Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 197–221 | Cite as

A review of the diets and feeding behaviours of a family of biologically diverse marine fishes (Family Syngnathidae)

  • C. G. ManningEmail author
  • S. J. Foster
  • A. C. J. Vincent


This review compiles, summarizes and provides new analytical insights on large amounts of fragmented information on the diets and feeding behaviours of syngnathids (Family Syngnathidae). This review is broken down into two distinct sections that address two central questions: (1) How, where, when and what do syngnathids eat? And (2) How does diet differ with feeding morphology? For (1) we summarized both qualitative and quantitative information on the diets and feeding behaviours of syngnathids found in the published and grey literature. This section includes a narrative summary of syngnathid feeding events and foraging behaviours (e.g. body mechanics and feeding morphologies, habitat use, seasonal and diurnal timing of feeding, energetics) and a tabulated summary of what syngnathids eat. For (2) we performed a comparative analysis on the diets of 41 species of syngnathid, comprising 15 genera from 39 sources in peer-reviewed and grey literature. Redundancy analyses on bulk, numeric, and frequency of occurrence data, analyzed separately, all show large unexplained dietary variation, which we hypothesize is the result of large differences in prey availability. Of the explained variation, syngnathid diets were most strongly correlated with head characteristics: most notably relative snout lengths and gape sizes. Syngnathid feeding morphologies also showed high phylogenetic signal; this suggests that dietary differences across genera were largely explained by how syngnathids differed with respect to these feeding morphologies. This review identifies new taxonomic patterns, and expands on previous generalities, improving our ecological understanding of this diverse group of fishes.


Ecomorphology Foraging behaviour Feeding ecology Hippocampus Predator–prey interactions Syngnathus 



This is a contribution from Project Seahorse. We would like to thank Mark McGrouther and the Australian Museum for providing us with access to their ichthyology collections. We appreciate input from Diane Srivastava, John Richardson, Nathan Price and additional readers Kyle Gillespie, Ting-Chun Kuo, Tanvi Vaidyanathan and all other members of Project Seahorse. This project was financed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and Guylian Chocolates Belgium.

Supplementary material

11160_2019_9549_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Online Resource 1 Summary table of morphological characteristics for syngnathids used in this study, and the references used to generate the data (DOCX 54 kb)
11160_2019_9549_MOESM2_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Online Resource 2 Summary table of syngnathid feeding kinematics in the literature (DOCX 42 kb)
11160_2019_9549_MOESM3_ESM.docx (99 kb)
Online Resource 3 Correlation matrices for candidate independent variables in bulk, numeric, and frequency of occurrence dietary data models (DOCX 99 kb)


  1. Abrams PA (2000) The evolution of predator-prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:79–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley-Ross MA (2002) Mechanical properties of the dorsal fin muscle of seahorse (Hippocampus) and pipefish (Syngnathus). J Exp Zool 293:561–577. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes C, Maxwell D, Reuman DC et al (2010) Global patterns in predator-prey size relationships reveal size dependency of trophic transfer efficiency. Ecology 91:222–232. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell JD, Westoby M (1986) Abundance of macrofauna in dense seagrass is due to habitat preference, not predation. Oecologia 68:205–209. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett BA (1989) The diets of fish in three south-western Cape estuarine systems. S Afr J Zool 24:163–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett BA, Branch GM (1990) Relationships between production and consumption of prey species by resident fish in the Bot, a cool temperate South African estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 31:139–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergert BA, Wainwright PC (1997) Morphology and kinematics of prey capture in the syngnathid fishes Hippocampus erectus and Sygnathus floridae. Mar Biol 127:563–570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986) Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:209–215Google Scholar
  9. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Robinson-Wolrath S (2006) Food or sex—males and females in a sex role reversed pipefish have different interests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:281–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blomberg SP, Garland T (2002) Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. J Evol Biol 15:899–910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blomberg SP, Garland T, Ives AR (2003) Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialing out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 84:511–525. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowman RE, Stillwell CE, Michaels WL, Grosslein MD (2000) Food of Northwest Atlantic fishes and two common species of squid. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nation Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region. Accessed 15 Mar 2015
  14. Brodie ED, Brodie ED (1999) Costs of exploiting poisonous prey: evolutionary trade-offs in a predator-prey arms race. Evolution 53:626–631. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Brook IM (1977) Trophic relationships in a seagrass community (Thalassia testudinum), in Card Sound, Florida. Fish dies in relation to macrobenthic and cryptic faunal abundance. Trans Am Fish Soc 106:219–229Google Scholar
  16. Brown JD (1972) A comparative life history study of four species of pipefishes (family Syngnathidae) in Florida. Dissertation, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown JH, Maurer BA (1989) Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continents. Sci New Ser 243:1145–1150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bruno JF, Bertness MD (2001) Habitat modification and facilitation in benthic marine communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  19. Burchmore JJ, Pollard DA, Bell JD (1984) Community structure and trophic relationships of the fish fauna of an estuarine Posidonia australis seagrass habitat in Port Hacking, New South Wales. Aquat Bot 18:71–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campolmi M, Franzoi P, Mazzola A (1996) Observations on pipefish (Syngnathidae) biology in the Stagnone lagoon (west Sicily). Publ Espec I’ Inst Espana Oceanogr 21:205–209Google Scholar
  21. Castro ALC, Diniz AF, Martins IZ et al (2008) Assessing diet composition of seahorses in the wild using a non-destructive method: Hippocampus reidi (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) as a study-case. Neotrop Ichthyol 6:637–644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Celino FT, Hilomen-Garcia GV, del Norte-Campos AGC (2012) Feeding selectivity of the seahorse, Hippocampus kuda (Bleeker), juveniles under laboratory conditions. Aquac Res 43:1804–1815. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chambers RC, Trippel EA (1997) Early life history and recruitment in fish populations. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Colson DJ, Patek SN, Brainerd EL, Lewis SM (1998) Sound production during feeding in Hippocampus seahorses (Syngnathidae). Environ Biol Fishes 51:221–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Consi TR, Seifert PA, Triantafyllou MS, Edelman ER (2001) The dorsal fin engine of the seahorse (Hippocampus sp.). J Morphol 97:80–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cooper SD, Smith DW, Bence JR (1985) Prey selection by freshwater predators with different foraging strategies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:1720–1732. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Costa GC (2009) Predator size, prey size, and dietary niche breadth relationships in marine predators. Ecology 90:2014–2019. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Crowder LB, Norse E (2008) Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 32:772–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Curtis JMR, Vincent ACJ (2005) Distribution of sympatric seahorse species along a gradient of habitat complexity in a seagrass-dominated community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 291:81–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. D’Entremont J (2002) Sex-differences in feeding behaviour and diet in Hippocampus guttulatus. In: Foster SJ, Vincent ACJ (eds) Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for conservation and management. J Fish Biol 65:1–61.
  31. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979) Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:489–511. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Dawson CE (1982) Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, Part 8. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  33. Dawson CE (1985) Indo-Pacific pipefishes, Red Sea to the Americas. The Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean SpringsGoogle Scholar
  34. de Lussanet MHE, Muller M (2007) The smaller your mouth, the longer your snout: predicting the snout length of Syngnathus acus, Centriscus scutatus and other pipette feeders. J R Soc Interface 4:561–573. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Do HH, Truong SK, Ho TH (1996) Feeding behaviour and food of seahorses in Vietnam. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on the marine biology of the South China Sea. Hong Kong University Press, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  36. Dunham NM (2010) The life history and energy budget of Hippocampus erectus in Tampa Bay, Florida. Dissertation, University of South FloridaGoogle Scholar
  37. Felicio AKC, Rosa IL, Souto A, Freitas RHA (2006) Feeding behavior of the longsnout seahorse Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933. J Ethol 24:219–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Flammang BE, Ferry-Graham LA, Rinewalt C et al (2009) Prey capture kinematics and four-bar linkages in the bay pipefish, Syngnathus leptorhynchus. Zoology 112:86–96. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Flynn AJ, Ritz DA (1999) Effect of habitat complexity and predatory style on the capture success of fish feeding on aggregated prey. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 79:487–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Foster SJ, Vincent ACJ (2004) Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for conservation and management. J Fish Biol 65:1–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Franzoi P, Maccagnani R, Rossi R, Ceccherelli VU (1993) Life cycles and feeding habits of Syngnathus taenionotus and S. abaster (Pisces, Syngnathidae) in a brackish bay of the Po River Delta (Adriatic Sea). Mar Ecol Ser 97:71–81Google Scholar
  42. Froese R, Pauly D (2017) FishBase. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
  43. Garcia AM, Geraldi RM, Vieira JP (2005) Diet composition and feeding strategy of the southern pipefish. Neotrop Ichthyol 3:427–432. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Garcia LMB, Hilomen-Garcia GV, Celino FT et al (2012) Diet composition and feeding periodicity of the seahorse Hippocampus barbouri reared in illuminated sea cages. Aquaculture 358–359:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gaughan DJ, Potter IC (1997) Analysis of diet and feeding strategies within an assemblage of estuarine larval fish and an objective assessment of dietary niche overlap. Fish Bull 95:722–731Google Scholar
  46. Gemmell BJ, Sheng J, Buskey EJ (2013) Morphology of seahorse head hydrodynamically aids in capture of evasive prey. Nat Commun 4:2840. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gendron RP, Staddon JER (1983) Searching for cryptic prey: the effect of search rate. Am Nat 121:172–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gerking SD (1994) Feeding ecology of fish. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  49. Griffiths D (1973) The food of animals in an acid moorland pond. J Anim Ecol 42:285–293Google Scholar
  50. Griffiths D (1975) Prey availability and the food of predators. Ecology 56:1209–1214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gurkan S, Sever TM, Taskavak E (2011a) Seasonal food composition and prey-length relationships of pipefish Nerophis ophidion (Linnaeus, 1758) inhabiting the Aegean Sea. Acta Adriat 52:5–14Google Scholar
  52. Gurkan S, Taskavak E, Sever TM, Akalin S (2011b) Gut contents of two European seahorses Hippocampus hippocampus and Hippocampus guttulatus in the Aegean Sea, coasts of Turkey. Pak J Zool 43:1197–1201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hamilton H, Saarman N, Short G et al (2017) Molecular phylogeny and patterns of diversification in syngnathid fishes. Mol Phylogenet Evol 107:388–403. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Harasti D (2016) Declining seahorse populations linked to loss of essential marine habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 546:173–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Haris K, Chakraborty B, Menezes A et al (2014) Multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis to characterize phase couplings in seahorse (Hippocampus kuda) feeding clicks. J Acoust Soc Am 136:1972–1981. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Hislop JRG, Robb AP, Gauld JA (1978) Observations on effects of feeding level on growth and reproduction in haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinue (L.) in captivity. J Fish Biol 13:85–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Horinouchi M, Sano M (2000) Food habits of fishes in a Zostera marina bed at Aburatsubo, central Japan. Ichthyol Res 47:163–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Horinouchi M, Tongnunui P, Furumitsu K et al (2012) Food habits of small fishes in seagrass habitats in Trang, southern Thailand. Fish Sci 78:577–587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Howard RK, Koehn JD (1985) Population dynamics and feeding ecology of pipefish (Syngnathidae) associated with eelgrass beds of Western Port, Victoria. Mar Freshw Res 36:361–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Huh S-H, Kitting CL (1985) Trophic relationships among concentrated populations of small fishes in seagrass meadows. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 92:29–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Huh S-H, Kwak SN (1997) Feeding habits of Syngnathus schlegeli in eelgrass (Zostera marina) bed in Kwangyang Bay. J Korean Fish Soc 30:896–902Google Scholar
