Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 156, Issue 8, pp 1703–1714 | Cite as

Trophic ecology of New Zealand triplefin fishes (Family Tripterygiidae)

  • David A. Feary
  • M. Wellenreuther
  • K. D. Clements
Original Paper

Abstract

In many vertebrate radiations, food partitioning among closely related taxa is a key factor in both the maintenance of species diversity and the process of diversification. We compared diet composition and jaw morphology of 18 New Zealand triplefin species (F. Tripterygiidae) to examine whether species have diversified along a trophic axis. These fishes predominantly utilised small, mobile benthic invertebrates, and interspecific differences in diet composition appeared to be mainly attributable to habitat- or size-dependent feeding behaviour. Although there were differences in the relative size of the bones comprising the oral jaw apparatus between species, the majority showed an apparatus consistent with a relatively high velocity, low force jaw movement indicative of a diet of evasive prey. Phylogenetic comparative analyses showed that the evolution of jaw lever ratios and diet breadth was best explained by a non-directional model in which character changes have occurred randomly and independent of phylogeny. The mode of diet breadth evolution was gradual and the tempo has not accelerated or slowed down over time. The mode of evolution for the jaw lever ratios has been gradual for the opening but punctuated for the closing levers, suggesting that evolutionary changes have occurred rapidly for the latter trait. The tempo of trait evolution for the jaw opening levers has not accelerated or slowed down over time, while the tempo for the jaw closing levers has accelerated towards the tips of the tree, which is suggestive of species level adaptation. The lack of phylogenetic signal in diet breadth and jaw lever ratios appears most likely to be a correlated response to the marked habitat diversification in this group, and is thus the passive outcome of prey availability in species-specific habitat types. Overall, the trophic ecology of New Zealand’s triplefin fauna parallels the generalist strategy typical of the family worldwide, suggesting that trophic resource partitioning has not been an important factor in the evolution of these fishes.

Keywords

Diet Composition Diet Breadth Mechanical Advantage Trophic Resource 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

Acknowledgments

We thank L. Jawad, R. Baker, G. Almany and two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments, B. Creese and J. Grieve for taxonomic assistance, M. Westneat for advice on jaw levers, and A. Stewart and D. Neale for providing triplefin samples. This study was funded by a Marsden grant to K.D. Clements.

Supplementary material

227_2009_1205_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
Appendix (DOCX 32 kb)

References

  1. Albertson RC, Streelman JT, Kocher TD, Yelick PC (2005) Integration and evolution of the cichlid mandible: the molecular basis of alternate feeding strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16287–16292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ, Millar RB (2004) Spatial variation and effects of habitat on temperate reef fish assemblages in northeastern New Zealand. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 305:191–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angel A, Ojeda FP (2001) Structure and trophic organization of subtidal fish assemblages on the northern Chilean coast: the effect of habitat complexity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 217:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellwood DR, Wainwright PC (2002) The history and biogeography of fishes on coral reefs. In: Sale PF (ed) Coral reef fishes. Dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyst B, Vanaverbeke J, Vincz M, Mees J (2002) Tidal and diurnal periodicity in macrocrustaceans and demersal fish on an exposed sandy beach, with special emphasis on juvenile plaice Pleuronectes platessa. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 225:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyle KS, Horn MH (2006) Comparison of feeding guild structure and ecomorphology of intertidal fish assemblages from central California and central Chile. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 319:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr MH, Anderson TW, Hixon MA (2002) Biodiversity, population regulation, and the stability of coral-reef fish communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:11241–11245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castillo-Rivera M, Kobelkowsky A, Zamayoa V (1996) Food resource partitioning and trophic morphology of Brevoortia gunteri and B. patronus. J Fish Biol 49:1102–1111Google Scholar
  9. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  10. Clements KD (2003) Triplefins. In: Andrew NL, Francis MP (eds) The living reef. The ecology of New Zealand’s rocky reefs. Craig Potton Publishing, Nelson, pp 160–167Google Scholar
  11. Clements KD, Jawad LA, Stewart AL (2000) The New Zealand triplefin Forsterygion signata (Teleostei; Tripterygiidae): a junior synonym of G. gymnota from Tasmania. J R Soc NZ 30:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denoeel M, Schabetsberger R (2003) Resource partitioning in two heterochronic populations of Greek Alpine newts, Triturus alpestris veluchiensis. Acta Oecol 24:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duftner N, Koblmueller S, Sturmbauer C (2005) Evolutionary relationships of the Limnochromini, a tribe of benthic deepwater cichlid fish endemic to Lake Tanganyika, East Africa. J Mol Evol 60:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eastman JT (1997) Phyletic divergence and specialization for pelagic life in the antarctic Nototheniid fish Pleuragramma antarcticum. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 118:1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feary DA, Clements KD (2006) Habitat use by triplefin species (Tripterygiidae) on rocky reefs in New Zealand. J Fish Biol 69:1031–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Floeter SR, Ferreira CEL, Dominici-Arosemena A, Zalmon IR (2004) Latitudinal gradients in Atlantic reef fish communities: trophic structure and spatial use patterns. J Fish Biol 64:1680–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fricke R (1994) Tripterygiid fishes of Australia, New Zealand and the Southwest Pacific Ocean (Teleostei). Koeltz Scientific Books, KönigsteinGoogle Scholar
  18. Fricke R (1997) Tripterygiid fishes of the western and central Pacific, with descriptions of 15 new species, including an annotated checklist of world Tripterygiidae (Teleostei). Koeltz Scientific Books, KönigsteinGoogle Scholar
  19. Fricke R (2002) Tripterygiid fishes of New Caledonia, with zoogeographical remarks. Environ Biol Fish 65:175–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glasby TM, Kingsford MJ (1994) Atypichthys strigatus (Pisces: Scorpididae): an opportunistic planktivore that responds to benthic disturbances and cleans other fishes. Aust J Ecol 19:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grossman GD (1986) Food resource partitioning in a rocky intertidal fish assemblage. J Zool Soc Lond B 1:317–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hickey AJR, Clements KD (2003) Key metabolic enzymes and muscle structure in triplefin fishes (Tripterygiidae): a phylogenetic comparison. J Comp Physiol B 173:113–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hickey AJR, Clements KD (2005) Genome size evolution in New Zealand triplefin fishes. J Heredity 96:356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hickey AJR, Lavery SD, Eyton SR, Clements KD (2004) Verifying invasive marine fish species using molecular techniques: a model example using triplefin fishes (Family: Tripterygiidae). NZ J Mar Freshwat Res 38:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hilton Z, Wellenreuther M, Clements KD (2008) Physiology underpins habitat partitioning in a sympatric sister-species pair of intertidal fishes. Funct Ecol 22:1108–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyndes GA, Platell ME, Potter IC (1997) Relationships between diet and body size, mouth morphology, habitat and movements of six sillaginid species in coastal waters: implications for resource partitioning. Mar Biol 128:585–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karpouzi VS, Stergiou KI (2003) The relationships between mouth size and shape and body length for 18 species of marine fishes and their trophic implications. J Fish Biol 62:1353–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kotrschal K (1988) Evolutionary patterns in tropical marine reef fish feeding. Z zool Syst Evolut -forsch 26:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotrschal K, Thomson DA (1986) Feeding patterns in eastern Tropical Pacific blennioid fishes (Teleostei: Tripterygiidae, Labrisomidae, Chaenopsidae, Blenniidae). Oecologia 70:367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology. Benjamin/Cummings, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  33. Levesque C, Juniper SK, Marcus J (2003) Food resource partitioning and competition among alvinellid polychaetes of Juan de Fuca Ridge hydrothermal vents. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 246:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liem KF (1990) Aquatic versus terrestrial feeding modes: possible impacts on the trophic ecology of vertebrates. Am Zool 30:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Longnecker K (2007) Devil in the details: high-resolution dietary analysis contradicts a basic assumption of reef-fish diversity models. Copeia 3:543–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matic-Skoko S, Antolic B, Kraljevic M (2004) Ontogenetic and seasonal feeding habits of the annular seabream (Diplodus annularis L.) in Zostera sp. beds, eastern Adriatic Sea. J Appl Ichthyol 20:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Motta PJ (1985) Functional morphology of the head of Hawaiian and mid-Pacific butterfly-fishes (Perciformes, Chaetodontidae). Environ Biol Fish 13:253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pagel M, Meade A (2004) A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or character-state data. Syst Biol 53:571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pagel M, Meade A, Barker D (2004) Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Syst Biol 53:673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paulin CD, Roberts CD (1992) The rockpool fishes of New Zealand. Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa, Tongarewa, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. Platell ME, Potter IC (2001) Partitioning of food resources amongst 18 abundant benthic carnivorous fish species in marine waters on the lower west coast of Australia. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 261:31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Platell ME, Orr PA, Potter IC (2006) Inter- and intraspecific partitioning of food resources by six large and abundant fish species in a seasonally open estuary. J Fish Biol 69:243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ross ST (1986) Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 2:352–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russell BC (1983) The food and feeding habits of rocky reef fish of northeastern New Zealand. NZ J Mar Freshw Res 17:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sale PF (2002) Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  47. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Silberschneider V, Booth DJ (2001) Resource use by Enneapterygius rufopileus and other rockpool fishes. Environ Biol Fish 61:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Streelman JT, Danley PD (2003) The stages of vertebrate evolutionary radiation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Syms C (1995) Multi-scale analysis of habitat association in a guild of blennioid fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 125:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor RB (1998) Density, biomass and productivity of animals in four subtidal rocky reef habitats: the importance of small mobile invertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 172:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vanderklift MA, Kendrick GA, Smit AJ (2006) Differences in trophic position among sympatric sea urchin species. Est Coast Shelf Sci 66:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wainwright PC, Richard BA (1995) Predicting patterns of prey use from morphology of fishes. Environ Biol Fish 44:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wellenreuther M (2006) Ecological factors associated with speciation in New Zealand triplefin fishes (Tripterygiidae). PhD. School of Biological Sciences, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  55. Wellenreuther M, Barrett PT, Clements KD (2007) Ecological diversification in habitat use by subtidal triplefin fishes (Tripterygiidae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 330:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wellenreuther M, Syms C, Clements KD (2008) Consistent habitat use across biogeographic gradients. Ecography 31:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wennhage H, Pihl L (2002) Fish feeding guilds in shallow rocky and soft bottom areas on the Swedish west coast. J Fish Biol 61:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Westneat MW (1994) Transmission of force and velocity in the feeding mechanisms of labrid fishes (Teleostei, Perciformes). Zoomorphology 114:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Westneat MW, Alfaro ME, Wainwright PC, Bellwood DR, Grubich JR, Fessler JL, Clements KD, Smith LL (2005) Local phylogenetic divergence and global evolutionary convergence of skull function in reef fishes of the family Labridae. Proc R Soc B 272:993–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zekeria ZA, Dawit Y, Ghebremedhin S, Naser M, Videler JJ (2002) Resource partitioning among four butterflyfish species in the Red Sea. Mar Freshw Res 53:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Feary
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Wellenreuther
    • 3
  • K. D. Clements
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.International Network on Water, Environment and Health, PJSCUnited Nations UniversityDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Section for Animal EcologyUniversity of LundLundSweden
  4. 4.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations