Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 44, Issue 1–3, pp 37–60 | Cite as

Ecomorphological correlates in ten species of subtropical seagrass fishes: diet and microhabitat utilization

  • Philip J. Motta
  • Kari B. Clifton
  • Patricia Hernandez
  • Bradley T. Eggold
Article

Synopsis

Ecomorphological correlates were sought among ten species of distantly related subtropical seagrass fishes. Morphometric data associated with feeding and microhabitat utilization were compared by principal components analysis, cluster analysis, and canonical correspondence analysis to dietary data. Morphology was generally a poor predictor of diet except for a group of mid-water planktotrophic filter feeders. Separation of the species along morphological axes appears to be related more to microhabitat utilization resulting in three major groups: (1) a group of planktotrophic, mid-water fishes specialized for cruising and seeking out evasive prey characterized by a compressed fusiform body, forked caudal fin, long, closely spaced gill rakers, short to intermediate! length pectoral fin, pointed pectoral fin, large lateral eye, short head, and a terminal or subterminal mouth; (2) slow swimming, less maneuverable epibenthic fishes that pick or suck their prey off the substrate. They are united by more rounded caudal and pectoral fins, and short or no gill rakers; and (3) a group of more mobile and maneuverable epibenthic foragers characterized by a more compressed, sub-gibbose body, long, pointed pectoral fins, forked caudal fins, large lateral eyes, subterminal mouth, and greater jaw protrusibility. Cases of convergence in trophic and microhabitat utilization characters were apparent in some of the groups.

Key words

Tampa Bay Morphology Feeding Phylogeny Convergence Specialization Synopsis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Aleev, Y.G. 1969. Function and gross morphology in fish. Akad. Sci. USSR, Sevastopol Biol. Stn., Israel Program for Sci. Transl., Jerusalem. 268 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R.McN. 1974. Functional design in fishes. Hutchinson University Library, London. 160 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Atchley, W.R., C.T. Gaskins & D. Anderson. 1976. Statistical properties of ratios. I. Empirical results. Syst. Zool. 25: 137–148.Google Scholar
  4. Block, W.M., L.A. Brennan & R.J. Gutierrez. 1991. Ecomorphological relationships of a guild of ground-foraging birds in northern California, USA. Oecologia 87: 449–458.Google Scholar
  5. Brook, I.M. 1977 Trophic relationships in a seagrass community (Thalassia testudinum), in Card Sound, Florida. Fish diets in relation to macrobenthic and cryptic faunal abundance. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 106: 219–229.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, W.F.S. & C.A. Adams. 1973. Food habits of juvenile marine fishes occupying seagrass beds in the estuarine zone near Crystal River, Florida. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102: 511–540.Google Scholar
  7. Chao, L.N. & J.A. Musick. 1977. Life history, feeding habits, and functional morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the York River Estuary, Virginia. U.S. Fish. Bull. 75: 657–702.Google Scholar
  8. Comp, G.S. 1985. A survey of the distribution and migration of the fishes in Tampa Bay. pp. 393–425 In: S.F. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis & R.L. Whitman,Jr(eds) Tampa basis. Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, Bellwether Press, Edina.Google Scholar
  9. Comp, G.S. & W. Seaman,Jr. 1985. Estuarine habitat and fishery resources of Florida. pp. 337–435. In: W. Seaman(ed) Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources, American Fisheries Society, Eustis.Google Scholar
  10. Cyrus, D.P. & S.J.M. Blaber. 1982. Mouthpart structure and function and the feeding mechanisms of Gerres (Teleostei). S. Aft. J. Zool. 17: 117–121.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, W.P. & R.S. Birdsong. 1973. Coral reef fishes which forage in the water column. Helgol. wiss. Meeresunters. 24: 292–306.Google Scholar
  12. Darnell, R.M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 5: 353–416.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M.F. 1987. An ecomorphological analysis of niche packing and niche dispersion in stream-fish clades. pp. 144–149. In: W.S. Mathews & D.C. Heins(eds.) Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  14. Ehlinger, T.J. 1990. Habitat choice and phenotype-limited feeding efficiency in bluegill: individual differences and trophic polymorphism. Ecology 71: 886–896.Google Scholar
  15. Ehlinger, T.J. & M.R. Gross. 1992. Ecomorphology of alternative male reproductive strategies. 72nd Ann. Meeting Amer. Soc. Ichthyol. Herp., University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana (abstract).Google Scholar
  16. Ehlinger, T.J. & D.S. Wilson. 1988. Complex foraging polymorphism in bluegill sunfish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 85: 1878–1882.Google Scholar
  17. Felley, J.D. 1984. Multivariate identification of morphological-environmental relationships within the cyprinidae (Pisces). Copeia 1984: 442–455.Google Scholar
  18. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Amer. Nat. 125: 1–15.Google Scholar
  19. Findley, J.S. & H. Black. 1983. Morphological and dietary structuring of a Zambian insectivorous bat community. Ecology 64: 625–630.Google Scholar
  20. Galis, F. 1993. Interactions between the pharyngeal jaw apparatus, feeding behavior and ontogeny in the cichlid fish, Haplochromis piceatus. A study of morphological constraints in evolutionary ecology. J. Exp. Zool. 267: 137–154.Google Scholar
  21. Gatz, A.J.Jr. 1979a. Ecological morphology of freshwater stream fishes. Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany 21: 91–124.Google Scholar
  22. Gatz, A.J. Jr. 1979b. Community organization in fishes as indicated by morphological features. Ecology 60: 711–718.Google Scholar
  23. Goldschmid, A., K. Kotrschal & P. Wirtz. 1984. Food and gut length of 14 Adriatic bleniid fish Bleniidae; Percomorpha; Teleostei). Zool. Anz. 213: 145–150.Google Scholar
  24. Grossman, G.D. 1986. Food resource partitioning in a rocky intertidal fish assemblage. J. Zool. Lond. 1: 317–355.Google Scholar
  25. Hansen, D.J. 1969. Food, growth, migration, and abundance of pinfish Lagodon rhomboides, and Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulates, near Pensacola, Flor. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 68: 135–146.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, M.O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: an unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54: 427–432.Google Scholar
  27. Huey, R.B. & A.F. Bennett. 1986. A comparative approach to field and laboratory studies in evolutionary biology. pp. 82–98. In: M.E. Feder & G.V. Lauder(eds) Predator-Prey Relationships: Perspectives and Approaches from the Study of Lower Vertebrates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Huh, S.H. & C.L. Kitting. 1985. Trophic relationships among concentrated populations of small fishes in seagrass meadows. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 92: 29–43.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, D.A., H.H. Harvey & K.M. Somers. 1990. Ratios in aquatic sciences: statistical shortcomings with mean depth and the morphoedaphic index. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 1788–1795.Google Scholar
  30. Jackson, D.A. & K.M. Somers. 1991. The spectre of ‘spurious’ correlations. Oecologia 86: 147–151.Google Scholar
  31. Johansson, J.O.R., K.A. Steidenger & D.C. Carpenter. 1985. Primary production in Tampa Bay: a review, pp. 279–298. In: S.F. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis & R.L. Whitman,Jr.(eds) Tampa basis. Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, Bellwether Press, Edina.Google Scholar
  32. Jongman, R.H.G., C.J.F. ter Braak & O.F.R. van Tongeren(eds). 1987. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen. 298 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Karrr, J.R. & F.C. James. 1975. Ecomorphological configurations and convergent evolution in species and communities. pp. 258–291. In: M.L. Cody & J.M. Diamond(eds) Ecology and Evolution of Communities, Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  34. Keast, A. & D. Webb. 1966. Mouth and body form relative to feeding ecology in the fish fauna of a small lake, Lake Opinion, Ontario. Journ. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23: 1845–1874.Google Scholar
  35. Kotrschal, K. 1989. Trophic ecomorphology in eastern Pacific blennioid fishes: character transformation of oral jaws and associated change of their biological role. Env. Biol. Fish. 24: 199–218.Google Scholar
  36. Lagler, K.F., J.E. Bardach & R.R. Miller. 1962. Ichthyology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 497 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Lauder, G.V. & K.F. Liem. 1983. The evolution and interrelationships of the Actinopterygian fishes. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 150: 95–197.Google Scholar
  38. Leisler, B. 1980. Morphological aspects of ecological specialization in bird genera. Okol. Vogel. 2: 199–220.Google Scholar
  39. Leisler, B. & H. Winkler, 1985. Ecomorphology. pp. 155–186. In: R.F. Johnston(ed.) Current Ornithology, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Liem, K.F. 1980. Adaptive significance of intra and interspecific differences in the feeding repertoires of cichlid fishes. Amer. Zool. 20: 295–314.Google Scholar
  41. Livingston, R.J. 1976. Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations of organisms in a north Florida estuary. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 4: 373–400.Google Scholar
  42. Livingston, R.J. 1982. Trophic organization of fishes in a coastal seagrass system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Set. 7: 1–12.Google Scholar
  43. Livingston, R.J. 1984. Trophic response of fishes to habitat variability in coastal seagrass systems. Ecology 65: 1258–1275.Google Scholar
  44. Losos, J.B. 1990a. Ecomorphology, performance capability, and scaling of West Indian Anolis lizards: an evolutionary analysis. Ecol. Monogr. 60: 369–388.Google Scholar
  45. Losos, J.B. 1990b. The evolution of form and function: morphology and locomotor performance in West Indian Anolis lizards. Evolution 44: 1189–1203.Google Scholar
  46. Lucas, J.R. 1982. Feeding ecology of the gulf silverside, Menidia peninsulae, near Crystal River, Florida, with notes on its life history. Estuaries 5: 138–144.Google Scholar
  47. Ludwig, J.A. & J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 337 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Miles, B.M., R.E. Ricklefs & J. Travis. 1987. Concordance of ecomorphological relationships in three assemblages of passerine birds. Amer. Nat. 129: 347–364.Google Scholar
  49. Miles, D.B. & R.E. Ricklefs. 1984. The correlation between ecology and morphology in deciduous forest passerine birds. Ecology 65: 1629–1640.Google Scholar
  50. Motta, P.J. 1984. Mechanics and functions of jaw protrusion in teleost fishes. a review. Copeia 1984:1–18.Google Scholar
  51. Motta, P.J. 1985. Functional morphology of the head of Hawaiian and Mid-Pacific butterflyfishes (Perciformes, Chaetodontidae). Env. Biol. Fish. 13: 253–276.Google Scholar
  52. Motta, P.J. 1988. Functional morphology of the feeding apparatus often species of Pacific butterflyfishes (Perciformes, Chaetodontidae): and ecomorphological approach. Env. Biol. Fish. 22: 39–67.Google Scholar
  53. Motta, P.J. & K.M. Kotrschal. 1992. Correlative, experimental, and comparative evolutionary approaches in ecomorphology. Neth. J. Zool. 42: 400–415.Google Scholar
  54. Motta, P.J., K.B. Clifton, P. Hernandez, B.T. Eggold, S.D. Giordano & R. Wilcox. 1995. Feeding relationships among nine species of seagrass fishes of Tampa Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56: 185–200.Google Scholar
  55. Moyle, P.B. & F.R. Senanayake. 1984. Resource partitioning among the fishes of rainforest streams in Sri Lanka. J. Zool. Lond. 202: 195–223.Google Scholar
  56. Norton, S.F. 1991. Capture success and diet of cottid fishes: the role of predator morphology and attack kinematics. Ecology 72: 1807–1819.Google Scholar
  57. Pinkas, L., M.S. Oliphant & I.L.K. Iverson. 1971. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna and bonito in California Waters. Calif. Fish Game. 152: 1–105.Google Scholar
  58. Pounds, J.A. 1988. Ecomorphology, locomotion, and microhabitat structure: patterns in a tropical mainland Anolis community. Ecol. Monog. 58: 299–320.Google Scholar
  59. Reist, J.D. 1985. An empirical evaluation of several univariate methods that adjust for size variation in morphometric data. Can. J. Zool. 63: 1429–1439.Google Scholar
  60. Ricklefs, R.E. & G.W. Cox. 1977. Morphological similarity and ecological overlap among passerine birds on St. Kitts, British West Indies. Oikos 29: 60–66.Google Scholar
  61. Ricklefs, R.E. & J. Travis. 1980. A morphological approach to the study of avian community organization. The Auk 97: 321–338.Google Scholar
  62. Ross, S.T. 1986. Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 1986: 352–388.Google Scholar
  63. Sanderson, S.L. & J.J. Cech,Jr. 1992. Energetic cost of suspension feeding versus particulate feeding by juvenile Sacramento blackfish. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 121: 149–157.Google Scholar
  64. Schaeffer, B. & D.E. Rosen. 1961. Major adaptive levels in the evolution of the actinopterygian feeding mechanism. Amer. Zool. 1: 187–204.Google Scholar
  65. Springer, V.G. & K.D. Woodburn. 1960. An ecological study of the fishes of Tampa Bay area. Fla. St. Board Conser. Prof. Pap. 1: 1–104.Google Scholar
  66. Stoner, A.W. 1980. Feeding ecology of Lagodon rhomboides (Pisces, Sparidae): variation and functional response. U.S. Fish. Bull. 78: 337–352.Google Scholar
  67. Stoner, A.W. 1983. Distribution of fishes in seagrass meadows: role of macrophyte biomass and species composition. U.S. Fish. Bull. 81: 837–846.Google Scholar
  68. Stoner, A.W. & R.J. Livingston. 1984. Ontogenetic patterns in diet and feeding morphology in sympatric sparid fishes from Copeia 1984:174–187.Google Scholar
  69. Strauss, R.E. 1987. The importance of phylogenetic constraints in comparisons of morphological structure among fish assemblages. pp. 136–143. In: W.J. Mathews & D.C Heins(eds) Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  70. Subrabmanyam, C.B. & S.H. Drake. 1975. Studies on the animal communities in two north Florida salt marshes. Part III. Seasonal fluctuations of fish and macroinvertebrates. Bull. Mar. Sci. 25: 445–465.Google Scholar
  71. Suyehiro, Y. 1942. A study on the digestive system and feeding habits of fish. Japan. J. Zool. 10: 1–301.Google Scholar
  72. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179.Google Scholar
  73. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1987. The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetatio 69: 69–77.Google Scholar
  74. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1988. CANOCO— a FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination by correspondence analysis, principal components analysis and redundancy analysis (version 3.12). Report LWA-88-02, Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen. 95 pp.Google Scholar
  75. Thayer, G.W., D.R. Colby & W.F. Hettler,Jr. 1987. Utilization of the red mangrove prop root habitat by fishes in south Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 35: 25–38.Google Scholar
  76. Wainwright, P.C. 1987. Biochemical limits to ecological performance: mollusc-crushing by the Caribbean hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus (Labridae). J. Zool. Lond. 213: 283–297.Google Scholar
  77. Wainwright, P.C. 1988. Morphology and ecology: functional basis of feeding constraints in Caribbean labrid fishes. Ecology 69: 635–645.Google Scholar
  78. Wainwright, P.C. 1991. Ecomorphology: experimental functional anatomy for ecological problems. Amer. Zool. 31: 680–693.Google Scholar
  79. Watson, D.J. & E.K. Balon. 1984. Ecomorphological analysis of fish taxocenes in rainforest streams of northern Borneo. J. Fish Biol. 25: 371–384.Google Scholar
  80. Webb, P.W. 1984. Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. Amer. Zool. 24: 107–120.Google Scholar
  81. Wesneat, M.W. 1995. Phylogenetic systematics and biomechanics in ecomorphology. Env. Biol. Fish. (in press).Google Scholar
  82. Wiens, J.A. 1991a. Ecological similarity of shrub-desert avifaunas of Australia and North America. Ecology 72: 479–495.Google Scholar
  83. Wiens, J.A. 1991b. Ecomorphological comparisons of the shrub-desert avifaunas of Australia and North America. Oikos 60: 55–63.Google Scholar
  84. Wiens, J.A. & J.T. Rotenberry. 1980. Patterns of morphology and ecology in grassland and shrubsteppe bird populations. Ecol. Monogr. 50: 287–308.Google Scholar
  85. Wikramanayake, F.D. 1990. Ecomorphology and biogeography of a tropical stream fish assemblage: evolution of assemblage structure. Ecology 71: 1756–1764.Google Scholar
  86. Winemiller, K.O. 1991. Ecomorphological diversification in lowland freshwater fish assemblages from five biotic regions. Ecol. Monogr. 61: 343–365.Google Scholar
  87. Winemiller, K.O., L.C. Kelso-Winemiller & A.L. Brenkert. 1995. Ecomorphological diversification and convergence in fluvial cichlid fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 235–261.Google Scholar
  88. Yamaoka, K. 1983. Feeding behaviour and dental morphology of algae scraping cichlids (Pisces: Teleostei) in Lake Tanganyika. African Study Monographs 4: 77–89.Google Scholar
  89. Yamaoka, K., M. Hori & S. Kuratani. 1986. Ecomorphology of feeding in ‘goby-like’ cichlid fish in Lake Tanganyika. Physiol. Ecol. Japan. 23: 17–29.Google Scholar
  90. Young, D.K. & M.W. Young. 1978. Regulation of species densities of seagrass-associated macrobenthos: evidence from field experiments in the Indian River estuary. Fla. J. Mar. Res. 36: 569–593.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip J. Motta
    • 1
  • Kari B. Clifton
    • 1
  • Patricia Hernandez
    • 1
  • Bradley T. Eggold
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaU.S.A.
  2. 2.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesPlymouthU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations