Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 148, Issue 5, pp 1123–1134 | Cite as

Gut length and mass in herbivorous and carnivorous prickleback fishes (Teleostei: Stichaeidae): ontogenetic, dietary, and phylogenetic effects

  • Donovan P. German
  • Michael H. Horn
Research Article

Abstract

Relative gut length, Zihler’s index, and relative gut mass were measured in four species of prickleback fishes and the effects of ontogeny, diet, and phylogeny on these gut dimensions were determined. Of the four species, Cebidichthys violaceus and Xiphister mucosus shift to herbivory with growth (>45 mm SL), whereas X. atropurpureus and Anoplarchus purpurescens remain carnivores. A. purpurescens belongs to a carnivorous clade, and the three other species belong to an adjacent, herbivorous clade. Gut dimensions were compared in three feeding categories of the four species: (1) small, wild-caught juveniles representing the carnivorous condition before two species shift to herbivory; (2) larger, wild-caught juveniles representing the natural diet condition of the two carnivores and the two species that have shifted to herbivory; and (3) larger, laboratory-raised juveniles produced by feeding a high-protein artificial diet to small juveniles until they have reached the size of the larger, wild-caught juveniles. Comparisons of gut dimensions in categories (1) versus (2) tested for an ontogenetic effect, in (2) versus (3) for a dietary effect, and within each category for a phylogenetic effect. C. violaceus and X. mucosus increased gut dimensions with increase in body size and did not change ontogenetic trajectory in gut dimensions on the high-protein artificial diet, suggesting that they are genetically programmed to develop relatively large guts associated with herbivory. X. atropurpureus increased its gut dimensions with increase in size similar to its sister taxon, X. mucosus, suggesting a phylogenetic influence, but decreased gut dimensions on the high-protein artificial diet, suggesting phenotypic plasticity. Nevertheless, X. atropurpureus displayed a larger gut than A. purpurescens, further evidence that it evolved in an herbivorous clade. A. purpurescens possessed a relatively small gut that was little affected by ontogeny or diet. Ontogeny and phylogeny more than diet appear to influence gut dimensions in the four species, thus favoring genetic adaptation over phenotypic plasticity as the major force acting on digestive system features in the two prickleback clades.

Keywords

Herbivorous Fish Digestive Enzyme Activity Carnivorous Fish Dietary Fiber Content Gammarid Amphipod 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Gawlicka for help in the organizational phases of the study and in the field and laboratory, K. Boyle, M. Saba, K. Kim, E. Cox, and S. Choi for assistance in the field and laboratory, J. Carroll for providing access to Diablo Canyon and helping to collect X. mucosus , J. Degan for help in constructing the tank supports, K. Drewe for discussions on gut morphology, D. Smith for statistical insights and L. Crummett for moral support. Financial support was provided by a grant (OCE-9906857) from the National Science Foundation (M. H. Horn, principal investigator), a Sigma Xi Grant-in-Aid of Research and by the Departmental Associations Council and Department of Biological Science at California State University, Fullerton.

References

  1. Al-Hussaini AH (1947) The feeding habits and the morphology of the alimentary tract of some teleosts living in the neighbourhood of the marine biological station, Ghardaqa, Red Sea. Publ Mar Biol Sta Ghar (Red Sea) 5:1–61Google Scholar
  2. Barton MG (1982) Intertidal vertical distribution and diets of five species of central California stichaeoid fishes. Calif Fish Game 68:174–182Google Scholar
  3. Battley PF, Piersma T (2005) Adaptive interplay between feeding and ecology and features of the digestive tract in birds. In: Starck JM, Wang T (eds) Physiological and ecological adaptations to feeding in vertebrates. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, pp 201–228Google Scholar
  4. Benavides AG, Cancino JM, Ojeda FP (1994) Ontogenetic changes in gut dimensions and macroalgal digestibility in the marine herbivorous fish, Aplodactylus punctatus. Funct Ecol 8:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bocanegra A, Nieto A, Blas B, Sanchez-Muniz F (2003) Diets containing a high percentage of Nori or Konbu algae are well-accepted and efficiently utilized by growing rats but induce different degrees of histological changes in the liver and bowel. Food Chem Tox 41:1473–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan AS, Horn MH, Dickson KA, Gawlicka A (2004) Digestive enzyme activity in carnivores and herbivores: comparisons among four closely related prickleback fishes (Teleostei: Stichaeidae) from a California rocky intertidal habitat. J Fish Biol 65:848–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke K (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleveland A, Montgomery WL (2003) Gut characteristics and assimilation efficiencies in two species of herbivorous damselfishes (Pomacentridae: Stegastes dorsopunicans and S. planifrons). Mar Biol 142:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman RM (1992) Reproductive biology and female parental care in the cockscomb prickleback, Anoplarchus purpurescens (Pisces: Stichaeidae). Environ Biol Fish 35:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross JN (1981) Structure of a rocky intertidal fish assemblage. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  11. Drewe KE, Horn MH, Dickson KA, Gawlicka A (2004) Insectivore to frugivore: ontogenetic changes in gut morphology and digestive enzyme activity in the characid fish Brycon guatemalensis from Costa Rican rainforest streams. J Fish Biol 64:890–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott JP, Bellwood DR (2003) Alimentary tract morphology and diet in three coral reef fish families. J Fish Biol 63:1598–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis BA, Mills JN, Kennedy JT, Maiztegui JI, Childs JE (1994) The relationship among diet, alimentary tract morphology, and life history for five species of rodents from the central Argentine pampa. Acta Theriol 39:345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eschmeyer WN, Herald ES, Hammann H (1983) A field guide to Pacific coast fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Follett WI, Anderson ME (1990) Esalenia, a new genus of pricklebacks (Teleostei: Stichaeidae), with two new species from California and Baja California Norte. Copeia 1990:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fris MB, Horn MH (1993) Effects of diets of different protein content on food consumption, gut retention, protein conversion, and growth of Cebidichthys violaceus (Girard), an herbivorous fish of temperate zone marine waters. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 166:185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frierson EW, Foltz JW (1992) Comparison and estimation of absorptive intestinal surface areas in two species of cichlid fish. Trans Am Fish Soc 121:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuentes LS, Cancino JM (1990) Cambios morfometricos en el tubo digestivo de juveniles de Girella laevifrons (Kyphosidae) en funcion de la dieta y del nivel de replecion. Rev Biol Mar Val 25:19–26Google Scholar
  19. Gallagher ML, Luczkovich JJ, Stellwag EJ (2001) Characterization of the ultrastructure of the gastrointestinal tract mucosa, stomach contents and liver enzyme activity of the pinfish during development. J Fish Biol 58:1704–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gawlicka A, Horn MH (2005) Storage and absorption in the digestive system of carnivorous and herbivorous prickleback fishes (Teleostei: Stichaeidae): ontogenetic, dietary, and phylogenetic effects. Physiol Biochem Zool 78:879–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. German DP, Horn MH, Gawlicka A (2004) Digestive enzyme activities in herbivorous and carnivorous prickleback fishes (Teleostei: Stichaeidae): ontogenetic, dietary, and phylogenetic effects. Physiol Biochem Zool 77:789–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horn MH (1989) Biology of marine herbivorous fishes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 27:167–272Google Scholar
  23. Horn MH, Gawlicka A, German DP, Logothetis EA, Cavanagh JW, Boyle KS (2005) Structure and function of the stomachless digestive system in three related species of New World silverside fishes (Atherinopsidae) representing herbivory, omnivory, and carnivory. Mar Biol (in revision)Google Scholar
  24. Horn MH, Murray SN, Edwards TW (1982) Dietary selectivity in the field and food preferences in the laboratory for two herbivorous fishes (Cebidichthys violaceus and Xiphister mucosus) from a temperate intertidal zone. Mar Biol 67:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horn MH, Murray SN, Seapy RR (1983) Seasonal structure of a central California rocky intertidal community in relation to environmental variations. Bull South Cal Acad Sci 82:79–94Google Scholar
  26. Horn MH, Ojeda FP (1999) Herbivory. In: Horn MH, Martin KLM, Chotkowski MA (eds) Intertidal fishes: life in two worlds. Academic, San Diego, pp 197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones JA (1981) Competition for substrates in laboratory experiments between Anoplarchus purpurescens (Pisces, Stichaeidae) and three related species from the central California rocky intertidal zone. MA Thesis, California State University, FullertonGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones RS (1968) A suggested method for quantifying gut contents in herbivorous fishes. Micronesica 4:369–371Google Scholar
  29. Kapoor BG, Smit H, Verighina IA (1975) The alimentary canal and digestion in teleosts. Adv Mar Biol 13:109–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King PA, Fives JM, McGrath D (1994) Reproduction, growth, and feeding of the dragonet Callionymus lyra (Teleostei: Callionymidae), in Galway Bay, Ireland. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 74:513–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Korn H (1992) Intestine lengths of Southern African savanna rodents and insectivores: intra- and interspecific comparisons. J Zool 228:455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kramer DL, Bryant MJ (1995a) Intestine length in the fishes of a tropical stream: 1. Ontogenetic allometry. Environ Biol Fish 42:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kramer DL, Bryant MJ (1995b) Intestine length in the fishes of a tropical stream: 2. Relationships to diet—the long and the short of a convoluted issue. Environ Biol Fish 42:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lehtonen KK (1996) Ecophysiology of the benthic amphipod Monoporeia affinis in an open-sea area of the northern Baltic Sea: seasonal variations in body composition, with bioenergetic considerations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 143:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lemos D, Phan VN (2001) Ontogenetic variation in metabolism, biochemical composition and energy content during the early life stages of Farfantepenaeus paulensis (Crustacea: Decapoda: Penaeidae). Mar Biol 138:985–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lloret J, Planes S (2003) Condition, feeding, and reproductive potential of white seabream Diplodus sargus as indicators of habitat quality and the effect of reserve protection in the northwest Mediterranean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 248:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Logothetis EA, Horn MH, Dickson KA (2001) Gut morphology and function in Atherinops affinis (Teleostei: Atherinopsidae), a stomachless omnivore feeding on macroalgae. J Fish Biol 59:1298–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marshall WH, Echeverria TW (1992) Age, length, weight, reproductive cycle and fecundity of the monkeyface prickleback (Cebidichthys violaceus). Calif Fish Game 78:57–64Google Scholar
  39. Montgomery WL (1977) Diet and gut morphology in fishes with special reference to the monkeyface prickleback, Cebidichthys violaceus (Stichaeidae: Blennioidei). Copeia 1997:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ribble DO, Smith MH (1983) Relative intestine length and feeding ecology of freshwater fishes. Growth 47:292–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ricklefs RE (1996) Morphometry of digestive tracts of some passerine birds. Condor 98:279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sabat P, Lagos JA, Bozinovic F (1999) Test of the adaptive modulation hypothesis in rodents: dietary flexibility and enzyme plasticity. Comp Biochem Physiol A 123:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Setran AC, Behrens DW (1993) Transitional ecological requirements for early juveniles of two sympatric stichaeid fishes, Cebidichthys violaceus and Xiphister mucosus. Environ Biol Fish 37:381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sibley RM, Calow P (1986) Physiological ecology of animals, an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith DR (2002) Trophic position of estuarine and kelp-bed populations of the omnivorous silverside fish Atherinops affinis (Teleostei: Atherinopsidae) from southern California: analyses of dietary items and 15N and 13C stable isotopes. MS Thesis, California State University, FullertonGoogle Scholar
  46. Starck JM (1999) Phenotypic flexibility in the avian gizzard: rapid, reversible, and repeated changes of organ size in response to changes in dietary fiber content. J Exp Biol 202:3171–3179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Starck JM (2005) Structural flexibility of the digestive system of tetrapods: patterns and processes at the cellular and tissue level. In: Starck JM, Wang T (eds) Physiological and ecological adaptations to feeding in vertebrates. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, pp 175–200Google Scholar
  48. Stevens CE, Hume ID (1995) Comparative physiology of the vertebrate digestive system. Press Syndicate, University of Cambridge, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  49. Stoddard KM (1985) A phylogenetic analysis of some prickleback fishes (Teleostei, Stichaeidae, Xiphisterinae) from the north Pacific Ocean, with a discussion of their biogeography. MA Thesis, California State University, FullertonGoogle Scholar
  50. Stoner A, Livingston R (1984) Ontogenetic patterns in diet and feeding morphology in sympatric sparid fishes from seagrass meadows. Copeia, pp 174–187Google Scholar
  51. Toloza EM, Diamond J (1990) Ontogenetic development of transporter regulation in bullfrog intestine. Am J Physiol 258:G770–G773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. White TCR (1985) When is a herbivore not a herbivore? Oecologia 67:596–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wingert RC (1974) Comparative reproductive cycles and growth histories of two species of Xiphister (Pisces: Stichaeidae) from San Simeon, California. MA Thesis, California State University, FullertonGoogle Scholar
  54. Wong K, Cheung P (2000) Nutritional evaluation of some subtropical red and green seaweeds. Part I: proximate composition, amino acid profiles, and some physico-chemical properties. Food Chem 71:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zihler F (1982) Gross morphology and configuration of digestive tracts of Cichlidae (Teleostei: Perciformes): phylogenetic and functional significance. Neth J Zool 32:544–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological ScienceCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations