorophyte Monostroma hariotii comprised the greatest proportions of algal biomass. A food selection study showed four algae to be preferred (P. decipiens, M. hariotii, D. menziesii, Iridaea cordata) and two species to be avoided (Desmarestia anceps and Himantothallus grandifolius) by N. coriiceps. The present investigation indicates that this fish feeds not only intentionally, but also selectively, on macroalgae. Preference for particular algal species is not related to associated epifaunal biomass or to associated amphipod biomass.

The diet of breeding Antarctic shags (Phalacrocorax bransfieldensis) was investigated at four colonies on the Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula, by the analysis of 616 pellets (regurgitated casts) collected from December 1997 to February 1998. Overall, demersal-benthic fish were the most frequent and important prey at all the colonies, followed by octopods and gastropods. Amongst fish, Notothenia coriiceps was the main prey in all of the sampling sites, followed in similar importance by Gobionotothen gibberifrons at Cape Herschel, Primavera Island and Midas Island and in less importance by Harpagifer antarcticus at Py Point. There were marked differences among colonies in the size of the fish consumed. The largest and the smallest specimens were eaten by shags from Midas Island and Py Point respectively. This was mainly influenced by the number of specimens of the smallest fish species, H. antarcticus, consumed at Py Point. The differences in the diet composition may be related to the different foraging areas used by the shags. Results from this study differ from previous studies around the Antarctic Peninsula. The shags at the Danco Coast preyed markedly more intensively than those at the South Shetland Islands on G. gibberifrons. This finding reflects the low abundance of this fish species in inshore waters (< 100 m depth) at the South Shetland Islands and supports the use of the Antarctic shags to monitor trends in local populations of coastal fish species.

The effect of an intensive sampling programme on an inshore population of Notothenia coriiceps was studied at Potter Cove, South Shetland Islands, by comparing catch data taken in successive summers of 1992/93 to 1994/95 at one specific zone (site 1) with those taken in the 1994/95 summer at two close but not previously sampled zones (sites 2 and 3). The fish were caught with trammel nets under similar sampling conditions (depth, net measurements, bottom type). In site 1, a decline in length (TL) of the fish was observed throughout the whole period. The fish from sites 2 (mean = 32.4 cm) and 3 (mean = 31.8 cm) exhibited no significant differences in mean length. They were larger (P = 0.07) than those from site 1 caught in the summers of 1994/95 (mean = 28.8 cm) and 1993/94 (mean = 30.2 cm), but were similar in size to those sampled in the summer of 1992/93 (mean = 31.7 cm), just when the sampling programme started in site 1. Although alternative hypotheses to explain the results are discussed (e.g. random error, strong recruitment), it is suggested that the size variations of the fish sampled at site 1 are due to intensive sampling effort carried out throughout this study at that specific zone in Potter Cove.