Marine Biology

, Volume 151, Issue 5, pp 1893–1897 | Cite as

A method to reconstruct anguilliform fishes from partially digested items

  • François BrischouxEmail author
  • Xavier Bonnet
  • Margot De Crignis
Research Article


Estimating the amounts of resources consumed by individuals is important in many studies. For predators, allometric relationships can be used to extrapolate the size of preys from undigested remains found in the stomach and in the faeces. However, such equations are available for a limited number of species. Based on a large sample size gathered in New Caledonia on both predators (sea kraits) and their preys (anguilliform fishes), we provide the first allometric relationships that allow estimating accurately the mass and the size of various anguilliform fish species.


Prey Item Bonnet Tail Length Allometric Relationship Body Diameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We warmly thank the Aquarium de Nouméa, the Direction des Ressources Naturelles de la Province Sud and the IRD de Nouméa for logistical support. We are especially grateful to F. Devinck, C. Goiran, D. Ponton, E. Potut. S. Lorioux helped during fieldwork. B. Seret helped to identify the fishes. T.R. Cook corrected the English. Rex Cambag tested the quality of the alcohol. The study was carried out under permits # 6024-179/DRN/ENV and # 6024-3601/DRN/ENV.


  1. Ackerman JL, Bellwood DR (2000) Reef fish assemblages: a re-evaluation using enclosed rotenone stations. MEPS 206:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brischoux F, Bonnet X (2007) Life history of sea kraits in New Caledonia. Mémoires du Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle (in press)Google Scholar
  3. Cherel Y, Weimerskirch H, Trouvé C (2000) Food and feeding ecology of the neritic-slope forager black-browed albatross and its relationships with commercial fisheries in Kerguelen. MEPS 207:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke MR (1986) A handbook for the identification of cephalopod beaks. Oxford University Press, New York, p 273Google Scholar
  5. Duffy DC, Jackson S (1986) Diet studies of seabirds: a review of methods. Colonial Waterbirds 9:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greene HW (1983) Dietary correlates of the origin and radiation of snakes. Am Zool 23:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Härkönen T (1986) Guide to the otoliths of the bony fishes of the northeast Atlantic. Danbiu ApS. Biological Consultants, Denmark p 256Google Scholar
  8. Heatwole H (1999) Sea snakes. Australian natural history series. University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  9. Ineich I, Bonnet X, Brischoux F, Kulbicki M, Seret B, Shine R (2007) Anguilliform fishes and sea kraits: neglected predators in coral reef ecosystems. Mar Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  10. Kulbicki M, Guillemot N, Amand M (2005) A general approach to length-weight relationships for New Caledonian lagoon fishes. Cybium 29:235–252Google Scholar
  11. Reed RN, Shine R, Shetty S, Cogger H (2002) Sea kraits (Squamata: Laticauda spp.) as a useful bioassay for assessing local diversity of eels (Muraenidae, Congridae) in the western Pacific Ocean. Copeia 2002:1098–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Su Y, Fong S-C, Tu M-C (2005) Food habits of the sea snake, Laticauda semifasciata. Zool Stud 44(3):403–408Google Scholar
  13. Willis TJ (2001) Visual census methods underestimate density and diversity of cryptic reef fishes. J Fish Biol 59:1408–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Brischoux
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Xavier Bonnet
    • 1
  • Margot De Crignis
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre d’Études Biologiques de Chizé, CNRSVilliers en BoisFrance
  2. 2.Université François RabelaisTours, Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations