Resource Partitioning in Fish Assemblages: A Review of Field Studies

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Copeia.In this study I review the literature on resource partitioning in fish assemblages from 1940-83. Studies are grouped into seven global habitats: tropical reefs, temperate reefs, coastal marine, the Antarctic, mesopelagic/slope environments and freshwater streams and lakes. Freshwater systems first attracted the interest of resource ecologists; however, the number of studies of assemblages in all global habitats has risen sharply in the last decade.Studies treating single fish families show that resource partitioning occurs along more resource axes in more diverse assemblages. Unlike terrestrial systems, trophic separation is more important than habitat separation in fish assemblages. Based on 37 studies which concurrently examined habitat, food and temporal axes, 32% showed primary separation by habitat, 57% showed the greatest separation by food and 11% showed temporal separation to be most important. Global habitat differences in the importance of major resource axes are difficult to determine because of sampling bias; however, fish assemblages in most habitats show approximately equal importance of separation along spatial and trophic dimensions. The exceptions are marine systems, especially tem-1(41)

Patterns of resource use by fishes and macroinvertebrates in Barataria Bay, Louisiana

“…Population density, survival, secondary production and individual growth should respond to gradients in habitat quality (Chatry et al 1983, Baltz et al 1998. In this study, we found that patterns of microhabitat use among and within species differed substantially and often statistically, and suggested strong resource partitioning (Ross 1986). Overlaps in resource use were generally low (0 = 0.24, range = 0.01 to 0.59), especially between closely related species, where proportional overlap ranged from 0.19 to 0.38.…”

“…Overlaps in resource use were generally low (0 = 0.24, range = 0.01 to 0.59), especially between closely related species, where proportional overlap ranged from 0.19 to 0.38. Ecological segregation (Ross 1986) appeared to be general throughout the assemblage with the species assemblage structure changing along temporal, spatial and physico-chemical gradients in the factor analysis of microhabitat use (Fig. 5).…”

“…We also calculated overlaps (Schoener 1970) in temporal, spatial and size-structured (Livingston 1988) distributions between species to assess resource partitioning (Ross 1986) across 4 seasons, 6 strata and 4 size classes. Proportional overlaps in relative abundances (based on catch per min) were used to estimate overlap between selected species pairs in arrays of seasons, strata and size classes (4 × 6 × 4) as well as overlap between species pairs by season and strata without regard to size.…”

Ecomorphological differences between Rhamdia (Bleeker, 1858) populations from the Iguaçu River basin

“…Casatti et al 2005, Balassa et al 2004, Santos et al 2011). Resource partitioning is considered the principal factor in structuring the aquatic communities (Ross 1986). Hence, the coexistence of the species can be favored by ecomorphological differences.…”

Preliminary data on the feeding habits of the freshwater stingrays Potamotrygon falkneri and Potamotrygon motoro (Potamotrygonidae) from the Upper Paraná River basin, Brazil

“…spatial variation. Resource partitioning, defined as any considerable difference in the use of resources among species, like differences in diet or in temporal and spatial use of the habitat (Ross 1986), constitutes an important mechanism allowing the species coexistence. When the alimentary resources are available in abundance, they can be shared among species; on the other hand, when they are scarce, there is segregation among species through ontogenetic changes in the diet and/or differences in spatial/temporal distribution (Arcifa et al 1991).…”