Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:29:33.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of size on the trophic interactions between juveniles of two syntopic Trachinotus species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2020

Joice Silva de Souza Open the ORCID record for Joice Silva de Souza [Opens in a new window]  and
Luciano Neves dos Santos
Joice Silva de Souza*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Theoretical and Applied Ichthyology (LICTA), Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Av. Pasteur, 458 – R314A, CEP 22290-240, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Graduate course in Ecology and Evolution (PPGEE), Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), São Francisco Xavier St, 524 – PHLC/R220, CEP 20550-900, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Luciano Neves dos Santos
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Theoretical and Applied Ichthyology (LICTA), Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Av. Pasteur, 458 – R314A, CEP 22290-240, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Graduate course in Ecology and Evolution (PPGEE), Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), São Francisco Xavier St, 524 – PHLC/R220, CEP 20550-900, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Joice Silva de Souza, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Syntopic species with similar anatomic configuration may face strong competition for trophic resources, thus relying on developed mechanisms to ensure coexistence. The present study investigated the influence of body size on trophic interactions between juveniles of two closely related fish species at three sandy beaches in south-eastern Brazil. A total of 150 fish were sampled, where 103 were identified as Trachinotus carolinus (mean ± SE: weight = 9 g ± 1.13) and 47 as Trachinotus goodei (weight = 46.7 g ± 3.34). A significant size-difference between juvenile Trachinotus was detected by a null-model analysis (P = 0.04), with T. carolinus (TL = 79.6 mm ± 2.4) presenting a smaller body size than T. goodei (TL = 147.7 mm ± 4.2). The main prey items consumed by T. carolinus were Perna perna (IAi = 0.76) and Emerita brasiliensis (IAi = 0.18), whereas the latter was the major T. goodei dietary prey (IAi = 0.71). Both prey were correlated with larger-sized juveniles of each pompano species, whereas smaller fish shared non-preferred trophic items. Such opportunistic behaviour of smaller juveniles may account for the dietary overlap detected between the Trachinotus species (P = 0.09). Size-related dietary partitioning was observed for the largest T. goodei juveniles, which displayed only a slight overlap with T. carolinus, and between juveniles belonging to the small and medium size groups of each pompano species. Therefore, food partitioning related to pompano body size seems to be especially important for the smallest juveniles, as they present the highest vacuity (particularly T. carolinus) in the sampled beaches, suggesting that these individuals are under intra- and interspecific competitive pressure, which may affect local coexistence.

Keywords

Feeding nicheGuanabara Bayniche overlapnull-modelpompanosize ratio
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , June 2020 , pp. 595 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarnio, K, Bonsdorff, E and Rosenback, N (1996) Food and feeding habits of juvenile flounder Platichthys flesus (L.), and turbot Scophthalmus maximus L. in the Aland archipelago, northern Baltic Sea. Journal of Sea Research 36, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez-Lajonchère, L and Ibarra-Castro, L (2012) Relationships of maximum length, length at first sexual maturity, and growth performance index in nature with absolute growth rates of intensive cultivation of some tropical marine fish. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 43, 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amariles, DF, Navia, AF and Giraldo, A (2017) Food resource partitioning of the Mustelus lunulatus and Mustelus henlei (Elasmobranchii: Carcharhiniformes). Environmental Biology of Fishes 100, 717–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundsen, PA, Gabler, HM and Staldvik, FJ (1996) A new approach to graphical analysis of feeding strategy from stomach contents data – modification of the Costello (1990) method. Journal of Fish Biology 48, 607–614.Google Scholar
Andrade-Tubino, MF, Milagre, RR and Araújo, FG (2019) 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. Environmental Biology of Fishes 102, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, TM and Alevison, WS (1980) The diet of the Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus) along the east coast of central Florida. Florida Scientist 43, 19–26.Google Scholar
Batistić, M, Tutman, P, Bojanić, D, Skaramuca, B, Kŏzul, V, Glavić, N and Bartulović, V (2005) Diet and diel feeding activity of juvenile pompano (Trachinotus ovatus) (Teleostei: Carangidae) from the southern Adriatic, Croatia. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85, 1533–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglia, P, Pedà, C, Musolino, S, Esposito, V, Andaloro, F and Romeo, T (2016) Diet and first documented data on plastic ingestion of Trachinotus ovatus L. 1758 (Pisces: Carangidae) from the Strait of Messina (central Mediterranean Sea). Italian Journal of Zoology 83, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bearhop, S, Adams, CE, Waldron, S, Fuller, RA and MacLeod, H (2004) Determining trophic niche width: a novel approach using stable isotope analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology 73, 1007–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J (1979) Discussion of methods of investigating the food of fishes, with reference to a preliminary study of the food of Gobiusculus flavescens (Gobiidae). Marine Biology 50, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolnick, DI, Svanback, R, Fordyce, JA, Yang, LH, Davis, JM, Hulsey, CD and Forister, ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. American Naturalist 161, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonato, KO and Fialho, CB (2014) Evidence of niche partitioning under ontogenetic influences among three morphologically similar Siluriformes in small subtropical streams. PLoS ONE 9, e110999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catanzaro, LF, Baptista Neto, JA, Guimarães, MSD and Silva, CG (2004) Distinctive sedimentary processes in Guanabara Bay – SE/Brazil, based on the analysis of echo-character (7,0khz). Revista Brasileira de Geofísica 22, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, A, Gotelli, NJ, Hsieh, TC, Sander, EL, Ma, KH, Colwell, RK and Ellison, AM (2014) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecological Monographs 84, 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, MCNR, Franco, ACS, Seixas, LB, Rodrigues da Cruz, L and Santos, LN (2018) Testing the ecocline concept for fish assemblages along the marine-estuarine gradient in a highly-eutrophic estuary (Guanabara Bay, Brazil). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 211, 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, GC (2009) Predator size, prey size, and dietary niche breadth relationships in marine predators. Ecology 90, 2014–2019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, JW, Hall, CAS, Kemp, WM and Yáñez-Arancibia, A (1989) Nekton, the free-swimming consumers. In Day, JW, Hall, CAS, Kemp, WM and Yáñez-Arancibia, A (eds), Estuarine Ecology. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience, pp. 377–437.Google Scholar
de Roos, AM, Leonardsson, K, Persson, L and Mittelbach, GG (2002) Ontogenetic niche shifts and flexible behavior in size-structured populations. Ecological Monographs 72, 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehemann, NR, Abitia-Cardenas, LA, Navia, AF, Mejía-Falla, PA and Cruz-Escalona, VH (2019) Zeros as a result in diet studies, is this really bad? Rhinoptera steindachneri as a case study. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 99, 1661–1666. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315419000511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, M, Hemingway, KL, Costello, MJ, Duhamed, S, Hostens, K, Labropoulou, M, Marshall, S and Winkler, H (2002) Links between fish and other trophic levels. In Elliott, M and Hemingway, KL (eds), Fishes in Estuaries. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 124–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, AM (2010) Partitioning diversity. Ecology 91, 1962–1963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erlandsson, J, McQuaid, CD and Kostylev, VE (2005) Contrasting spatial heterogeneity of sessile organisms within mussel (Perna perna L.) beds in relation to topographic variability. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 314, 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, LL and Menezes, NA (1980) Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil: III Teleostei (2). São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia de São Paulo.Google Scholar
Fistarol, GO, Coutinho, FH, Moreira, APB, Venas, T, Cánovas, A, Paula, SEM, Coutinho, R, Moura, RL, Valentin, JL, Tenenbaum, DR, Paranhos, R, de Valle, RAB, Vicente, ACP, Amado Filho, GM, Pereira, RC, Kruger, R, Rezende, CE, Thompson, CC, Salomon, PS and Thompson, FL (2015) Environmental and sanitary conditions of Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, BJ (1981) Niche parameters and species richness. Ecology 62, 1415–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, ACS, Chaves, MCN, Castel-Branco, MPB and Santos, LN (2016) Responses of fish assemblages of sandy beaches to different anthropogenic and hydrodynamic influences. Journal of Fish Biology 89, 921–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, AFS, Garcia, AM, Vollrath, SR, Schneck, F, Silva, CFM, Marchetti, ÍJ and Vieira, JP (2018) Spatial diet overlap and food resource in two congeneric mullet species revealed by stable isotopes and stomach content analyses. Community Ecology 19, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, NJ and Graves, GR (1996) Null Models in Ecology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Gotelli, NJ, Hart, EM and Ellison, AM (2015) EcoSimR 1.00: A software package to fit ecological null models. Available at http://www.uvm.edu/~ngotelli/EcoSim/EcoSim.html (Accessed 13 March 2019).Google Scholar
Guedes, APP, Araújo, FG, Pessanha, AL and Milagre, RR (2014) Partitioning of the feeding niche along spatial, seasonal and size dimensions by the fish community in a tropical Bay in Southeastern Brazil. Marine Ecology 36, 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, G (1960) The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131, 1292–1297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helmer, J, Teixeira, R and Monteiro Neto, C (1995) Food habits of young Trachinotus (Pisces, Carangidae) in the inner surf-zone of a sandy beach in Southern Brazil. Atlantida 17, 95–107.Google Scholar
Hsieh, TC, Ma, KH and Chao, A (2016) iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7, 1451–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, TC, Ma, KH and Chao, A (2019) iNEXT: iNterpolation and EXTrapolation for species diversity. R package version 2.0.19. Available at http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/blog/software-download/.Google Scholar
Juanes, F, Buckel, JA and Scharf, FS (2001) Predatory behavior and selectivity of a primary piscivore: comparison of fish and non-fish prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 217, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawakami, E and Vazzoler, G (1980) Método gráfico e estimativa de índice alimentar aplicado no estudo de alimentação de peixes. Boletim do Instituto Oceanográfico 29, 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, RG, Tisdel, K and Murphy, MD (2002) The 2002 update of the stock assessment of Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus). St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute.Google Scholar
Niang, TMS, Pessanha, ALM and Araújo, FG (2010) Diet of juvenile Trachinotus carolinus (Actinopterygii, Carangidae) in sandy beaches on coast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Iheringia Série Zoologia 100, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, J, Blanchet, FG, Friendly, M, Kindt, R, Legendre, P, McGlinn, D, Minchin, PR, O'Hara, RB, Simpson, GL, Solymos, P, Stevens, MHH, Szoecs, E and Wagner, H (2019) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–6. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.Google Scholar
Oliveira, JCS and Isaac, VJ (2013) Diet breadth and niche overlap between Hypostomus plecostomus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Hypostomus emarginatus (Valenciennes, 1840) (Siluriformes) in the Coaracy Nunes hydroelectric reservoir, Ferreira Gomes, Amapá-Brazil. Biota Amazônica 3, 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, K, Stenroth, P, Nyström, P and Graneli, W (2009) Invasions and niche width: does niche width of an introduced crayfish differ from a native crayfish? Freshwater Biology 54, 1731–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmeira, LP and Monteiro-Neto, C (2010) Ecomorphology and food habits of teleost fishes Trachinotus carolinus (Teleostei: Carangidae) and Menticirrhus littoralis (Teleostei: Sciaenidae), inhabiting the surf zone off Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 58, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pianka, ER (1974) Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 71, 2141–2145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piet, GJ, Pet, JS, Guruge, WAHP, Vijverberg, J and Van Densen, WLT (1999) Resource partitioning along three niche dimensions in a size-structured tropical fish assemblage. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56, 1241–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platell, ME, Sarre, GA and Potter, IC (1997) The diets of two co-occurring marine teleosts, Parequula melbournensis and Pseudocaranx wrighti, and their relationships to body size and mouth morphology, and season and location of capture. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Reis, AS, Albrecht, MP and Bunn, SE (2020). Food web pathways for fish communities in small tropical streams. Freshwater Biology. fwb.13471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivas, LR (1964) A reinterpretation or the concepts “Sympatric” and “Allopatric” with proposal or the additional terms “Syntopic” and “Allotopic”. Systematic Zoology 13, 42–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanuk, TN, Hayward, A and Hutchings, JA (2011) Trophic level scales positively with body size in fishes. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, T, Pulcini, D, O'Leary, Á, Cataudella, S and Mariani, S (2008) Relationship between body shape and trophic niche segregation in two closely related sympatric fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 73, 809–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, ACA, Souza, FB and Santos, EP (2020) Diet of an endangered Neotropical catfish (Kalyptodoras bahiensis) from the Paraguaçu River, Bahia, Brazil. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/01650521.2020.1728031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, FS, Juanes, F and 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. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2, 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schückel, S, Sell, AF, Kröncke, I and Reiss, H (2012) Diet overlap among flatfish species in the southern North Sea. Journal of Fish Biology 80, 2571–2594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sogard, SM (1997) Size-selective mortality in the juvenile stage of teleost fishes: a review. Bulletin of Marine Science 60, 1129–1157.Google Scholar
Souza, JS, Santos, LN and Santos, AFGN (2018) Habitat features not water variables explain most of fish assemblages use of sandy beaches in a Brazilian eutrophic bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 211, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, JS, da Cruz Canellas, BG, Sakabe, R, dos Santos, LN and dos Santos, AFGN (2019) The parasitic isopod Mothocya nana drives dietary shifts and poorer condition of Brazilian silversides Atherinella brasiliensis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 132, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturges, HA (1926) The choice of a class interval. Journal of the American Statistical Association 21, 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svanbäck, R and Persson, L (2004) Individual diet specialization, niche width and population dynamics: implications for trophic polymorphisms. Journal of Animal Ecology 73, 973–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcellos, RM, Gomes-Gonçalves, RS, Santos, JNS, Cruz Filho, AG and Araújo, FG (2018) Do closely related species share of feeding niche along growth? Diets of three sympatric species of the mojarras (Actinopterygii: Gerreidae) in a tropical bay in Southeastern Brazil. Environmental Biology of Fishes 101, 949–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaske-Junior, T, Viliod, MCL and Knoeller, JDSM (2018) Diet and niche overlap of the pompano (Trachinotus carolinus) and palometa (Trachinotus goodei) (Perciformes, Carangidae) in a surf zone beach in Southeastern Brazil. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Science 13, 13–24.Google Scholar
Veas, R, Hernández-Miranda, E and Quiñones, RA (2014) Body shape and burial behavior of the sand crab Emerita analoga (Stimpson 1857) in a reflective to intermediate morphodynamic range of sandy beaches. Marine Biology 161, 2345–2357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, EE and Gilliam, JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 15, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, D and Christman, M (2014) clustsig: Significant Cluster Analysis. R package version 1.1. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=clustsig.Google Scholar
Woodward, G and Hildrew, AG (2002) Body-size determinants of niche overlap and intraguild predation within a complex food web. Journal of Animal Ecology 71, 1063–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, G, Ebenman, B, Emmerson, M, Montoya, JM, Olesen, JM, Valido, A and Warren, PH (2005) Body size in ecological networks. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, 402–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wootton, RJ (1990) Ecology of Teleost Fishes. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Zahorcsak, P, Silvano, RAM and Sazima, I (2000) Feeding biology of a guild of benthivorous fishes in a sandy shore on south-eastern Brazilian coast. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 60, 511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Silva de Souza and Neves dos Santos supplementary material

Silva de Souza and Neves dos Santos supplementary material

Download Silva de Souza and Neves dos Santos supplementary material(Image)
Image 61.6 KB