Advertisement

What matters for intraspecific diet changes: the dietary differences between different areas or the increase in body size? The case of the searobin Prionotus punctatus in a tropical bay

  • Magda F. Andrade-Tubino
  • Rosana R. Milagre
  • Francisco G. AraújoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Resource use diversity occurs when a population is composed of ecologically heterogeneous individuals who use only a subset of the population’s resource availability. The aim of this study was to examine the diet of juveniles, sub-adults and adults of Prionotus punctatus (40 to 190 mm Total Length - TL) to assess the importance of factors driving intraspecific changes, such as spatial differences in the diet or individual body size changes. The intraspecific trophic strategy was also described. We examined the stomach contents of 210 individuals collected in two zones of a tropical bay (outer and inner) grouped into three size classes (< 90 mm TL, juveniles; 90–140 mm TL, subadults; > 140 mm TL, adults). The Prey-Specific Index of Relative Importance (PSIRI) indicated that Peneidae, Amphipoda (excluding Caprellidae), Mysidacea, Teleostei and Copepoda were the most important food items. The change in the diet during fish growth differed between the two bay zones. In the inner zone, the juveniles fed mainly on Copepoda and Amphipoda (excluding Caprellidae), whereas the adults fed mainly on Teleostei and Peneidae. In the outer zone, the juveniles fed mainly on Mysidacea, whereas the adults fed mainly on Peneidae and Brachyura, with Amphipoda (excluding Caprellidae) being an important prey for individuals in all size classes. Significant differences were detected in the diets among size classes (Pseudo-F = 5.52; P = 0.003) but not between the two zones (Pseudo-F = 2.20; P = 0.113) according to PERMANOVA. Niche breadth decreased during ontogeny, and the niche overlap among the size classes was low (<0.60), except for subadults and adults (>0.80) in both zones. Together, these observations suggest that the feeding niche in the larger-sized individuals of this species tends to overlap irrespective of the dietary differences between different areas, which can indicate some degree of narrowing in morphological and behavioural features. The increase in body size rather than spatial dietary differences seems to be a major determinant for intraspecific changes in feeding habits. Therefore, diet partitioning along growth, rather than dietary spatial change, seems to be the main mechanism used by this species to decrease intraspecific competition.

Keywords

Triglidae Feeding habits Bays Feeding niche Food resources 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank technicians of the Laboratory of Fish Ecology, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro for their help in fieldwork. This study was partially financed by the Brazilian National Counsel for Research Development (CNPq), Process number 302555/2008-0. This research was conducted under SISBIO Collection of Species Permit number 10707 issued by ICMBio, Brazilian Environmental Agency.

References

  1. Amundsen PA, Gabler HM, Staldvik FJ (1996) A new approach to graphical analysis of feeding strategy from stomach contents data – modification of the Costello (1990) method. J Fish Biol 48:607–614.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb01455.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-EGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo FG, Cruz-Filho AG, Azevedo MCC, Santos ACA (1998) Demersal fish community structure of Sepetiba Bay, RJ. Rev Bras Biol 58(3):417–430.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71081998000300007 (in Portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo FG, Azevedo MCC, Silva MA, Pessanha ALM, Gomes ID, Cruz-Filho AG (2002) Environmental influences on the demersal fish assemblages in the Sepetiba Bay, Brazil. Estuaries 25:441–450.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02695986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo MCC, Araújo FG, Pessanha ALM, Silva MA (2006) Co-occurrence of demersal fishes in a tropical bay in southeastern Brazil: a null model analysis. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 66(1–2):315–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardach JE, Case J (1965) Sensory capabilities of the modifred fms of squirrel hake (Urophycis chues) and searobins (Prionotus carolinis and P. evolans). Copeia 1965(2):194–206.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1440724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolnick DI, Svanback R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Amer Nat 161:1–28 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/343878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braga FMS, Braga MAS (1987) Study of the feeding habit of Prionotus punctatus (Bloch, 1797) (Teleostei, Triglidae) in the region of Ilha de Anchieta, São Paulo state, Brazil. Rev Bras Biol 42(1/2):31–36 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  9. Brown SC, Bizzarro JJ, Cailliet GM, Ebert DA (2012) Breaking with tradition: redefining measures for diet description with a case study of the Aleutian skate Bathyraja aleutica (Gilbert 1896). Environ Biol Fish 95:3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9959-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2015) PRIMER v7: User Manual/Tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-EGoogle Scholar
  11. Colwell RK, Fuentes ER (1975) Experimental studies of the niche. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6(1):281–310.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.06.110175.001433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costello MJ (1990) Predator feeding strategy and prey importance: a new graphical analysis. J Fish Biol 36:261–263.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb05601.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunha CLN, Rosmam PCC, Ferreira AP, Monteiro TCN (2006) Hydrodynamics and water quality models applied to Sepetiba Bay. Cont Shelf Res 26:1940–1953.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2006.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day JW, Hall CAS, Kemp WM, Yáñez-Arancibia A (1989) Estuarine Ecology. New York, John Wiley and Sons. 558pGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott M, Hemingway KL, Costello MJ, Duhamed S, Hostens K, Labropoulou M, Marshall S, Winkler H (2002) Links between fish and other trophic levels. In: Elliott M, Hemingway KL (eds) Fishes in estuaries. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 124–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL Jr (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01601954 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guedes APP, Araújo FG, Pessanha ALM, Milagre RR (2015) Partitioning of the feeding niche along spatial, seasonal and size dimensions by the fish community in a tropical bay in southeastern Brazil. Mar Ecol 36(1):1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hinz H, Kaiser MJ, Bergmann M, Rogers SI, Armstrong MJ (2003) Ecological relevance of temporal stability in regional fish catches. J Fish Biol 63:1219–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00244.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hossain MA, Hemraj DA, Ye Q, Leterme SC, Qin JG (2017) Diet overlap and resource partitioning among three forage fish species in Coorong, the largest inverse estuary in Australia. Environ Biol Fish 100:639–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0592-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson AC, Rundle SD, Attrill MI, Cotton PA (2004) Ontogenetic changes in metabolism may determine diet shifts for a sit-and-wait predator. J Anim Ecol 73:536–545.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00831.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology. 2nd ed. San Francisco, Benjamin/Cummings ISBN-13: 978–0321021731Google Scholar
  22. Krumme U (2009) Diel and tidal movements by fish and decapods linking tropical coastal ecosystems. In: Nagelkerken I (ed) Ecological connectivity among tropical coastal ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2406-0_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Labropoulou M, Eleftheriou A (1997) The foraging ecology of two pairs of congeneric demersal fish species: importance of morphological characteristics in prey selection. J Fish Biol 50:324–340.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01361.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Litz MNC, Miller JA, Copeman LA, Teel DJ, Weitkamp LA, Daly EA, Claiborne AM (2017) Ontogenetic shifts in the diets of juvenile Chinook Salmon: new insight from stable isotopes and fatty acids. Environ Biol Fish 100:337–360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-016-0542-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Amer Nat 100:603–609 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magro M, Cergole MC, Rossi-Wongtschowski CLDB (2000) Synthesis of knowledge of the main potentially exploitable coastal fisheries resources on the south-east coast of Brazil: Fish. No. 639.22 MAG, MMA, Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources and Legal Amazon. (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  27. McBride RS, Able KW (1994) Reproductive seasonality distribution and abundance of Prionotus carolinus and P. evolans (Pisces: Triglidae) in the New York bight. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 38:173–188.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.1994.1011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Medeiros APM, Xavier JH de A, Rosa IM de L (2017) Diet and trophic organization of the fish assemblage from the Mamanguape River estuary, Brazil. Lat Am J Aquat Res 45(5):879–890.  https://doi.org/10.3856/vol45-issue5-fulltext-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milagre RR, Azevedo MCC, Araújo FG (2002) Distribution, reproduction and feeding habits of Prionotus punctatus (Scorpaeniformes: Triglidae) in Sepetiba Bay, RJ. Acta Biol Leopoldensia 24(2):173–184 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  30. Mittelbach GG, Osenberg CW (1993) Stage-structured interactions in bluegill: consequences of adult resource variation. Ecology 74(8):2381–2394.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muto EY, Corbisier TN, Coelho LI, Arantes LPL, Chalom A, Soares LS (2014) Trophic groups of demersal fish of Santos Bay and adjacent continental shelf, São Paulo state, Brazil: temporal and spatial comparisons. Braz J Oceanogr 62(2):89–102.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-87592014045906202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pereira HH, Neves LM, Costa MR, Araújo FG (2015) Fish assemblage structure on sandy beaches with different anthropogenic influences and proximity of spawning grounds. Mar Ecol 36(1):16–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pessanha ALM, Araújo FG (2014) Shifts of the feeding niche along the size dimension of three juvenile fish species in a tidal mudflat in southeastern Brazil. Mar Biol 161:543–550.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-013-2356-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pianka ER (1982) Evolutionary ecology. New York, Harper and Row. 416p. ISSN: 0269-7653Google Scholar
  35. Platell ME, Sarre GA, Potter IC (1997) The diets of two co-occurring marine teleosts, Parequula melbournensis and Pseudocaranx wright, and their relationships to body size and mouth morphology, and season and location of capture. Environ Biol Fish 49:361–376.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007388200920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Potter IC, Tweedley JR, Elliott M, Whitfield AK (2015) The ways in which fish use estuaries: a refinement and expansion of the guild approach. Fish Fish 16:230–239.  https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ross ST (1986) Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 1986:352–388.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1444996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. São Clemente RRB, Costa PAS, Martins AS (2014) Distribution and feeding habits of three sea robin species (Bellator brachychir, Prionotus nudigula and Prionotus punctatus) in the Campos Basin, southeastern Brazil. Lat Am J Aquat Res 42(3):488–496.  https://doi.org/10.3856/vol42-issue3-fulltext-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scharf FS, Juanes F, Rountree RA (2000) Predator size - prey size relationships of marine fish predators: interspecific variation and effects of ontogeny and body size on trophic-niche breadth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 208:229–248.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps208229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmitter-Soto JJ, Castro-Aguirre JL (1996) Trophic comparison among Triglidae (Pisces: Scorpaeniformes) of Baja California Sur. Mexico Rev Biol Trop 44(2):803–811 http://hdl.handle.net/10669/25976 Google Scholar
  41. Soares LSH, Apelbaum R (1994) Daily food activity of Prionotus punctatus (Teleostel: Triglidae) of the Ubatuba coast, Brazil. Bol Inst Oceanogr 42(1/2):85–98.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0373-55241994000100007 (in Portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sogard SM (1997) Size-selective mortality in the juvenile stage of teleost fishes: a review. Bull Mar Sci 60(3):1129–1157 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233490993 Google Scholar
  43. Svanbäck R, Bolnick D (2007) Intraspecific competition drives increased resource use diversity within a natural population. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274:839–844.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.0198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teixeira RL, Haimovici M (1989) Distribution, reproduction and feeding habits of Prionotus punctatus and P. nudigula (Pisces: Triglidae) on the coast of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Atlântica 11(1):13–45 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  45. Ward AJW, Webster MM, Hart PJB (2006) Intraspecific food competition in fishes. Fish Fish 7:231–261.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00224.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 15:393–425.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wootton RG (1991) Ecology of teleost fishes. Chapman & Hall, London 404p https://www.springer.com/us/book/9780412845901 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratório de Ecologia de PeixesUniversidade Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroSeropédicaBrazil

Personalised recommendations