Feeding habits and trophic morphology of inshore lizardfish (Synodus foetens) on the central continental shelf off Veracruz, Gulf of Mexico

Abstract

The inshore lizardfish, Synodus foetens, is one of the most common coastal demersal predators on the continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), but the biology and feeding ecology of this species is virtually unknown. Between November 2001 and January 2003 (10 collections), 603 individuals of S. foetens ranging from 112 to 420 mm standard length (SL) and 13 to 630 g (wet weight) were collected from the continental shelf of Alvarado, Veracruz, Mexico. About 60% of the individuals had empty stomachs with the stomach fullness of the remaining individuals being distributed as follows: 5% full (24.8%), 50-75% full (13.5%), and completely full (1.7%). The mean (± SD) wet weight of stomach contents was 12.1 ± 10.8 g during the rainy season, and 19.0 ± 13.0 g during the nortes season. Seventeen prey items were identified, with the majority thereof being fish. The most important prey items were Upeneus parvus, Loligo pealei, Engyophrys senta, Trachurus lathami, and Anchoa hepsetus. Seasonal changes in the diet were observed, with U. parvus and L. pealei being the most important prey during the nortes season, whereas E. senta and L. pealei were the main items during the rainy season. Prey size selection was evident among size classes of S. foetens, although no trophic overlap was observed among size classes (C ik £ 0.004). High trophic level values were determined for all size classes by season (rainy season ¼ 4.67, nortes season ¼ 4.84), and indicated this species belongs to the piscivorous trophic guild that preys upon both demersal and pelagic species.

Whitemouth croaker Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest, 1823) feeding strategies across four southern Brazilian estuaries

“…Presence of infaunal prey in Dots represent prey types ± standard deviation of prey specific abundance and frequency of occurrence, isoclines representing values of prey importance Aquat Ecol (2008) 42:83-93 89 stomach contents had been previously emphasized for juvenile of this species in Patos Lagoon estuary Vieira 1998a, b, 2005;Gonçalves et al 1999). Similar feeding strategy had been observed in other estuarine fish species of eastern Johor Strait, Singapore (Hajisamaea et al 2003), in the Inshore lizardfish (Synodus foetens) (Cruz- Escalona et al 2005), in the red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) (Scharf and Schlicht 2000), in the Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), in the white perch (Morone americana) (Nemerson and Kenneth 2004) and in the goatfish Pseudupeneus maculatus (Sazima et al 2006).…”

Ontogenetic changes in foraging tactics of the piscivorous cornetfish Fistularia commersonii

“…Not only prey size but also prey items and foraging repertories are restricted in cornetfish of this size, and this tendency may also apply to other piscivores (Baker and Sheaves 2005;Cruz-Escalona et al 2005). In general, small fish will be more vulnerable to predatory risk (Hixon 1991;Gerking 1994).…”

“…15 cm SL, which preys on pelagic fish in addition to reefassociated fish (Kingsford 1992;St John 1999). The stomachs of many other piscivorous species also contain fishes from the two habitat types (Takeuchi et al 2005;Cruz-Escalona et al 2005). A large variation in fish prey items related to the habitat types can be commonly found in some taxa of larger piscivores.…”

Dimensions of biodiversity in Chesapeake Bay demersal fishes: patterns and drivers through space and time

“…§ Other primary sources are Bowman et al 2000, Chao and Musick 1977, Cruz-Escalona et al 2005, Ellis and Musick 2007, Hansen 1969, Hettler 1989, Johnson and Seaman 1986, Link et al 2002, Martins et al 2005, Ross 1989, Scharf and Schlicht 2000, Steimle and Shaheen 1999 v www.esajournals.org the following agglomeration methods: single linkage, complete linkage, Ward's minimum variance, unweighted arithmetic average clustering (UPGMA), and weighted arithmetic average clustering (WPGMA). We omitted two other algorithms suggested by Mouchet et al (2008)-unweighted centroid clustering (UPGMC) and weighted pair group centroid clustering (WPGMC)-because they are not appropriate for non-metric distances.…”