, Volume 635, Issue 1, pp 57–65 | Cite as

Extreme trophic segregation between sympatric fish species: the case of small sized body Aphyocharax in the Brazilian Pantanal

  • Carlos E. Corrêa
  • Norma S. Hahn
  • Rosilene L. Delariva
Primary research paper


Interspecific differences in diet of the two sympatric fish species of the subfamily Aphyocharacinae were investigated. Both were sampled monthly (March 2000 to February 2001) during the rainy and dry season in North region of the Pantanal. Aphyocharax anisitsi was an invertivorous/insectivorous species, feeding mainly on aquatic insects during the rainy season and terrestrial insects in the dry season. Aphyocharax dentatus remained a piscivorous regardless of the hydrological season. Low feeding-overlap values, 0.079 in the dry season and no overlap in the rainy season were observed. The diet-breadth values for each species were low (less than 0.1) except for A. anisitsi in the lake during the dry season (0.4). A detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) summarized the diet similarity patterns: in DCA 1, it was observed that fish prey grouped A. dentatus in the lower scores, and insect prey grouped A. anisitsi in the higher scores. A two-way ANOVA showed that the diets differed significantly between the species. Our results show a clear trophic segregation between these species, supporting the niche concept that presumes that differences between sympatric species must exist, to allow their coexistence. Besides extreme segregation, it was clear that A. dentatus is a piscivorous fish, despite its low size (until 72 mm). This finding counteracts the current view about food web structure that poses a direct and positive relationship between body size and trophic position.


Aphyocharax anisitsi Aphyocharax dentatus Coexistence Diet Floodplain 



We express our appreciation to Nupélia (Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aqüicultura) and to PEA (Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais) for their financial and logistical support. To CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) for a postgraduate fellowship and to Sidinei Magela Thomaz for helpful suggestions. The language (English) was revised by Janet W. Reid (JWR Associates).


  1. Agostinho, C. S., N. S. Hahn & E. E. Marques, 2003. Patterns of food resource use by two congeneric species of piranhas (Serrasalmus) on the Upper Paraná River floodplain. Brazilian Journal of Biology 63: 177–182.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, V. L. L., N. S. Hahn & A. E. M. Vazzoler, 1997. Feeding patterns in five predatory fishes of the high Paraná River floodplain (PR, Brazil). Ecology of Freshwater Fish 6: 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amarasekare, P., 2003. Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecology Letters 6: 1109–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britski, H. A., K. Z. S. Silimon & B. S. Lopes, 2007. Peixes do pantanal—Manual de identificação, 2nd ed. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária—EMBRAPA, Brasília.Google Scholar
  5. Chase, J. M. & M. A. Leibold, 2003. Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Chernoff, B., P. W. Willink & A. Machado-Allison, 2004. Spatial partitioning of fishes in the río Paraguay, Paraguay. Interciencia 29: 183–192.Google Scholar
  7. Esteves, K. E. & P. M. Galetti, 1995. Food partitioning among some characids of a small Brazilian floodplain lake from the Paraná River basin. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42: 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gause, G. F., 1934. The struggle for existence. Hafner Publishing Company, London.Google Scholar
  9. Gerking, S. D., 1994. Feeding ecology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  10. Gotelli, N. J. & G. L. Entsminger, 2007. EcoSim: null models software for ecology, version 7. Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear. Jericho, VT 05465.
  11. Goulding, M., 1980. The fishes and the forest. University of California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  12. Graça, W. J. & C. S. Pavanelli, 2007. Peixes da planície de inundação do alto rio Paraná e áreas adjacentes. EDUEM, Maringá.Google Scholar
  13. Graham, J. H. & R. C. Vrijennhoek, 1988. Detrended correspondence analysis of dietary data. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hahn, N. S. & V. E. Loureiro-Crippa, 2006. Estudo comparativo da dieta, hábitos alimentares e morfologia trófica de duas espécies simpátricas, de peixes de pequeno porte, associados à macrófitas aquáticas. Acta Scientiarium Biological Sciences 28: 359–364.Google Scholar
  15. Hahn, N. S., R. Fugi, V. L. L. Almeida, M. R. Russo & V. E. Loureiro, 1997. Dieta e atividade alimentar de peixes do reservatório de Segredo. In Agostinho, A. A. & L. C. Gomes (eds), Resevatório de Segredo: bases ecológicas para o manejo. EDUEM, Maringá: 141–162.Google Scholar
  16. Hellawell, J. M. & R. Abel, 1971. A rapid volumetric method for the analysis of the food of fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 3: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, M. O. & H. G. Gauch, 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis, an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurlbert, S. H., 1978. The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives. Ecology 59: 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyslop, E. P., 1980. Stomach contents analysis, a review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17: 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Labropoulou, M. & A. Eleftheriou, 1997. The foraging ecology of two pairs of congeneric demersal fish species: importance of morphological characteristics in prey selection. Journal of Fish Biology 50: 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacCune, B. & M. J. Mefford, 1997. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 3.0. MjM Software Design, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Mittermeier R. G., F. M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, P. R. Gil, C. Mittermeier & J. Lamoreux, 2005. Hotspots revisitados—as regiões biologicamente mais ricas e ameaçadas do planeta. Conservation International do Brazil. Disponível em:<>. 17 dez 2008.
  23. Mol, J. H., 1995. Ontogenetic diet shifts and diet overlap among three closely related neotropical armoured catfishes. Journal of Fish Biology 47: 788–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mooney, K. A., P. Jones & A. A. Agrawal, 2008. Coexisting congeners: demography, competition, and interactions with cardenolides for two milkweed-feeding aphids. Oikos 117: 450–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munday, P. L., G. P. Jones & M. J. Caley, 2001. Interspecific competition and coexistence in a guild of coral-dwelling fishes. Ecology 82: 2177–2189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Novakowski, G. C., N. S. Hahn & R. Fugi, 2008. Diet seasonality and food overlap of the fish assemblage in a pantanal pound. Neotropical Ichthyology 6: 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oliveira, M. D. & D. F. Calheiros, 2000. Flood pulse influence on phytoplankton communities of the south Pantanal floodplain, Brazil. Hydrobiologia 427: 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pianka, E. R., 1969. Sympatry of desert lizards (Ctenotus) in western Australia. Ecology 50: 1012–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pianka, E. R., 1974. Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 71: 2141–2145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pouilly, M., T. Yunoki, C. Rosales & L. Torres, 2004. Trophic structure of fish assemblages from Mamoré river floodplain lakes (Bolivia). Ecology of Freshwater Fish 13: 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prejs, A. & K. Prejs, 1987. Feeding of tropical freshwater fishes: seasonality in resource availability and resource use. Oecologia 71: 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross, S. T., 1986. Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 1986: 352–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russo, M. R. & N. S. Hahn, 2006. Importance of zooplankton in the diet of a small fish in lagoons of the Upper Paraná River floodplain, Brazil. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 18: 357–366.Google Scholar
  34. Schaefer, S. A., 1998. Conflict and resolution: impact of new taxa on phylogenetic studies of the neotropical cascudinhos (Siluroidei: Loricariidae). In Malabarba, L. R., R. E. Reis, R. P. Vari, Z. M. Lucena & C. A. S. Lucena (eds), Phylogeny and classification of neotropical fishes. Edipucrs, Porto Alegre: 375–400.Google Scholar
  35. Schoener, T. W., 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheldon, A. L. & G. K. Meffe, 1993. Multivariate analysis of feeding relationships of fishes in blackwater streams. Environmental Biology of Fishes 37: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. StatSoft Inc., 2005. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7.1.
  38. Súarez, Y. R., M. Petrere & A. C. Catella, 2001. Factors determining the structure of fish communities in Pantanal lagoons (MS, Brazil). Fisheries Management Ecology 8: 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Súarez, Y. R., M. Petrere & A. C. Catella, 2004. Factors regulating diversity and abundance of fish communities in Pantanal lagoons, Brazil. Fisheries Management Ecology 11: 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Toft, C. A., 1985. Resource partitioning in amphibians and reptiles. Copeia 1985: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Townsend, C. R., M. Begon & J. L. Harper, 2006. Fundamentos em Ecologia, 2nd ed. Artmed, São Paulo.Google Scholar
  42. Winemiller, K. O. & A. Adite, 1997. Convergent evolution of weakly electric fishes from floodplain habitats in Africa and South America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49: 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos E. Corrêa
    • 1
  • Norma S. Hahn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rosilene L. Delariva
    • 3
  1. 1.Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos ContinentaisUniversidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)MaringáBrazil
  2. 2.Núcleo de Pesquisas em LimnologiaIctiologia e Aqüicultura (Nupélia)MaringáBrazil
  3. 3.Centro Universitário de Maringá (CESUMAR)MaringáBrazil

Personalised recommendations