Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 105–110 | Cite as

Ontogenetic diet shifts in Roeboides affinis with morphological comparisons

  • Christopher C. Peterson
  • Peter McIntyre
Article

Abstract

Fishes of the characid genus Roeboides are documented as lepidophagous, but the degree of specialization on scales varies between species. This study examines ontogenetic changes in morphology and diet of Roeboides dayi and Roeboides affinis from Venezuela. Juveniles of both species feed on microcrustacea and insects during the wet season, when availability of these resources is greatest. As aquatic habitat decreases during the dry season, insect and microcrustacea availability decreases and fish densities increase. As the fish densities increase, scale consumption becomes more profitable. Interspecific differences in the degree of specialization of the teeth and jaws was associated with the degree of scale feeding. Adult R. dayi consumed scales in approximately equal proportions to insects. Adult R. affinis consumes approximately 100% scales, and has more specialized head morphology than R. dayi.

characidae lepidophagy seasonality South America Venezuela morphology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Felly, J.D. 1984. Multivariate identification of morphological-environmental relationships within the Cyprinidae (Pisces). Copeia 1984: 442–455.Google Scholar
  2. Goulding, M. 1980. The fishes and the forest: explorations in Amazonian natural history. University of California Press, Berkeley, 280 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Gottfried, M.D. 1986. Developmental transition in the feeding morphology of the midas cichlid. Copeia 1986: 1028–1030.Google Scholar
  4. Grossman, G.D. 1980. Ecological aspects of ontogenetic shifts in prey size utilization in the bay goby (Pisces: Gobiidae). Occologia 47: 233–238.Google Scholar
  5. Hyatt, K.D. 1979. Feeding strategies. pp. 71–119. In: W.S. Hoar, D.J. Randall & J.R. Brett (ed.) Fish Physiology, Vol. 3, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Keast, A. 1985. Development of dietary specializations in a summer community of juvenile fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 13: 211–223.Google Scholar
  7. Keast, A. & D. Webb. 1966. Mouth and body form relative to feeding ecology in the fish fauna of a small lake, Lake Opinicon, Ontario. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23: 1845–1874.Google Scholar
  8. Kierschner, B.A., M.S. Peterson & R.G. Gilmore, Jr. 1985. Ecotopic and ontogenetic trophic variation in mojarras (Pisces: Gerreidae). Estuaries 8: 311–322.Google Scholar
  9. Kislalioglu, M. & R.N. Gibson. 1976. Prey ‘handling time’ and its importance in food selection by the 15 spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia (L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 25: 115–158.Google Scholar
  10. Luczkovich, J.J., S.F. Norton & G. Gilmore, Jr. 1995. The influence of oral anatomy on prey selection during the ontogeny of the percoid fishes, Lagodon rhomboides and Centropomus undecimalis. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 79–95.Google Scholar
  11. Luczkovich, J.J. & E.J. Stettewag. 1993. Isolation of cellulolytic microbes from the intestinal tract of the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides: size-related changes in diet and microbial abundance. Mar. Biol. 116: 389–379.Google Scholar
  12. MacNeill, D.B. & S.B. Brandt. 1990. Ontogenetic shifts in gill-taker morphology and predicted prey capture efficiency of the alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus. Copeia 1990: 164–171.Google Scholar
  13. Major, P.F. 1973. Scale-feeding behavior of the leatherjacket, Scomberoides lysan and two species of the genus Oligoplites (Pisces: Carangidae). Copeia 1973: 151–154.Google Scholar
  14. Meyer, A. 1990. Morphometrics and allometry in the trophically polymorphic cichlid fish, Cichlasoma citrinellum: alternative adaptations and onlogenetic changes in shape. J. Zool. Lond. 221: 237–260.Google Scholar
  15. Motta, P.J. & K.M. Kotrschal. 1992. Correlative, experimental, and comparative experimental approaches in ecomorphology. Neth. J. Zool. 42: 400–415.Google Scholar
  16. Nico, L.G. & D.C. Taphorn. 1988. Food habits of piranhas in the low llanos of Venezuela. Biotropica 20: 311–321.Google Scholar
  17. Norton, S.F. 1991. Capture success and diet of cottid fishes: the role of predator morphology and attack kinematics. Ecology 72: 1807–1819.Google Scholar
  18. Norton, S.F. 1995. A functional approach to ecomorphological patterns of feeding in cottid fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 61–78.Google Scholar
  19. Osenberg, C.W. & G.G. Mittelbach. 1989. Effects of body size on the predator-prey interaction between pumpkinseed sunfish and gastropods. Ecol. Monogr. 59: 405–432.Google Scholar
  20. Peterson, C.C. & K.O. Winemiller. 1997. Ontogenetic diet shifts and scale-eating in Roeboides dayi, a neotropical characid. Env. Biol. Fish. 49: 111–118.Google Scholar
  21. Roberts, T.R. 1970. Scale-cating American characoid fishes, with special reference to Probolodus heterostomus. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 38: 383–390.Google Scholar
  22. Sazima, I. 1977. Possible case of aggressive mimicry in a neotropical scale-cating fish. Nature 270: 510–512.Google Scholar
  23. Sazima, I. 1980. Estudio comparativo de algunas especiés de piexes lepidófagos (Osteichthyes). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 264 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Sazima, I. 1983. Scale-eating in characoids and other fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 9: 87–101.Google Scholar
  25. Sazima, I. & F.A. Machado. 1982. Hábitos e comportamento de Roeboides prognathus, um poixe lopidófago (Osteichthyes, Characoidei). Bolm. Zool., Univ. S. Paulo 7: 37–56.Google Scholar
  26. Sazima, I. & F.A. Machado. 1990. Underwater observations of piranhas in Western Brazil. Env. Biol. Fish. 28: 17–31.Google Scholar
  27. Sazima, I. & V.S. Uieda. 1980. Comportamento lepidofágico de Oligoplites saurus e registro de lepidofágia em O. palometa e O. saliens (Pisces, Carangidae). Rev. Bras. Biol. 40: 701–710.Google Scholar
  28. Smith-Vaniz, W.F. & J.C. Staiger. 1973. Comparative revision of Scomberoides, Oligoplites, Parona and Hypacanthus with comments on the phylogenetic position of Campogramma (Pisces: Carangidae). Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 39: 185–256.Google Scholar
  29. Sogard, S. 1984. Utilization of meiofauna as a food source by a grassbed fish, the spotted dragonet Callionymus pauciradiatus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 17: 183–191.Google Scholar
  30. Taphorn, D.C. & C.G. Lilyestrom. 1984. Los Peces del Modulo ‘Fernando Corrales’. Resultados Ictiologicos del proyecto de investigacion del CONICIT, Rev. Cien. Tech. 2: 55–85.Google Scholar
  31. Vari, R.P. 1986. Serrabrycon magoi, a new genus and species of scale-eating characid (Pisces: Characiformes) from the upper Rio Negro. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 99: 328–334.Google Scholar
  32. Vleira, I. & J. Géry. 1979. Crescimento differencial e nutricáo em Catoprion mento (Characoidei), Peise lepidotago da Amazonia. Acta Amazonica 9: 143–146.Google Scholar
  33. Wainwright, P.C. 1991. Ecomorphology: experimental functional anatomy for ecological problems. Amer. Zool. 31: 680–693.Google Scholar
  34. Wainwright, P.C. & B.A. Richard. 1995. Predicting patterns of prey use from morphology of fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 44: 97–113.Google Scholar
  35. Werner, E.E. 1974. The fish size, prey size, handling time relation and some implications. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: 1531–1536.Google Scholar
  36. Werner, E.E. 1977. Species packing and niche complementarity in three sunfishes. Amer. Nat. 111: 553–578.Google Scholar
  37. Werner, E.E. & J.F. Gilliam. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393–425.Google Scholar
  38. Winemiller, K.O. 1990. Spatial and temporal variation in tropical fish trophic networks. Ecol. Monogr. 60: 331–367.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher C. Peterson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter McIntyre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M University, College StationU.S.A.
  2. 2.Museum of Comparative Zoology, Fish DepartmentHarvard CollegeCambridgeU.

Personalised recommendations