Inter and intraspecific variation in fish body size constrains microhabitat use in a subtropical drainage

Article

Abstract

Microhabitat characteristics are expected to influence the distribution of stream fish species at fine spatial scales (e.g., within riffle segments). Body size is probably the most important trait that constrains microhabitat occupation by fish, but the effect of intraspecific variation has been understudied. We investigated how physical microhabitat characteristics affect species and body size distribution of fish within a stream riffle segment in a coastal subtropical drainage of Brazil. Fishes were sampled by electrofishing 56 riffle plots along a 730-m long stream segment. Species composition was significantly related to four microhabitat characteristics: substrate size, flow velocity, distance to margin and depth. In addition, mean body size increased with increasing substrate size and depth of microhabitat sampling plots. However, when including species identity in linear mixed-effects models (LMM), we observed a different relationship between body size and microhabitat characteristics, but most of the variation was explained by species identity. Thus, we fitted LMMs separately for each species and found species-specific relations between intraspecific variation in body size and microhabitat characteristics. The low variation explained in the models suggests that other fine scale factors, such as biotic interactions and dispersal from adjacent habitat patches, should be incorporated in modeling microhabitat use by stream fish. Our findings suggest that body size is important by itself, but intraspecific variation in body size also constrains microhabitat use differently for each species, which may depend on other species-specific traits, such as morphology, behavior and life history.

Keywords

Microhabitat Riffle Fish assemblage Body size Atlantic forest 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank to Cristina Jacobi and Patrícia Paludo for their assistance in the field work, and to Fernando Gertum Becker for suggestions to the manuscript. We also thank to three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Fish sampling followed ethical guidelines (CEUA-UFRGS; #24433).

References

  1. Akbaripasand A, Nichol EC, Lokman PM, Closs GP (2011) Microhabitat use of a native New Zealand galaxiid fish, Galaxias fasciatus. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 45(1):135–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2010.544044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arim M, Abades SR, Laufer G, Loureiro M, Marquet PA (2010) Food web structure and body size: trophic position and resource acquisition. Oikos 119:147–153.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17768.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrington DA, Winemiller KO, Layman CA (2005) Community assembly at the patch scale in a species rich tropical river. Oecologia 144:157–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0014-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bain MB, Finn JT, Booke HE (1988) Stream regulation and fish community strutucture. Ecology 69:382–392.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartoń K (2016) MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1(15):6 Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn Google Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1(7)Google Scholar
  7. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Loder N (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann's rule. Divers Distrib 5:165–174.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.1999.00046.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolnick DI, Amarasekare P, Araújo MS, Bürger R, Levine JM, Novak M, Rudoff VHW, Schreiber SJ, Urban MC, Vasseur DA (2011) Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 26:183–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Camana M, Dala-Corte RB, Becker FG (2016) Relation between species richness and stream slope in riffle fish assemblages is dependent on spatial scale. Environ Biol Fish 99:603–612.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-016-0502-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casatti L, Castro R (2006) Testing the ecomorphological hypothesis in a headwater riffles fish assemblage of the rio São Francisco, southeastern Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol 4:203–214.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252006000200006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casatti L, Ferreira PC, Carvalho F (2009) Grass-dominated stream sites exhibit low fish species diversity and dominance by guppies: an assessment of two tropical pasture river basins. Hydrobiologia 632:273–283.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9849-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crook DA, Robertson AI, King AJ, Humphries P (2001) The influence of spatial scale and habitat arrangement on diel patterns of habitat use by two lowland river fishes. Oecologia 129:525–533.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100750 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dala-Corte RB, Silva ERD, Fialho CB (2016) Diet-morphology relationship in the stream-dwelling characid Deuterodon stigmaturus (Gomes, 1947) (Characiformes: Characidae) is partially conditioned by ontogenetic development. Neotrop Ichthyol 14:e150178.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20150178 Google Scholar
  14. Davey AJH, Hawkins SJ, Turner GF, Doncaster CP (2005) Size dependent microhabitat use and intraspecific competition in Cottus gobio. J Fish Biol 67:428–443.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2005.00736.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Bie T, De Meester L, Brendonck L, Martens K, Goddeeris B, Ercken D, Hampel H, Denys L, Vanhecke L, Van der Gucht K, Van Wichelen J, Vyverman W, Declerck SAJ (2012) Body size and dispersal mode as key traits determining metacommunity structure of aquatic organisms. Ecol Lett 15(7):740–747.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01794.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Del Signore A, Lenders HJR, Hendriks AJ, Vonk JA, Mulder C, Leuven RSEW (2016) Size mediated effects of water flow velocity on riverine fish species. River Res Appl 32(3):390–398.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas ME, Matthews WJ (1992) Does morphology predict ecology? Hypothesis testing within a freshwater stream fish assemblage. Oikos 65:213–224.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3545012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franssen NR, Gido KB, Guy CS, Tripe JA, Shrank SJ, Strakosh TR, Bertrand KN, Franssen CM, Pitts KL, Paukert CP (2006) Effects of floods on fish assemblages in an intermittent prairie stream. Freshw Biol 51(11):2072–2086.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01640.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF, Alkins-Koo M (1993) Structure of a tropical stream fish community: a role for biotic interactions. Ecology 74(6):1856–1870.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross J (2003) Variance inflation factors. R News 3(1):13–15Google Scholar
  21. Grossman GD, Freeman MC (1987) Microhabitat use in a stream fish assemblage. J Zool 212(1):151–176.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb05121.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grossman GD, Sostoa AD, Freeman MC, Lobón-Cerviá J (1987) Microhabitat use in a mediterranean riverine fish assemblage. Oecologia 73:501–512.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379407 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvey BC, Stewart AJ (1991) Fish size and habitat depth relationships in headwater streams. Oecologia 87:336–342.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00634588 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Henry BE, Grossman GD (2008) Microhabitat use by blackbanded (Percina nigrofasciata), turquoise (Etheostoma inscriptum), and tessellated (E. olmstedi) darters during drought in a Georgia piedmont stream. Environ Biol Fish 83:171–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-007-9312-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hockley FA, Wilson CAME, Brew A, Cable J (2014) Fish responses to flow velocity and turbulence in relation to size, sex and parasite load. J R Soc Interface 11:20130814.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0814 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Hugueny B (1990) Geographic range of west African freshwater fishes: role of biological characteristics and stochastic processes. Acta Oecol 11:351–375Google Scholar
  27. Jackson DA, Peres-Neto PR, Olden JD (2001) What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities the roles of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factors. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:157–170.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f00-239 Google Scholar
  28. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2015) Package ‘lmerTest’. R package version, 2(0)Google Scholar
  29. Lamouroux N, Poff NL, Angermeier PL (2002) Intercontinental convergence of stream fish community traits along geomorphic and hydraulic gradients. Ecology 83:1792–1807. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1792:ICOSFC]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  30. Langerhans RB, Layman CA, Langerhans AK, Dewitt TJ (2003) Habitat associated morphological divergence in two Neotropical fish species. Biol J Linn Soc 80:689–698.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2003.00266.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100716 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Leitão RP, Sánchez-Botero JI, Kasper D, Trivério-Cardoso V, Araújo CM, Zuanon J, Caramaschi EP (2015) Microhabitat segregation and fine ecomorphological dissimilarity between two closely phylogenetically related grazer fishes in an Atlantic Forest stream, Brazil. Environ Biol Fish 98:2009–2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-015-0423-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magoulick DD (2000) Spatial and temporal variation in fish assemblages of drying stream pools: the role of abiotic and biotic factors. Aquat Ecol 34:29–41.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009914619061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manna LR, Rezende CF, Mazzoni R (2017) Effect of body size on microhabitat preferences in stream-dwelling fishes. J Appl Ichthyol 33:193–202.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazzoni R, Novaes VC, Iglesias-Rios R (2011) Microhabitat use by Phalloceros harpagos Lucinda (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae) from a coastal stream from Southeast Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol 9:665–672.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252011005000027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meffe GK, Sheldon AL (1988) The influence of habitat structure on fish assemblage composition in southeastern Blackwater streams. Am Midl Nat 120:225–240.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2425994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Stevens MHH, Oksanen MJ, Suggests MASS (2008) The vegan package. Community Ecol Package 10:631–637Google Scholar
  39. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poff NL, Allan JD (1995) Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76:606–627.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1941217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  42. Regis J, Pattee E, Lebreton JD (1981) A new method for evaluating the efficiency of electric fishing. Arch Hydrobiol 93:68–82Google Scholar
  43. Ribeiro MD, Teresa FB, Casatti L (2016) Use of functional traits to assess changes in stream fish assemblages across a habitat gradient. Neotrop Ichthyol 14:e140185.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20140185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roa-Fuentes CA, Casatti L, Romero RDM (2015) Phylogenetic signal and major ecological shifts in the ecomorphological structure of stream fish in two river basins in Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol 13:165–178.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20140045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schlosser IJ (1987) The role of predation in age and size related habitat use by stream fishes. Ecology 68:651–659.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1938470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shields FD, Knight SS, Cooper CM (1994) Effects of channel incision on base flow stream habitats and fishes. Environ Manag 18:43–57.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steele SE, López-Fernández H (2014) Body size diversity and frequency distributions of Neotropical cichlid fishes (Cichliformes: Cichlidae: Cichlinae). PLoS One 9:e106336.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106336 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Stefferud JA, Gido KB, Propst DL (2011) Spatially variable response of native fish assemblages to discharge, predators and habitat characteristics in an arid land river. Freshw Biol 56:1403–1416.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02577.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor CM, Warren ML (2001) Dynamics in species composition of stream fish assemblages: environmental variability and nested subsets. Ecology 82:2320–2330. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2320:DISCOS]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  50. Violle C, Enquist BJ, McGill BJ, Jiang L, Albert CH, Hulshof C, Jung V, Messier J (2012) The return of the variance: intraspecific variability in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 27:244–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Warburton K (1989) Ecological and phylogenetic constraints on body size in indo-Pacific fishes. Environ Biol Fish 24:13–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00001606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wikramanayake ED (1990) Ecomorphology and biogeography of a tropical stream fish assemblage: evolution of assemblage structure. Ecology 71:1756–1764.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1937583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wood BM, Bain MB (1995) Morphology and microhabitat use in stream fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1487–1498.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f95-143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Woodward G, Ebenman B, Emmerson M, Montoya JM, Olesen JM, Valido A, Warren PH (2005) Body size in ecological networks. Trends Ecol Evo 20:402–409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhao T, Villéger S, Lek S, Cucherousset J (2014) High intraspecific variability in the functional niche of a predator is associated with ontogenetic shift and individual specialization. Ecol Evol 4:4649–4657.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1260 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade AnimalUniversidade Federal de GoiásGoiâniaBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós-Graduação em EcologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations