Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 375–389 | Cite as

Food partitioning among some characids of a small Brazilian floodplain lake from the Paraná River basin

  • Katharina Eichbaum Esteves
  • Pedro M. GalettiJr.
Article
Received:
Accepted:

Synopsis

Resource partitioning and the seasonal patterns of food intake of four characids (Astyanax fasciatus, A. bimaculatus, A. schubarti and Cheirodon stenodon) were studied during 1988 in a floodplain lake of Mogi-Guaçú River, Sao Paulo State. For interspecific comparisons, data of the previously studied Moenkhausia intermedia have also been used. A. fasciatus and A. bimaculatus can be considered omnivorous species, while A. schubarti and C. stenodon are predominantly herbivorous. The river flood cycle (following the wet season October-March and dry season April-September) seems to influence both seasonal food intake and food overlap between species. February-March and September-October are probably the months of highest food availability, and the months preceding these periods have the lowest resource amount. Our study shows that both omnivorous and herbivorous species modified the intensity of their interactions according to this cycle. Omnivorous species maintained fairly segregated diets when resources were presumably limited, and showed a rapid change from distinct food niches in the dry season to widely overlapping ones when resources were presumably more abundant. Conversely, the herbivorous species showed higher overlap during the dry season. Acute cyclic changes in the environment, as observed in this study, suggest the necessity of small interval sampling in food partitioning studies in tropical freshwater floodplains, in order to understand how species interact and cope with changes in food availability.

Key words

Feeding ecology Freshwater fish Food overlap Mogi-Guaçú River Resource utilization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Arcifa, M.S., T.G. Northcote & O. Froehlich. 1991. Interactive ecology of two cohabiting characin fishes (Astyanax fasciatus and Astyanax bimaculatus) in an eutrophic Brazilian reservoir. Jour. Trop. Ecol. 7: 257–268.Google Scholar
  2. Barbosa, P.M.M. 1982. Predação de organismos zooplanctônicos pelo Astyanax fasciatus Cuvier, 1819 (Osteichtyes, Characidae) na Represa do Lobo (‘Broa’). M.Sc. Thesis, Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), Sao Carlos. 128 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Britski, H.A. 1964. Sbre uma nova espćie de Astyanax do Rio Mogi-Guassu (Pisces, Characidae). Papéis Avulsos do Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura de São Paulo 16: 213–215.Google Scholar
  4. Cavalheiro, F., M.V. Ballester, A.V. Krusche, S.A. Melo, J.L. Waechter, C.J. da Silva, M.C. D'Arienzo, M.S. Suzuki, R.L. Bozelli, T.P. Jesus & J.E. Santos. 1990. Propostas preliminares referentes ao plano de zoneamento da Estação Ecológica do Jataí. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 3: 951–968.Google Scholar
  5. Esteves, K.E. 1992. Alimentação de cinco espécies forrageiras (Pisces, Characidae) em uma lagoa marginal do Rio Mogi-Guaçú, SP. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos. 230 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Esteves, K.E. 1994. Feeding ecology of Moenkhausia intermedia (Pisces, Characidae) in a small oxbow lake of Mogi-Guaçú River, São Paulo, Brazil. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 522: 3973–3980.Google Scholar
  7. Galetti Jr., K.E. Esteves, N.R.W. Lima, C.A. Mestriner, M.M. Cavallini, A.C.G. Cesar & C.S. Miyazawa. 1990. Aspectos comparativos da ictiofauna de duas lagoas marginais do Rio Mogi-Guaçú (Alto Paraná — Estação Ecológica do Jataí, SP). Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 3: 865–885.Google Scholar
  8. Galvão, M.V. 1976. Regiões bioclimáticas do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Geografia 29: 3–36.Google Scholar
  9. Goulding, M. 1980. The fishes and the forest: explorations in Amazonian natural history. University of California Press, Berkeley, 280 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Hinegardner, R. & D.E. Rosen. 1972. Cellular DNA content and evolution of teleostean fishes. Amer. Nat. 106: 621–644.Google Scholar
  11. Hyslop, E.J. 1980. Stomach content analysis — a review of methods and their application. J. Fish. Biol. 17: 411–429.Google Scholar
  12. Junk, W.J. 1980. Areas inundáveis — um desafio para a limnologia. Acta Amaznica 10: 775–795.Google Scholar
  13. Junk, W.J. 1985. Temporary fat storage, an adaptation of some fish species to waterlevel fluctuations and related environmental changes of the Amazon system. Amazoniana 9: 315–351.Google Scholar
  14. Junk, W.J., P. Bayley & R.E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. pp. 110–127. In: D.P. Dodge (ed.) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS), Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106.Google Scholar
  15. Kirpichnikov, V.S. 1981. The evolution of karyotypes among Cyclostomata and fishes. pp. 19–34. In: V.S. Kirpichnikov (ed.) Genetic Bases of Fish Selection, Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Lowe-McConnell, R.H. 1964. The fishes of the Rupununi savanna district of British Guiana, South America. Part I. Ecological groupings of fish species and effects of seasonal cycles on the fish. J. Linn. Soc. London (Zool.) 45: 103–144.Google Scholar
  17. Machado-Allison, A. 1990. Ecologia dos peixes das áreas inundáveis dos lhanos da Venezuela. Intercincia 15: 411–423.Google Scholar
  18. Morelli, S., L.A.C. Bertollo, F. Foresti, O. Moreira Filho & S.A. Toledo Filho. 1983. Cytogenetic considerations on the genus Astyanax (Pisces, Characidae). I. Karyotypic variability. Caryologia 36: 235–244.Google Scholar
  19. Nogueira, F.M.B. 1989. Importância das macrófitas aquáticas Eichhornia azurea Kunth e Scirpus cubensis Poepp & Kunth na ciclagem de nutrientes e nas principais características limnológicas da Lagoa do Infernão (SP). M.Sc. Thesis, Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos. 147 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Paixão, I.M.P. 1980. Estudo da alimentação e reprodução de Mylossoma duriventris Cuvier, 1818 (Pisces, Characoidei) do lago Janauacá, AM, Brasil. M.Sc. Thesis, Instituto de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), Fundação Universidade do Amazonas (FUA), Manaus. 127 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Portela, A.L.B.S., P.M. Galetti Jr. & L.A.C. Bertollo. 1988. Considerations on the chromosome evolution of Tetragonopterinae (Pisces, Characidae). Revista Brasileira de Genética 11: 307–316.Google Scholar
  22. Power, M. 1983. Grazing responses of tropical freshwater fishes to different scales of variation in their food. Env. Biol. Fish. 9: 103–115.Google Scholar
  23. Prejs, A. & K. Prejs. 1987. Feeding of tropical freshwater fishes: seasonality in resource availability and resource use. Oecologia 71: 397–404.Google Scholar
  24. Ross, S.T. 1986. Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 1986: 352–388.Google Scholar
  25. Schoener, T.W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.Google Scholar
  26. Toledo-Filho, D.V 1984. Composição florística e estrutura fitossociológica da vegetaçào do Município de Luis Antoio (SP). M.Sc. Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas. 173 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Zaret, T.M. & A.S. Rand. 1971. Competition in tropical stream fishes: support for the competitive exclusion principle. Ecology 52: 336–342.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharina Eichbaum Esteves
    • 1
  • Pedro M. GalettiJr.
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de PescaSecretaria da Agricultura e Abastecimento do Estado de São PauloSão PauloBrasil
  2. 2.Departamento de Genética e EvoluçãoUniversidade Federal de São CarlosSão CarlosBrasil

Personalised recommendations