Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 761, Issue 1, pp 249–259 | Cite as

Factors involved in prey resource partitioning in the genus Artedidraco (Notothenioidei, Artedidraconidae) from the western Ross Sea

  • Mario La Mesa
  • Alberto Castelli
  • Joseph T. Eastman
  • Emilio Riginella
BIOLOGY OF THE ROSS SEA

Abstract

Antarctic plunderfishes are demersal species inhabiting the continental shelf of the Ross Sea, with sympatric distributions and similar morphology. Assuming these species are potential competitors for food, we aimed to quantify food overlap among them and to test the existence of factors involved in prey resource partitioning. Dietary composition and feeding niche breadth were estimated through stomach contents analysis of some species of Artedidraco sampled in the western Ross Sea. The fish community consisted of a wide range of feeders, from specialists like A. glareobarbatus and A. shackletoni, which fed exclusively on epifaunal polychaetes, to generalists like A. loennbergi and A. skottsbergi, which fed on a variety of prey. Although all species relied exclusively on benthic prey, diet diversity and prey type largely differed from each other, both contributing to reduce prey overlap and food competition. In a few cases, relatively high food overlap was observed between species with different spatial distributions. Based on our data and on previous studies, prey resource partitioning in plunderfishes is therefore established through morphological and behavioural adaptations, either by differential development of sense organs and trophic structures or by different diet composition and spatial distribution within the shared benthic habitat.

Keyword

Plunderfishes Artedidraco Feeding habits Food partitioning Antarctica 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all crew members, personnel and scientific staff aboard of RV Italica for their support in sampling activities. We are also much indebted to Angelika Brandt, Ute Mühlenhardt-Siegel and Jurgen Guererro-Kommritz for taxonomic identification of prey. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-chief whose comments greatly improved the earlier draft of the manuscript. JT Eastman was supported by the National Science Foundation grant ANT-0436190. The study was financially supported by the PNRA (Italian National Antarctic Research Program).

References

  1. Amundsen, P. A., H. M. Gabler & F. J. Staldvik, 1996. A new approach to graphical analysis of feeding strategy from stomach contents data – modification of the Costello (1990) method. Journal of Fish Biology 48: 607–614.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, M. R., M. R. Dunn, P. J. McMillan, M. H. Pinkerton, A. Stewart & S. M. Hanchet, 2010. Latitudinal variation of demersal fish assemblages in the western Ross Sea. Antarctic Science 22: 782–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, K. R. & R. N. Gorley, 2001. PRIMER v5: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, K. R. & R. M. Warwick, 1994. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd ed. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.Google Scholar
  5. Costello, M. J., 1990. Predator feeding strategy and prey importance: a new graphical analysis. Journal of Fish Biology 36: 261–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels, R. A., 1982. Feeding ecology of some fishes of the Antarctic Peninsula. Fishery Bulletin 80: 575–588.Google Scholar
  7. Eakin, R. R., 1990. Artedidraconidae. In Gon, O. & P. C. Heemstra (eds), Fishes of the Southern Ocean. J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown: 332–356.Google Scholar
  8. Eastman, J. T., 1993. Antarctic Fish Biology: Evolution in an Unique Environment. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  9. Eastman, J. T., 2000. Antarctic notothenioid fishes as subjects for research in evolutionary biology. Antarctic Science 12: 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eastman, J. T., 2005. The nature of the diversity of Antarctic fishes. Polar Biology 28: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eastman, J. T. & R. R. Eakin, 1999. Fishes of the genus Artedidraco (Pisces, Artedidraconidae) from the Ross Sea, Antarctica, with the description of a new species and a colour morph. Antarctic Science 11: 13–22.Google Scholar
  12. Eastman, J. T. & R. R. Eakin, 2000. An updated species list for notothenioid fish (Perciformes; Notothenioidei), with comments on Antarctic species. Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 48: 11–20.Google Scholar
  13. Eastman, J. T. & G. Hubold, 1999. The fish fauna of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Antarctic Science 11: 293–304.Google Scholar
  14. Eastman, J. T. & M. J. Lannoo, 2003. Anatomy and histology of the brain and sense organs of the Antarctic plunderfish Dolloidraco longedorsalis (Perciformes: Notothenioidei: Artedidraconidae), with comments on the brain morphology of other artedidraconids and closely related harpagiferids. Journal of Morphology 255: 358–377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekau, W. & J. Gutt, 1991. Notothenioid fishes from the Weddell Sea and their habitat, observed by underwater photography and television. Proceedings of the NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology 4: 36–49.Google Scholar
  16. Gerdes, D., B. Hilbig & A. Montiel, 2003. Impact of iceberg scouring on macrobenthic communities in the high-Antarctic Weddell Sea. Polar Biology 26: 295–301.Google Scholar
  17. Gröhsler, T., 1994. Feeding habits as indicators of ecological niches: investigations of Antarctic fish conducted near Elephant Island in late autumn/winter 1986. Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 42: 17–34.Google Scholar
  18. Hyslop, E. J., 1980. Stomach contents analysis – a review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17: 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hubold, G., 1991. Ecology of notothenioid fish in the Weddell Sea. In di Prisco, G., B. Maresca & B. Tota (eds), Biology of Antarctic Fish. Springer, Berlin: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iwami, T., H. Numanami & Y. Naito, 1996. Behavior of three species of the family Artedidraconidae (Pisces, Notothenioidei), with reference to feeding. Proceedings of the NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology 9: 225–230.Google Scholar
  21. Klingenberg, C. P. & W. Ekau, 1996. A combined morphometric and phylogenetic analysis of an ecomorphological trend: pelagization in Antarctic fishes (Perciformes: Nototheniidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 59: 143–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kock, K. H., 1992. Antarctic Fish and Fisheries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. La Mesa, M., R. Cattaneo-Vietti & M. Vacchi, 2006. Species composition and distribution of the Antarctic plunderfishes (Pisces, Artedidraconidae) from the Ross Sea off Victoria Land. Deep Sea Research II 53: 1061–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lecointre, G., C. Gallut, C. Bonillo, A. Couloux, C. Ozouf-Costaz & A. Dettaï, 2011. The Antarctic fish genus Artedidraco is paraphyletic (Teleostei, Notothenioidei, Artedidraconidae). Polar Biology 34: 1135–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linton, L. R., R. W. Davies & F. J. Wrona, 1981. Resource utilization indices: an assessment. Journal of Animal Ecology 50: 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lombarte, A., 1999. External and internal morphology of the sensory organs in Artedidraconidae, Teleostei: Notothenioidei. Berichte Zur Polarforschung 301: 132–135.Google Scholar
  27. Lombarte, A., I. Olaso & A. Bozzano, 2003. Ecomorphological trends in the Artedidraconidae (Pisces: Perciformes: Notothenioidei) of the Weddell Sea. Antarctic Science 15: 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Macdonald, J. A. & J. C. Montgomery, 1991. The sensory biology of notothenioid fish. In di Prisco, G., B. Maresca & B. Tota (eds), Biology of Antarctic Fish. Springer, Berlin: 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall, S. & M. Elliot, 1997. A comparison of univariate and multivariate numerical and graphical techniques for determining inter- and intraspecific feeding relationships in estuarine fish. Journal of Fish Biology 51: 526–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKenna Jr, J. E., 1991. Trophic relationships within the Antarctic demersal fish community of South Georgia Island. Fishery Bulletin 89: 643–654.Google Scholar
  31. Near, T. J., A. Dornburg, K. L. Kuhn, J. T. Eastman, J. N. Pennington, T. Patarnello, L. Zane, D. A. Fernández & C. D. Jones, 2012. Ancient climate change, antifreeze, and the evolutionary diversification of Antarctic fishes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109: 3434–3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olaso, I., M. Rauschert & C. De Broyer, 2000. Trophic ecology of the family Artedidraconidae (Pisces: Osteichthyes) and its impact on the eastern Weddell Sea benthic system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 194: 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ross, S. T., 1986. Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a review of field studies. Copeia 2: 352–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roughgarden, J., 1972. Evolution of niche width. The American Naturalist 106: 683–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schoener, T. W., 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 27–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarzbach, W., 1988. Die Fischfauna des östlichen und südlichen Weddellmeeres: geographische Verbreitung, Nahrung und trophische Stellung der Fischarten. Berichte zur Polarforschung 54: 1–94.Google Scholar
  37. Sokal, R. R. & F. J. Rohlf, 1995. Biometry. The Principle and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  38. Targett, T. E., 1981. Trophic ecology and structure of coastal Antarctic fish communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 4: 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wyanski, D. M. & T. E. Targett, 1981. Feeding biology of fishes in the endemic Antarctic Harpagiferidae. Copeia 3: 686–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zimmermann, C., 1997. Zur Ökologie arktischer und antarktischer Fische: Aktivität, Sinnesleistungen und Verhalten. Berichte zur Polarforschung 231: 1–137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario La Mesa
    • 1
  • Alberto Castelli
    • 2
  • Joseph T. Eastman
    • 3
  • Emilio Riginella
    • 4
  1. 1.CNRIstituto di Scienze MarineAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di BiologiaUniversità di PisaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical SciencesOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  4. 4.Dipartimento di BiologiaUniversità di PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations