Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 186, Issue 4, pp 1069–1078 | Cite as

Terrestrial–aquatic trophic linkages support fish production in a tropical oligotrophic river

  • Sandra Bibiana Correa
  • Kirk Winemiller
Community ecology – original research

Abstract

Despite low in situ primary productivity, tropical oligotrophic rivers support highly diverse fish assemblages and productive fisheries. This raises the question, what energy sources support fish production in these ecosystems? We sampled fish and food resources in the floodplain of a nearly pristine, large, oligotrophic river in western Amazonia. We combined data from stomach contents and stable isotopes to test the hypothesis that floodplain forests sustain fisheries in tropical oligotrophic rivers. Analysis of stomach contents from > 800 specimens of 12 omnivorous fish species demonstrated that during the annual flood, forest plant matter dominated diets. Yet, our isotope mixing models estimated that arthropods from the forest canopy made a greater proportional contribution to fish biomass. Most of these arthropods are entirely terrestrial and, therefore, serve as trophic links between forests and fishes. Our results suggest that forest vegetation, particularly fruits, may provide much of the energy supporting metabolism and arthropods contribute significant amounts of protein for somatic growth. Moreover, the importance of terrestrial arthropods in support of fish biomass in oligotrophic rivers depends on interactions between riparian vegetation, terrestrial arthropods and flood pulse dynamics affecting accessibility of arthropods to fishes. The apparent paradox of high fish diversity in an oligotrophic river with low primary productivity may be explained, at least partially, by dynamic terrestrial–aquatic trophic linkages. This study further emphasizes the importance of seasonally flooded forests for sustaining fisheries in the Amazon.

Keywords

Flood pulse Flooded forest Food web Inland fisheries Trophic subsidy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank field assistants (J. J. Patarroyo, L. Cruz, I. López, L. Bravo, E. Tanimuka, J. J. Acevedo, B. Mejía, L. Tanimuka, A. Carevilla, and F. Yucuna) and colleagues in Colombia who provided logistic support and access to laboratory facilities (Francis and Edwin Palacios, Conservación Internacional; Santiago Duque, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Leticia; and Pablo Stevenson, Universidad de los Andes). This research was funded by the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Research Fellowship Program (to SBC) and the estate of Carolyn Wierichs Kelso. We thank indigenous leaders of the Resguardo Yaigojé-Apaporis (Puerto Ňumi and Bocas de Taraira) for granting access to their territories. Research permit was granted by the Instituto Colombiano de Agricultura, Colombia. All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Author contribution statement

SBC and KW designed the study. SBC collected data and conducted analyses. SBC and KW wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data accessibility

The data used in this publication will be archived at the Dryad Digital Repository.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4093_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Adis J, Erwin TL, Battirola LD, Ketelhut SM (2010) The importance of Amazonian floodplain forests for animal biodiversity: Beetles in canopies of floodplain and upland forests. In: Junk WJ, Piedade MTF, Wittmann F, Shongart J, Parolin P (eds) Amazonian floodplain forests: ecophysiology, biodiversity and sustainable management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JT, Saldana Rojas J, Flecker AS (2009) High-quality seed dispersal by fruit-eating fishes in Amazonian floodplain habitats. Oecologia 161:279–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arantes CC, Winemiller KO, Petrere M, Castello L, Freitas CE, Hess LL (2017) Relationships between forest cover and fish diversity in the Amazon River floodplain. J Appl Ecol (in Press)Google Scholar
  4. Arrington DA, Winemiller KO (2002) Preservation effects on stable isotope analysis of fish muscle. Trans Am Fish Soc 131:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barthem R, Goulding M (2007) An Unexpected ecosystem: the Amazon as revealed by fisheries. Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica (ACCA), Missouri Botanical Garden Press, LimaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastos RF, Corrêa F, Winemiller KO, Garcia AM (2017) Are you what you eat? Effects of trophic discrimination factors on estimates of food assimilation and trophic position with a new estimation method. Ecol Indic 75:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batista VdS, Petrere M (2003) Characterization of the commercial fish production landed at Manaus, Amazonas State, Brazil. Acta Amazon 33:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Carl Saunders W (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bellmore JR, Baxter CV, Martens K, Connolly PJ (2013) The floodplain food web mosaic: a study of its importance to salmon and steelhead with implications for their recovery. Ecol Appl 23:189–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Benedito-Cecilio E, Araujo-Lima CARM, Forsberg BR, Bittencourt MM, Martinelli LC (2000) Carbon sources of Amazonian fisheries. Fish Manag Ecol 7:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Botero P (ed) (1999) Paisajes fisiográficos de la Orinoquía-Amazonía (ORAM) Colombia. Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  13. Carvalho F, Power M, Forsberg BR, Castello L, Martins EG, Freitas CE (2018) Trophic ecology of Arapaima sp. in a ria lake–river–floodplain transition zone of the Amazon. Ecol Freshw Fish 27:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Correa SB (2003) Ichthyofauna of Lago Taraira, lower Rio Apaporis sytem, Colombian Amazon. Dahlia 6:59–68Google Scholar
  15. Correa SB (2008) Fish assemblage structure is consistent through an annual hydrological cycle in habitats of a floodplain-lake in the Colombian Amazon. Neotrop Ichthyol 6(2):257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Correa SB, Winemiller KO (2014) Niche partitioning among frugivorous fishes in response to fluctuating resources in the Amazonian floodplain forest. Ecology 95:210–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Correa SB, Araujo JKM, Penha JMF, Nunes da Cunha C, Stevenson PR, Anderson JT (2015) Overfishing disrupts an ancient mutualism between frugivorous fishes and plants in Neotropical wetlands. Biol Conserv 191:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeNiro MJ, Epstein S (1977) Mechanisms of carbon isotope fractionation associated with lipid synthesis. Science 197:261–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Erwin TL (1983) Beetles and other insects of tropical forest canopies at Manaus, Brazil, sampled by insecticidal fogging. In: Sutton SL, Whitmore TC, Chadwick AC (eds) Tropical rain forest: ecology and management, vol 2. British Ecological Society, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 59–75Google Scholar
  20. Flecker AS et al (2002) Interactions between herbivorous fishes and limiting nutrients in a tropical stream ecosystem. Ecology 83:1831–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flores BM et al (2017) Floodplains as an Achilles’ heel of Amazonian forest resilience. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617988114
  22. Forsberg BR, Araujo-Lima C, Martinelli LA, Victoria RL, Bonassi JA (1993) Autotrophic carbon-sources for fish of the Central Amazon. Ecology 74:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  24. Froese R, Pauly D (2017), version (06/2017) www.fishbase.org. Accessed 1 Oct 2017
  25. Furch K, Junk WJ (1997) The chemical composition, food value, and decomposition of herbaceous plants, leaves, and leaf litter of floodplain forests. In: Junk WJ (ed) The Central Amazon floodplain, ecology of a pulsing system, vol 126. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Germany, pp 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. German D, Miles R (2010) Stable carbon and nitrogen incorporation in blood and fin tissue of the catfish Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus (Siluriformes, Loricariidae). Environ Biol Fishes 89:117–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goulding M, Carvalho ML, Ferreira EG (1988) Rio Negro, rich life in poor water. SPB Academic Publishing, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoorn C (2006) Mangrove forests and marine incursions in Neogene Amazonia (Lower Apaporis River, Colombia). Palaios 21:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inomata S, Freitas C (2015) Fish landings in Barcelos, in the middle Negro River region, Amazonas. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 192:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jardine TD, MacLatchy DL, Fairchild WL, Cunjak RA, Brown SB (2004) Rapid carbon turnover during growth of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts in sea water, and evidence for reduced food consumption by growth-stunts. Hydrobiologia 527:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Junk WJ, Robertson BA (1997) Aquatic invertebrates. In: Junk WJ (ed) The Central Amazon floodplain, ecology of a pulsing system, vol 126. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Germany, pp 279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Junk WJ, Piedade MTF, Schöngart J, Cohn-Haft M, Adeney JM, Wittmann F (2011) A classification of major naturally-occurring Amazonian lowland wetlands. Wetlands 31:623–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelly LC, Martinez del Rio C (2010) The fate of carbon in growing fish: an experimental study of isotopic routing. Physiol Biochem Zool 83:473–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Klinge H, Furch K (1991) Towards the classification of Amazonian floodplains and their forests by means of biogeochemical criteria of river water and forest biomass. Interciencia 16:196–201Google Scholar
  35. Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lobón-Cerviá J, Hess LL, Melack JM, Araujo-Lima CA (2015) The importance of forest cover for fish richness and abundance on the Amazon floodplain. Hydrobiologia 750:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lopes GCdS, Catarino MF, de Lima AC, Freitas CEdC (2016) Small-scale fisheries in the Amazon Basin: general patterns and diversity of fish landings in five sub-basins. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 42:889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marshall BG, Forsberg BR, Thomé-Souza MJ (2008) Autotrophic energy sources for Paracheirodon axelrodi (Osteichthyes, Characidae) in the middle Negro River, Central Amazon, Brazil. Hydrobiologia 596:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martinez del Rio C, Wolf BO (2005) Mass-balance models for animal isotopic ecology. In: Starck MJ, Wang T (eds) Physiological and ecological adaptations to feeding in vertebrates. Science Pub Inc, Enfield, New Hampshire, pp 141–174Google Scholar
  40. Martínez del Rio C, Wolf N, Carleton SA, Gannes LZ (2009) Isotopic ecology ten years after a call for more laboratory experiments. Biol Rev 84:91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCann KS, Rasmussen J, Umbanhowar J (2005) The dynamics of spatially coupled food webs. Ecol Lett 8:513–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Melack JM, Hess LL (2010) Remote sensing of the distribution and extent of wetlands in the Amazon Basin. In: Junk WJ, Piedade MTF, Wittmann F, Shongart J, Parolin P (eds) Amazonian floodplain forests: Ecophysiology, biodiversity and sustainable management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moreira-Turcq P, Seyler P, Guyot JL, Etcheber H (2003) Exportation of organic carbon from the Amazon River and its main tributaries. Hydrol Process 17:1329–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mortillaro J-M, Pouilly M, Wach M, Freitas C, Abril G, Meziane T (2015) Trophic opportunism of Central Amazon floodplain fish. Freshw Biol 60:1659–1670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mortillaro J-M et al (2016) The fate of C4 and C3 macrophyte carbon in Central Amazon floodplain waters: insights from a batch experiment. Limnologica 59:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oliveira ACB, Soares MGM, Martinelli LA, Moreira MZ (2006) Carbon sources of fish in an Amazonian floodplain lake. Aquat Sci 68:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parnell AC et al (2013) Bayesian stable isotope mixing models. Environmetrics 24:387–399Google Scholar
  48. PAT (1997) Zonificación ambiental para el plan modelo Colombo-Brasilero (Eje Apaporis-Tabatinga: PAT). Instituto Agustin Codazzi, IAC, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillips DL, Koch PL (2002) Incorporating concentration dependence in stable isotope mixing models. Oecologia 130:114–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Piedade MTF, Worbes M, Junk WJ (2001) Geological controls on elemental fluxes in communities of higher plants in Amazonian floodplains. In: McClain ME, Victoria RR, Richey JE (eds) The biogeochemistry of the Amazon Basin. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 209–234Google Scholar
  51. Post DM, Layman CA, Arrington DA, Takimoto G, Quattrochi J, Montaña C (2007) Getting to the fat of the matter: models, methods and assumptions for dealing with lipids in stable isotope analyses. Oecologia 152:179–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Power ME, Bouma-Gregson K, Higgins P, Carlson SM (2015) The thirsty Eel: summer and winter flow thresholds that tilt the Eel River of Northwestern California from salmon-supporting to cyanobacterially degraded states. Copeia 103:200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Resende AF, Nelson BW, Flores BM, Almeida DR (2014) Fire damage in seasonally flooded and upland forests of the Central Amazon. Biotropica 46:643–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roach KA (2013) Environmental factors affecting incorporation of terrestrial material into large river food webs. Freshw Sci 32:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sheikh PA, Merry FD, McGrath DG (2006) Water buffalo and cattle ranching in the Lower Amazon Basin: comparisons and conflicts. Agric Sys 87:313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stock BC, Semmens BX (2016a) Unifying error structures in commonly used biotracer mixing models. Ecology 97:2562–2569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Stock BC, Semmens BX (2016b) MixSIAR GUI User Manual, Version 3.1.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.56159
  58. Warton DI, Hui FK (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Weidel BC, Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF, Vander Zanden MJ (2011) Rates and components of carbon turnover in fish muscle: insights from bioenergetics models and a whole-lake 13C addition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winemiller K et al (2016) Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351:128–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolf N, Newsome SD, Peters J, Fogel ML (2015) Variability in the routing of dietary proteins and lipids to consumer tissues influences tissue-specific isotopic discrimination. Rapid Commun Mass Spectr 29:1448–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wyatt AS, Waite AM, Humphries S (2010) Variability in isotope discrimination factors in coral reef fishes: implications for diet and food web reconstruction. PLoS One 5:e13682CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Zuanon J, Pezzato AC, Pezzato LE, Passos J, Barros MM, Ducatti C (2006) Muscle δ13C change in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): effects of growth and carbon turnover. Comp Biochem Physiol Part B Biochem Mol Biol 145:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations