Ecomorphology and use of food resources: inter- and intraspecific relationships of fish fauna associated with macrophyte stands

Abstract

Based on the form-function interaction and its consequence to niche exploitation by fish species, the study aimed to identify ecomorphological patterns and to investigate the possibility of explaining the trophic niche breadth using the pattern of intraspecific ecomorphological diversity. We tested the following hypotheses: i) the morphology explains variations in diet among fish species; ii) the intraspecific ecomorphological diversity is related to the breadth of the trophic niche explored by the species, so that species that feed on a wider range of resources have greater variation in body shape compared to those specialized in resource consumption. Fish were collected in stands of the aquatic macrophytes Eichhornia azurea and Eichhornia crassipes in lentic environments of the Upper Paraná River floodplain, Brazil. Two major trends were observed in the morphological space: fish with body shapes adapted to explore the substrate and others with a design that facilitates the capture of food items in more structured habitats. The relationship of diet with body shape was confirmed by significant relationships between matrices of trophic and morphological distances, providing evidence that morphology is related to interspecific variations in the use of trophic resources. However, the ranges of morphological and intraspecific trophic variations were not significantly related, rejecting the second hypothesis about the relationship between intraspecific ecomorphological diversity and trophic niche breadth. The morphological characteristics often have multiple ecological roles, which could result in trade-off among these functions. Thus, fish with highly specialized morphology may show specialist feeding or even generalist habit, because in this case some resources may be difficult to exploit, even by a specialist. Species with low and high morphological diversity demonstrated narrow trophic niche and the availability of resources may have been essential for consumption. Therefore, species morphology is related to the use of food resources and ecomorphology can be considered an important tool for the prediction of the exploited niche space by species in assemblages. However it is not possible to predict if species with greater intraspecific morphological diversification indeed have wider niche, since the abundance or scarcity of the available food resources may interfere with trophic niche breadth.Baseado na interação entre forma e função e suas consequências para exploração do nicho pelas espécies, o objetivo deste estudo foi identificar padrões de variação ecomorfológica e investigar se a amplitude de nicho trófico pode ser explicada pelo padrão de diversificação ecomorfológica intraespecífica. Assim, testaram-se as hipóteses: i) a morfologia explica as variações na dieta entre as espécies de peixes ii) a diversificação morfológica intraespecífica está relacionada com a amplitude do nicho trófico explorado pelas espécies, de modo que, espécies que se alimentam de maior variedade de recursos apresentam maior variação ...

Diet and ecomorphology of predator fish species of the Amazonian floodplain lakes

“…Previously published studies in this area exploring the relationship between fish morphology and diet have also proven inconclusive (Felley 1984, Douglas & Matthews 1992, Teixeira & Bennemann 2007. While some studies found close associations (Sampaio et al 2013, Prado et al 2016, others found no relationship (Felley 1984, Motta et al 1995, Silva-Camacho et al 2014. Conceptually, it could be assumed that when a relationship between morphology and diet is observed, the fish assemblage is ecomorphologically structured (Douglas & Matthews 1992, Breda et al 2005, Oliveira et al 2010.…”

Genetic composition of a population of natural common bream Abramis brama × roach Rutilus rutilus hybrids and their morphological characteristics in comparison with parent species

“…Thus, these species must efficiently perform both long-distance steady swimming and local unsteady swimming. Diet composition and habitat structural complexity are principal factors shaping fish morphology (most recently Foster et al, 2015;Prado et al, 2016;Restrepo-Escobar et al, 2016;Lazzarotto et al, 2017;Siqueira-Souza et al, 2017). Anatomically, relative trunk and tail lengths are related to the absolute number, size and relative distribution of vertebrae.…”

An invasive and a native macrophyte species provide similar feeding habitat for fish

“…In freshwater ecosystems, macrophytes provide foraging sites for many small fish species (Chick & McIvor, ; Dias, Silva, Gomes, & Agostinho, ; Grzybkowska et al, ; Prado, Goulart, & Pagotto, ; Savino & Stein, ) and changes in plant species due to invasion may cause altered feeding behaviour (Sammons & Maceina, ; Thell & Dibble, ; Valley & Bremigan, ). Fish associated with macrophytes swim short distances and explore interstices among roots and other submerged structures where the capture of prey depends on prey availability and predator–prey interactions, which are influenced by the physical complexity of plant structures (Mozsár et al, ; Priyadarshana, Asaeda, & Manatunge, ).…”