  62. James PL, Heck KL (1994) The effects of habitat complexity and light intensity on ambush predation within a simulated seagrass habitat. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 176:187–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jenkins GP, Walker-Smith GK, Hamer PA (2002) Elements of habitat complexity that influence harpacticoid copepod associated with seagrass beds in a temperate bay. Oecologia 131:598–605. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1997) Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78:1946–1957.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kalmijn AJ (1971) The electric sense of sharks and rays. J Exp Biol 55:371–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Kanou K, Kohno H (2001) Early life history of a seahorse, Hippocampus mohnikei, in Tokyo Bay, Japan. Ichthyol Res 48:361–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kendrick AJ (2002) Resource utilisation and reproductive biology of syngnathid fishes in a seagrass-dominated marine environment in south-western Australia. Dissertation, Murdoch UniversityGoogle Scholar
  69. Kendrick AJ, Hyndes GA (2005) Variations in the dietary compositions of morphologically diverse syngnathid fishes. Environ Biol Fishes 72:415–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kitsos MS, Tzomos T, Anagnostopoulou L, Koukouras A (2008) Diet composition of the seahorses, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier, 1829 and Hippocampus hippocampus (L., 1758) (Teleostei, Syngnathidae) in the Aegean Sea. J Fish Biol 72:1259–1267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kooijman SALM (2000) Dynamic energy and mass budgets in biological systems. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Kooijman SALM (2010) Dynamic energy budget theory: for metabolic organization. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Krejci SE (2012) Habitat preferences and the effects of seagrass density on population demographics and feeding ecology of pipefish in the Indian River Lagoon, FL. Dissertation, Florida Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  74. Lauder GV (1985) Aquatic feeding in lower vertebrates. In: Hildebrand M, Bramble DM, Liem KF, Wake DB (eds) Functional vertebrate morphology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 210–229Google Scholar
  75. Lester NP, Shuter BJ, Abrams PA (2004) Interpreting the von Bertalanffy model of somatic growth in fishes: the cost of reproduction. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1625–1631. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Leysen H, Roos G, Adriaens D (2011) Morphological variation in head shape of pipefishes and seahorses in relation to snout length and developmental growth. J Morphol 272:1259–1270. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Livingston RJ (1982) Trophic organization of fishes in a coastal seagrass system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 7:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Livingston RJ (1984) Trophic responses of fishes to habitat variability in coastal seagrass systems. Ecology 65:1258–1275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lourie SA, Pritchard JC, Casey SP, Truong SK, Hall HJ, Vincent ACJ (1999) The taxonomy of Vietnam’s exploited seahorses (family Syngnathidae). Biol J Lin Soc 66:231–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lourie SA, Foster SJ, Cooper EWT, Vincent ACJ (2004). A guide to the identification of seahorses. Washington, DC: University of British Columbia and World Wildlife Fund. Accessed 15 Mar 2015
  81. Lyons DO, Dunne JJ (2004) Inter- and intra-gender analyses of feeding ecology of the worm pipefish (Nerophis lumbriciformis). J Mar Biol Assoc UK 84:461–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Main KL (1987) Predator avoidance in seagrass meadows: prey behavior, microhabitat selection, and cryptic coloration. Ecology 68:170–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Manning CG, Foster SJ, Harasti D, Vincent ACJ (2018) A holistic investigation of the ecological correlates of abundance and body size for the endangered White’s seahorse Hippocampus whitei. J Fish Biol 93:649–663. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy models. Ecology 82:290–297.[0290:FMMTCD]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mercer LP (1973) The comparative ecology of two species of pipefish (Syngnathidae) in the York River, Virginia. Dissertation, The College of William and Mary in VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  86. Motta PJ, Clifton KB, Hernandez P et al (1995) Feeding relationships among nine species of seagrass fishes of Tampa Bay, Florida. Bull Mar Sci 56:185–200Google Scholar
  87. Muller M, Osse JWM (1984) Hydrodynamics of suction feeding in fish. Trans Zool Soc Lond 37:51–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nakamura Y, Horinouchi M, Nakai T, Sano M (2003) Food habits of fishes in a seagrass bed on a fringing coral reef at Iriomote Island, southern Japan. Ichthyol Res 50:15–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Neutens C, Adriaens D, Christiaens J et al (2014) Grasping convergent evolution in syngnathids: a unique tale of tails. J Anat 224:710–723. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Neutens C, de Dobbelaer B, Claes P et al (2017) Prehensile and non-prehensile tails among syngnathids: what’s the difference. Zoology 120:62–72. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Ocken AEJ, Ritz DA (1994) Prey capture techniques of the seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis feeding on swarming prey. Dissertation, University of TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  92. Oliveira F, Erzini K, Gonçalves JMS (2007) Feeding habits of the deep-snouted pipefish Syngnathus typhle in a temperate coastal lagoon. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 72:337–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Orav-Kotta H, Kotta J (2004) Food and habitat choice of the isopod Idotea baltica in the northeastern Baltic Sea. Hydrobiologia 514:79–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Orth RJ, Heck KL (1980) Structural components of eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows in the lower Chesapeake Bay—fishes. Estuaries 3:278–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Paczolt KA, Jones AG (2015) The effects of food limitation on life history tradeoffs in pregnant male Gulf pipefish. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0124147. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat 103:91–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Perante NC, Pajaro MG, Meeuwig JJ, Vincent ACJ (2002) Biology of a seahorse species, Hippocampus comes in the central Philippines. J Fish Biol 60:821–837. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Pimm SL (1982) Food webs. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  99. Prein M, Kunzmann A (1987) Structural organization of the gills of pipefish (Teleostei, Syngnathidae). Zoomorphology 107:161–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Revell LJ, Harmon LJ, Collar DC (2008) Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. Syst Biol 57:591–601. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Richardson H, Verbeek NAM (1986) Diet selection and optimization by northwestern crows feeding on Japanese littleneck clams. Ecology 67:1219–1226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Ripley JL, Foran CM (2007) Influence of estuarine hypoxia on feeding and sound production by two sympatric pipefish species (Syngnathidae). Mar Environ Res 63:350–367. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Roos G, Leysen H, Van Wassenbergh S et al (2009a) Linking morphology and motion: a test of a four-bar mechanism in seahorses. Physiol Biochem Zool 82:7–19. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Roos G, Van Wassenbergh S, Herrel A, Aerts P (2009b) Kinematics of suction feeding in the seahorse Hippocampus reidi. J Exp Biol 212:3490–3498. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Roos G, Van Wassenbergh S, Herrel A et al (2010) Snout algometry in seahorses: insights on optimisation of pivot feeding performance during ontogeny. J Exp Biol 213:2184–2193. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Roos G, Van Wassenbergh S, Aerts P et al (2011) Effects of snout dimensions on the hydrodynamics of suction feeding in juvenile and adult seahorses. J Theor Biol 269:307–317. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Rose KA (2000) Why are quantitative relationships between environmental quality and fish populations so elusive. Ecol Appl 10:367–385.[0367:WAQRBE]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ryer CH (1988) Pipefish foraging: effects of fish size, prey size and altered habitat complexity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 48:37–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ryer CH, Boehlert GW (1983) Feeding chronology, daily ration, and the effects of temperature upon gastric evacuation in the pipefish, Syngnathus fuscus. Environ Biol Fishes 9:301–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Ryer CH, Orth RJ (1987) Feeding ecology of the northern pipefish, Syngnathus fuscus, in a seagrass community of the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 10:330–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sakurai I, Kaneta T, Nakayama T et al (2009) Food habits of fish communities in a Sargassum confusum bed off the coast of Ishikari, Hokkaido, Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 75:365–375Google Scholar
  113. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Sheng J, Lin Q, Chen Q et al (2006) Effects of food, temperature and light intensity on the feeding behavior of three-spot juvenile seahorses, Hippocampus trimaculatus Leach. Aquaculture 256:596–607. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Smith TM, Hindell JS, Jenkins GP et al (2011) Fine-scale spatial and temporal variations in diets of the pipefish Stigmatopora nigra within seagrass patches. J Fish Biol 78:1824–1832. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Steffe AS, Westoby M, Bell JD (1989) Habitat selection and diet in two species of pipefish from seagrass: sex differences. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 55:23–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Stoner AW (1980) The role of seagrass biomass in the organization of benthic macrofaunal assemblages. Bull Mar Sci 30:537–551Google Scholar
  119. Storero LP, Gonzalez RA (2008) Feeding habits of the seahorse Hippocampus patagonicus in San Antonio Bay (Patagonia, Argentina). J Mar Biol Assoc UK 88:1503–1508. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Svensson I (1988) Reproductive costs in two sex-role reversed pipefish species (Syngnathidae). J Anim Ecol 57:929–942. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Taskavak E, Gurkan S, Sever TM et al (2010) Gut contents and feeding habits of the Great Pipefish, Syngnathus acus Linnaeus, 1758, in Izmir Bay (Aegean Sea, Turkey). Zool Middle East 50:75–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Teixeira RL, Musick JA (1995) Trophic ecology of two congeneric pipefishes (Syngnathidae) of the lower York River, Virginia. Environ Biol Fishes 43:295–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Teixeira RL, Musick JA (2001) Reproduction and food habits of the lined seahorse, Hippocampus erectus (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) of Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Rev Bras Biol 61:79–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Thorne-Miller B (1999) The living ocean: understanding and protecting marine biodiversity. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  125. Tipton K, Bell SS (1988) Foraging patterns of two syngnathid fishes: importance of harpacticoid copepods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 47:31–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Truong SK, Nga TNM (1995) Reproduction of two species of seahorses, Hippocampus histrix and H. trimaculatus, in Binh Thuan waters. Bao Cao Khoa Hoc 27:68Google Scholar
  127. Uncumusaoglu AA, Gurkan S, Taskavak E (2017) Seasonally prey composition of Broad-nosed pipefish, Syngnathus typle, distributed in the coasts of Aegean Sea, Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 26:2673–2677Google Scholar
  128. Van Den Wollenberg AN (1977) Redundancy analysis an alternative for canonical correlation analysis. Psychometrika 42:207–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Van Wassenbergh S, Strother JA, Flammang BE et al (2008) Extremely fast prey capture in pipefish is powered by elastic recoil. J R Soc Interface 5:285–296. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Van Wassenbergh S, Roos G, Genbrugge A et al (2009) Suction is kid’s play: extremely fast suction in newborn seahorses. Biol Lett. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  131. Van Wassenbergh S, Roos G, Aerts P et al (2011a) Why the long face? A comparative study of feeding kinematics of two pipefishes with different snout lengths. J Fish Biol 78:1786–1798. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Van Wassenbergh S, Roos G, Ferry L (2011b) An adaptive explanation for the horse-like shape of seahorses. Nature 2:164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Van Wassenbergh S, Leysen H, Adriaens D, Aerts P (2013) Mechanics of snout expansion in suction-feeding seahorses: musculoskeletal force transmission. J Exp Biol 216:407–417. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Van Wassenbergh S, Dries B, Herrel A (2014) New insights into muscle function during pivot feeding in seahorses. PLoS ONE 9:e109068. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  135. Vincent ACJ, Foster SJ, Koldewey HJ (2011) Conservation and management of seahorses and other Syngnathidae. J Fish Biol 78:1681–1724. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. Wilson AB, Ahnesjö I, Vincent ACJ et al (2003) The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (Family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57:1374–1386. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. Woods CMC (2002) Natural diet of the seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 36:655–660. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Wotton RJ (1990) Ecology of teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  139. Yip MY, Lim ACO, Chong VC et al (2015) Food and feeding habits of the seahorses Hippocampus spinosissimus and Hippocampus trimaculatus (Malaysia). J Mar Biol Assoc UK 95:1033–1040. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Zamzow JP, Amsler CD, Mcclintock JB, Baker BJ (2010) Habitat choice and predator avoidance by Antarctic amphipods: the roles of algal chemistry and morphology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 400:155–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Project Seahorse, Institute for the Oceans and FisheriesThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations