Advertisement

Aquatic Sciences

, 81:31 | Cite as

Fish feeding groups, food selectivity, and diet shifts associated with environmental factors and prey availability along a large subtropical river, China

  • Sai Wang
  • Jin-Peng Tang
  • Lin-Hui Su
  • Jing-Jing Fan
  • Hao-Yen Chang
  • Tuan-Tuan Wang
  • Lin Wang
  • Hsing-Juh Lin
  • Yang YangEmail author
Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

Understanding spatial variation in fish trophic structures along large river systems remains a challenge, and the influence of fish food selectivity and diet shifts on these structures remains unknown. In this study, the assemblage composition and stomach contents of fish in the subtropical East River of southern China were analyzed to determine their diet composition (DC) and identify prey-oriented feeding groups. Ten prey items were identified and used to cluster 106 fish species into 23 feeding groups. The number of groups increased longitudinally due to the accumulated emergence of site-specific prey sources in fish DC, although this number decreased sharply near the estuary due to the loss of insectivorous fish. The fish assemblages showed a longitudinal decrease in abundance and an increase in biomass, with higher values observed in the rainy season than the dry season. A downstream decrease in insectivores and epiphytivores and increase in detritivores and molluscivores represented the basic patterns observed along the river. Seven widespread fish species exhibited spatial dietary shifts, among which three generalist feeders with a high abundance notably influenced the fish trophic structures, and four specialist feeders with high food selectivity were significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with prey availability. Multivariate data analysis showed that the flow velocity, water depth, riffle areas, and nutrient concentrations were the key environmental factors that determined the distribution of fish feeding groups, while hydrophytes, plant debris, Ephemeroptera and Odonata insects, and Atyidae shrimp were the key prey sources.

Keywords

East River Stomach content analysis Diet composition Prey items Fish trophic structure Widespread species 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was financially supported by the Joint Funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. U1501235 and U1405234) and Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China (no. 201704020158). We thank Nora F. Y. Tam for fruitful discussions and comments on earlier versions of this manuscript and anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism.

Author contributions

SW, JPT, TTW, LW, JJF, and HYC initiated the study and carried out the fieldwork and species determination. SW, JPT, and LHS carried out the statistical analysis, prepared the diagrams, and wrote the manuscript. YY and HJL revised the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests. The study did not involve work with humans. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree to its submission.

Supplementary material

27_2019_628_MOESM1_ESM.docx (817 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 816 KB)

References

  1. Aarts BW, Nienhuis P (2003) Fish zonations and guilds as the basis for assessment of ecological integrity of large rivers. Hydrobiologia 500:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adite A, Winemiller KO (1997) Trophic ecology and ecomorphology of fish assemblages in coastal lakes of Benin, West Africa. Ecoscience 4:6–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexandre C, Esteves K, De Moura E, Mello M (2010) Analysis of fish communities along a rural–urban gradient in a neotropical stream (Piracicaba River Basin, São Paulo, Brazil). Hydrobiologia 641:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angermeier PL, Karr JR (1983) Fish communities along environmental gradients in a system of tropical streams. Environ Biol Fishes 9:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angermeier PL, Winston MR (1999) Characterizing fish community diversity across Virginia landscapes: prerequisite for conservation. Ecol Appl 9:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker R, Buckland A, Sheaves M (2014) Fish gut content analysis: robust measures of diet composition. Fish Fish 15:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder B, Stribling J (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers. USEPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Böet P, Belliard J (1999) Multiple human impacts by the City of Paris on fish communities in the Seine river basin, France. Hydrobiologia 410:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011) Numerical ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyero L, Ramirez A, Dudgeon D, Pearson RG (2009) Are tropical streams really different? J N Am Benthol Soc 28:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bren L (1993) Riparian zone, stream, and floodplain issues: a review. J Hydrol 150:277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buchheister A, Latour RJ (2015) Diets and trophic-guild structure of a diverse fish assemblage in Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A. J Fish Biol 86:967–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buckland A, Baker R, Loneragan N, Sheaves M (2017) Standardising fish stomach content analysis: the importance of prey condition. Fish Res 196:126–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burton GW, Odum EP (1945) The distribution of stream fish in the vicinity of Mountain Lake, Virginia. Ecology 26:182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chesson J (1978) Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecology 59:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dill LM (1983) Adaptive flexibility in the foraging behavior of fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dudgeon D, Cheung FK, Mantel SK (2010) Foodweb structure in small streams: do we need different models for the tropics? J N Am Benthol Soc 29:395–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fausch KD, Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream Fishes. Bioscience 52:483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flecker AS (1992) Fish trophic guilds and the stucture of a tropical stream: weak direct vs. strong indirect effects. Ecology 73:927–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flecker AS (1997) Habitat modification by tropical fishes: environmental heterogeneity and the variability of interaction strength. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:286–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flecker AS, Taylor BW (2004) Tropical fishes as biological bulldozers: density effects on resource heterogeneity and species diversity. Ecology 85:2267–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flotemersch JE, Stribling JB, Paul MJ (2006) Concepts and approaches for the bioassessment of non-wadeable streams and rivers. Office of Research and Development, USEPA, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  23. Franco A, Elliott M, Franzoi P, Torricelli P (2008) Life strategies of fishes in European estuaries: the functional guild approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 354:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furlan N, Esteves KE, Quináglia GA (2013) Environmental factors associated with fish distribution in an urban neotropical river (Upper Tietê River Basin, São Paulo, Brazil). Environ Biol Fishes 96:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldstein RM, Meador MR (2004) Comparisons of fish species traits from small streams to large rivers. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:971–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grimm NB (1988) Feeding dynamics, nitrogen budgets, and ecosystem role of a desert stream omnivore, Agosia chrysogaster (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Environ Biol Fishes 21:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gu B, Hoyer MV (1997) Intrapopulation feeding diversity in blue tilapia: evidence from stable-isotope analyses. Ecology 78:2263–2266Google Scholar
  28. Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (2007) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Hellawell J, Abel R (1971) A rapid volumetric method for the analysis of the food of fishes. J Fish Biol 3:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho KC, Chow YL, Yau JTS (2003) Chemical and microbiological qualities of The East River (Dongjiang) water, with particular reference to drinking water supply in Hong Kong. Chemosphere 52:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoeinghaus DJ, Winemiller KO, Taphorn DC (2004) Compositional change in fish assemblages along the Andean piedmont-Llanos floodplain gradient of the río Portuguesa, Venezuela. Neotrop Ichthyol 2:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoeinghaus DJ, Winemiller KO, Birnbaum JS (2007) Local and regional determinants of stream fish assemblage structure: inferences based on taxonomic vs. functional groups. J Biogeogr 34:324–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Horwitz RJ (1978) Temporal variability patterns and the distributional patterns of stream fishes. Ecol Monogr 48:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huet M (1959) Profiles and biology of western European streams as related to fish management. Trans Am Fish Soc 88:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hyslop E (1980) Stomach contents analysis—a review of methods and their application. J Fish Biol 17:411–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ibanez C, Oberdorff T, Teugels G et al (2007) Fish assemblages structure and function along environmental gradients in rivers of Gabon (Africa). Ecol Freshw Fish 16:315–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ibañez C, Belliard J, Hughes RM et al (2009) Convergence of temperate and tropical stream fish assemblages. Ecography 32:658–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobsen D, Cressa C, Mathooko JM, Dudgeon D (2008) Macroinvertebrates: composition, life histories and production. In: Dudgeon D (ed) Tropical stream ecology. Elsevier, Atlanta, pp 65–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee JHW, Wang ZY, Thoe W, Cheng DS (2007) Integrated physical and ecological management of the East River. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 7:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mcgarvey DJ (2014) Moving beyond species-discharge relationships to a flow-mediated, macroecological theory of fish species richness. Freshw Sci 33:18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miltner RJ (1998) Primary nutrients and the biotic integrity of rivers and streams. Freshw Biol 40:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moyle PB, Senayake FR (1984) Resource partitioning among the fishes of rainforest streams in Sri Lanka. J Zool 202:195–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nobriga ML, Feyrer F (2008) Diet composition in San Francisco Estuary striped bass: does trophic adaptability have its limits? Environ Biol Fishes 83:495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osmundson D, Ryel RJ, Lamarra V, Pitlick J (2002) Flow-sediment-biota relations: implications for river regulation effects on native fish abundance. Ecol Appl 12:1719–1739Google Scholar
  45. Peres-Neto P, Bizerril P, Iglesias R (1995) An overview of some aspects of river ecology: a case study on fish assemblages distribution in an eastern Brazilian coastal river. Oecol Aust 1:317–334Google Scholar
  46. Petry A, Schulz U (2006) Longitudinal changes and indicator species of the fish fauna in the subtropical Sinos River, Brazil. J Fish Biol 69:272–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poff NL, Allan JD (1995) Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76:606–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pouilly M, Barrera S, Rosales C (2006) Changes of taxonomic and trophic structure of fish assemblages along an environmental gradient in the Upper Beni watershed (Bolivia). J Fish Biol 68:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pusey BJ, Arthington AH (2003) Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and management of freshwater fish: a review. Mar Freshw Res 54:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahel FJ, Hubert WA (1991) Fish assemblages and habitat gradients in a Rocky Mountain–Great Plains stream: biotic zonation and additive patterns of community change. Trans Am Fish Soc 120:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schlosser IJ (1991) Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. Bioscience 41:704–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seegert G, Vondruska J, Perry E, Dixon D (2013) Longitudinal variation in the Ohio River fish community. N Am J Fish Manag 33:539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sheldon AL (1968) Species diversity and longitudinal succession in stream fishes. Ecology 49:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.rproject.org/
  55. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, Delong MD (2006) The riverine ecosystem synthesis: biocomplexity in river networks across space and time. River Res Appl 22:123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Townsend CR, Dolédec S, Norris R et al (2003) The influence of scale and geography on relationships between stream community composition and landscape variables: description and prediction. Freshw Biol 48:768–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW et al (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang L, Robertson DM, Garrison PJ (2007) Linkages between nutrients and assemblages of macroinvertebrates and fish in wadeable streams: implication to nutrient criteria development. Environ Manag 39:194–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang S, Wang L, Chang HY, Li F, Tang JP, Zhou XA, Li X, Tian SM, Lin HJ, Yang Y (2018) Longitudinal variation in energy flow networks along a large subtropical river, China. Ecol Model 2:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ward J, Tockner K, Schiemer F (1999) Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. River Res Appl 15:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolff LL, Carniatto N, Hahn NS (2013) Longitudinal use of feeding resources and distribution of fish trophic guilds in a coastal Atlantic stream, southern Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol 11:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center of Hydrobiology, Department of EcologyJinan UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Research Center of Tropical and Subtropical Aquatic Ecological Engineering, Ministry of Education EngineeringJinan UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of Life Sciences and Innovation and Development Center of Sustainable AgricultureNational Chung Hsing UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of GeochemistryChinese Academy of SciencesGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options