Diet and ecomorphological relationships of four cichlid species from the Cuiabá River basin

Abstract

Relationship between diet and morphology of cichlid were analyzed considering that the trophic apparatus determines differential food use among species. Cichlasoma dimerus and Satanoperca pappaterra showed a generalist diet, while Chaetobranchopsis australis and Crenicichla vittata consumed zooplankton and fish, respectively. Significant correlation between morphology and diet was not found, but C. australis differed from the others species in the upper mouth and longer gill rakers. The morphology data and food size segregated the cichlids into three groups. The first was comprised by C. australis, which has many and longer gill rakers and a more protractile mouth, the second by C. vittata, which have a larger and more-protruded mouth and the third by S. pappaterra and C. dimerus, with a smaller and lower mouth. The latter two groups have more widely spaced gill rakers and consumed larger food. Overall, our results showed different patterns of species grouping when considering morphological or diet data. However, to C. australis the gill rakers determine both the type and size of food.A relação entre dieta e morfologia de ciclídeos foi analisada considerando que o aparato trófico determina o uso diferencial dos recursos alimentares entre as espécies. Cichlasoma dimerus e Satanoperca pappaterra, apresentaram dieta generalista, enquanto Chaetobranchopsis australis e Crenicichla vittata, consumiram zooplâncton e peixes, respectivamente. Nenhuma correlação significativa foi encontrada entre a morfologia e a dieta, entretanto, C. australis se distanciou das demais espécies, por apresentar boca superior e rastros branquiais longos e numerosos. Os dados de morfologia e tamanho do alimento consumido segregaram os ciclídeos em três grupos. O primeiro foi composto por C. australis, que possui rastros branquiais longos e numerosos, além de maior protractibilidade da boca, o segundo por C. vittata, que tem maior amplitude e protrusão da boca e o terceiro por S. pappaterra e C. dimerus que possuem boca pequena e inferior. Os dois últimos grupos apresentaram ainda, maior distância entre os rastros e consumiram alimentos maiores. Nossos resultados mostraram que, quando somente os dados morfológicos são considerados, as espécies foram agrupadas de forma diferente do que quando apenas os dados de dieta foram considerados. Entretanto, para C. australis os rastros branquiais determinam o tipo e tamanho do alimento.

Three-dimensional modelling, disparity and ecology of the first Cambrian apex predators

“…Exemplified in feeding strategies among modern teleost fishes and their gill raker apparatus (figure 3 g , h ) [55], the suspension-feeding cichlid Chaetobranchopsis australis exhibits elongated, regularly spaced gill rakers (figure 3 g ). By contrast, the cichlid Satanoperca pappaterra , which sifts sediment, possesses gill rakers that are shorter and wider (figure 3 h ) [55,59,60]. Long and slender filter elements do not appear suitable for sediment manipulation as sifting more dense and viscous sediment necessitates a more robust apparatus.…”

Pathology associated with three newClinostomummetacercariae from Argentina with morphological and DNA barcode identification

“…This species is prey to larger fish, such as Hoplias malabaricus Bloch, 1794 and Crenicichla lepidota Heckel, 1840 (Ibarra-Polesel & Poi, 2016), and birds. The pike cichlid is a benthopelagic freshwater fish that feeds primarily on other fish species (Novakowski et al ., 2016), with a distribution in the Paraná River basin, Argentina (Lucena & Kullander, 1992). The Argentine humphead inhabits the Río de la Plata River basin (Casciotta & Gomez, 2000) and feeds on invertebrates from sediments (Wantzen et al ., 2002).…”

Ecomorphological relationships of fish assemblages in a trans-Andean drainage, Upper Magdalena River Basin, Colombia

“…Additionally, the absence of this correlation can occur for reasons such as seasonality in resources, phenotypic plasticity in developmental traits or complex indirect interactions (Binning, Chapman, 2010). The ecomorphological mismatch between morphology and diet has also been found in different studies that used ecomorphological traits based on external characters (Casatti, Castro, 2006;Soares et al, 2013;Novakowski et al, 2016) instead of attributes such as length of intestine, shape of the stomach, number of pyloric caeca, location and shape of teeth, number and length of gill arches, or the length and distance between gill rakers (Winemiller, 1991;Fugi et al, 2001;Pouilly et al, 2003;Sánchez et al, 2003). These traits could reveal more information about the trophic ecology of the species.…”

“…However, most of the ecomorphological studies in Neotropical fish communities have focused on cis-Andean ecosystems (Casatti, Castro, 2006;Ferreira, 2007;Oliveira et al, 2010;Soares et al, 2013;Neves et al, 2015;Pessanha et al, 2015;RoaFuentes et al, 2015;Novakowski et al, 2016;Prado et al, 2016), which have shown significant relationships between morphological attributes that respond to ecological affinities such as trophic ecology or habitat use. According to Neves et al (2015), if the theoretical framework of ecomorphological studies is expanded to different geographical areas with high levels of endemism and relatively low richness, it would help to elucidate the different patterns of assemblage structure and interspecific interactions within habitats.…”