Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 129–141 | Cite as

Intestine length in the fishes of a tropical stream: 2. Relationships to diet — the long and short of a convoluted issue

  • Donald L. Kramer
  • Michael J. Bryant
Article

Synopsis

We examined the relationship between the intestine length and the amount of plant material in the diet of 21 species of fish from forest streams in Panama. Alimentary tract analyses supplemented by literature reports showed that four loricariid catfish species and one poeciliid were specialized herbivores consuming almost exclusively periphyton and detritus. Four species, including one erythrinid, one characid, one trichomyctycterid and one eleotrid, were carnivores consuming almost entirely food of animal origin. Twelve species, including five characids, one lebiasinid, two pimelodelids, three cichlids and one poeciliid, were omnivores consuming food of both plant and animal origin, but the average proportion of food of plant origin (detritus and algae plus higher plant parts) varied from 4–60%. Most omnivores increased plant food consumption with increasing size. Because intestine length increases allometrically with body size and the pattern of increase differs considerably among species and is influenced by length:mass relationships, we compared species at the same size and took both length and mass into account. At a given size, intestine lengths of herbivores were longer than those of omnivores, and these were longer than those of carnivores. Differences in intestine length among the dietary categories were greater at larger body sizes and when the common size was defined by body mass than when it was defined by body length. There was no trend for the average proportion of plant material consumed to be related to intestine length among the omnivores, when confounding effects of body mass were taken into account. The slopes of the allometric equations relating log10 intestine length to log10 body size for herbivores tended to be higher than for omnivores and higher for omnivores than for carnivores, but both herbivores and omnivores showed extensive variation and overlap with the other dietary categories. Among the omnivores, there was no trend for slopes to be steeper for species consuming more plant material on average or for species showing larger ontogenetic increases in plant consumption. These results permit increased precision in describing diet-intestine length relationships, but indicate that the widely held belief that intestine length reflects diet in fishes should only be applied to broad dietary categories and not to finer divisions among omnivores.

Key words

Alimentary tract Carnivore Central America Digestive system Feeding habits Food Freshwater fish Herbivore Omnivore Neotropics Panama Stream ecology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Al-Hussaini, A.H. 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. Publications of the Marine Biological Station, Ghardaqa (Red Sea) 5: 1–61.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Hussaini, A.H. 1949. On the functional morphology of the alimentary tract of some fish in relation to differences in their feeding habits: anatomy and histology. Quart. J. Mier. Sci. 90: 109–139.Google Scholar
  3. Angelescu, V. & F.S. Gneri. 1949. Adaptaciones del aparato digestivo al regimen alimenticio en algunos peces del Rio Uruquay y del Rio de La Plata. Revista del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion de las Ciencias Naturales anexo al Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales (Bernardo Rivadavia) 1: 161–272.Google Scholar
  4. Angermeier, P.L. & J.R. Karr. 1983. Fish communities along environmental gradients in a system of tropical streams. Env. Biol. Fish. 9: 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrington, E.J.W. 1957. The alimentary canal and digestion. pp. 109–161. In: M.E. Brown (ed.) The Physiology of Fishes, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Braber, L. & S.J. De Groot. 1973. On the morphology of the alimentary tract of flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes). J. Fish Biol. 5: 147–153.Google Scholar
  7. Breder, C.M., Jr. 1927. The fishes of the Rio Chucunaque drainage, eastern Panama. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 57: 91–176.Google Scholar
  8. Chivers, D.J. & C.M. Hladik. 1980. Morphology of the gastrointestinal tract in primates: comparisons with other mammals in relation to diet. J. Morphol. 166: 337–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Emery, A.R. 1973. Comparative ecology and functional osteology of fourteen species of the damselfish (Pisces: Pomacentridae) at Alligator Reef, Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 23: 649–770.Google Scholar
  10. Fänge, R. & D. Grove. 1979. Digestion. pp. 161–260. In: W.S. Hoar, D.J. Randall & J.R. Brett (ed.) Fish Physiology: Bioenergetics and Growth, Vol 8, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Fryer, G. & T.D. Iles 1972. The cichlid fishes of the Great Lakes of Africa: their biology and evolution. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City. 641 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Goldschmid, A., K. Kotrschal & P. Wirtz. 1984. Food and gut length of 14 Adriatic blenniid fish (Blenniidae; Percomorpha; Teleostei). Zoologischer Anzeiger 213: 145–150.Google Scholar
  13. Harvey, P.H. & M.D. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 239 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Hiatt, R.W. 1944. Food-chains and the food cycle in Hawaiian fish ponds-Part 1. The food and feeding habits of mullet (Mugil cephalus), milkfish (Chanos chanos), and the ten-pounder (Elops machnata). Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 74: 250–261.Google Scholar
  15. Horn, M.H. 1989. Biology of marine herbivorous fishes. Oceanog. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 27: 167–272.Google Scholar
  16. Kapoor, B.G., H. Smit & A.I. Verighina. 1975. The alimentary canal and digestion in teleosts. Adv. Mar. Biol. 13: 109–239 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Kline, K.F. 1978. Aspects of digestion in stomachless fishes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis. 94.Google Scholar
  18. Klust, G. 1939/1940. Über Entwicklung, Bau and Funktion des Darmes beim Karpfen (Cyprinus carpio L.). Internat. Rev. Gesamt. Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 39: 498–536 40: 88–173.Google Scholar
  19. Kramer, D.L. 1978. Reproductive seasonality in the fishes of a tropical stream. Ecology 59: 976–985.Google Scholar
  20. Kramer, D.L. & M.J. Bryant. 1995. Intestine length in the fishes of a tropical stream: 1. Ontogenetic allometry. Env. Biol. Fish. 42: 115–127.Google Scholar
  21. Lagler, K.F., J.E. Bardach, R.R. Miller & D.R.M. Passino. 1977. Ichthyology, 2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 506 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Lassuy, D.R. 1984. Diet, intestinal morphology, and nitrogen assimilation efficiency in the damselfish,Stegastes llvidus, in Guam. Env. Biol. Fish. 10: 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leopold, A.S. 1953. Intestinal morphology of gallinaceous birds in relation to food habits. J. Wildlife Manag. 17: 197–203.Google Scholar
  24. Lobel, P.S. 1981. Trophic biology of herbivorous reef fishes, alimentary pH and digestive capabilities. J. Fish Biol. 19: 365–397.Google Scholar
  25. McKaye, K.R., D.J. Weiland & T.M. Lim. 1979. The effect of luminance upon the distribution and behavior of the eleotrid fishGobiomorus dormitor, and its prey. Rev. Canad. Biol. 38: 27–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Montgomery, W.L. 1977. Diet and gut morphology in fishes, with special reference to the monkeyface prickleback,Cebidichthys violaceus (Stichaeidae: Blennioidei). Copeia 1977: 178–182.Google Scholar
  27. Moyle, P.B. & J.J. Cech, Jr. 1982. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 593 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Naiman, R.J. 1975. Food habits of the Amargosa pupfish in a thermal stream. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 104: 536–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nikolsky, G.V. 1963. The ecology of fishes, T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City. 352 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Norman, J.R. & P.H. Greenwood. 1963. A history of fishes, 3rd ed. Ernest Benn Limited, London. 467 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Odum, W.E. 1970. Utilization of the direct grazing and plant detritus food chain by the striped mullet,Mugil cephalus. pp. 222–240. In: J.H. Steele (ed.) Marine Food Chains, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  32. Power, M.E. 1984. Habitat quality and the distribution of algaegrazing catfish in a Panamanian stream. J. Anim. Ecol. 53: 357–374.Google Scholar
  33. Reinthal, P.E. 1989. The gross intestine morphology of a group of rock-dwelling cichlid fishes (Pisces, Teleostei) from Lake Malawi. Neth. J. Zool. 39: 208–225.Google Scholar
  34. Ribble, D.O. & M.H. Smith. 1983. Relative intestine length and feeding ecology of freshwater fishes. Growth 47: 292–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute. Inc., Cary. 956 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Saul, W.G. 1975. An ecological study of fishes at a site in Upper Amazonian Ecuador. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 127: 93–134.Google Scholar
  37. Sazima, I. 1983. Scale-eating in characoids and other fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 9: 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sazima, I. & F.A. Machado. 1982. Hábitos e comportamento deRoeboides prognathus, um peixe lepidófago (Osteichthyes, Characoidei). Bolm. Zool., Univ. S. Paulo 7: 37–56.Google Scholar
  39. Schieck, J.O. & J.S. Millar. 1985. Alimentary tract measurements as indicators of diets of small mammals. Mammalia 49: 93–104.Google Scholar
  40. Skoczylas, R.1978. Physiology of the digestive tract. pp. 589–717. In: C. Gans & K.A. Gans (ed.) Biology of the Reptilia: Physiology B, Vol. 8, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Wootton, R.J. 1990. Ecology of teleost fishes. Chapman & Hall, New York. 404 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Zaret, T.M. & A.S. Rand. 1971. Competition in tropical stream fishes: support for the competitive exclusion principle. Ecology 52: 336–342.Google Scholar
  43. Zihler, F. 1982. Gross morphology and configuration of digestive tracts of Cichlidae (Teleostei, Perciformes): phylogenetic and functional significance. Neth. J. Zool. 32: 544–571.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald L. Kramer
    • 1
  • Michael J. Bryant
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations