Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T06:35:13.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Guild composition and habitat use by Tetraodontiformes (Teleostei, Acanthopterygii) in a south-western Atlantic tropical estuary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2015

Amanda Carvalho De Andrade
Affiliation:
Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho 373 (Bl. A), 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brasil
Sérgio Ricardo Santos*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho 373 (Bl. A), 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brasil
José Roberto Verani
Affiliation:
Departamento de Hidrobiologia, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Rod. Washington Luiz, Km 235, 13565-905, São Carlos/SP, Brasil
Marcelo Vianna
Affiliation:
Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho 373 (Bl. A), 21941-902, Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brasil
*
Correspondence should be addressed to:S.R. Santos, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Av. Carlos Chagas Filho 373 (Bl. A), 21941-902 Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brasil email: srbs@ufrj.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sampling of the demersal ichthyofauna of Guanabara Bay was conducted bimonthly for 2 years at 10 stations distributed along a hydrobiological gradient. A total of 16,081 Tetraodontiformes specimens were collected, representing 10 species distributed among Ostraciidae, Monacanthidae, Tetraodontidae and Diodontidae. Tetraodontiformes appear to be well adapted to hydrological variations and inhospitable conditions prompted by intense eutrophication. However, abiotic factors traditionally considered important in estuarine community structure play a secondary role in the distribution of Tetraodontiformes. The type of sediment appears to be the most important physical factor but acts only as an indicator of ecological domain. The low explanatory power of physicochemical variables, in addition to the relative stability of the bay's ichthyofauna, suggests an influence of biological parameters. The species exhibited wide variation in their use of Guanabara Bay and utilized it as a resting, feeding and growing area. Among the species captured, Stephanolepis hispidus, Lagocephalus laevigatus, Sphoeroides greeleyi, Sphoeroides testudineus, Sphoeroides tyleri, Chilomycterus reticulatus and Chilomycterus spinosus were categorized as marine estuarine opportunists, and Aluterus heudelotii and Aluterus schoepfii were classified as marine stragglers. Acanthostracion sp. could not be categorized. The boom of C. spinosus indicates an ecological misbalance and must be carefully investigated.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2015 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The estuary of Guanabara Bay (22°24′–22°57′S 42°33′–43°19′W); the locations of all 10 sampling stations are indicated.

Figure 1

Table 1. Absolute frequency (N), total weight (TW), frequency of occurrence (FO) and index of relative importance (IRI), of Tetraodontiformes, in Guanabara Bay between July 2005 and June 2007.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Hierarchical analysis of the CPUE-n data by area for Tetraodontiformes caught in Guanabara Bay between July 2005 and June 2007 (cophenetic correlation = 0.8029).

Figure 3

Table 2. Relative frequency and sampling effort of Tetraodontiformes, by area in Guanabara Bay, between July 2005 and June 2007.

Figure 4

Table 3. Eigenvalue, variance and cumulative variance of the eigenvectors generated by correspondence analysis of the spatiotemporal CPUE-n data, for Tetraodontiformes, in Guanabara Bay, between July 2005 and June 2007.

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Spatiotemporal analysis of Tetraodontiformes in Guanabara Bay between July 2005 and June 2007. BOT (station 4.2), NIT (station 4.1), CC (station 3.2), ME (stations 3.1, 5.1 and 5.2), AEL (stations 2.1 and 2.2) and AEO (stations 1.1 and 1.2); P = spring; V = Summer; O = autumn; I = winter; 1 = year 1; 2 = year 2.

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Spatiotemporal analysis of Tetraodontiformes in Guanabara Bay between July 2005 and June 2007, excluding the dominant species Chilomycterus spinosus. BOT (station 4.2), NIT (station 4.1), CC (station 3.2), ME (station 3.1, 5.1 and 5.2), AEL (stations 2.1 and 2.2) and AEO (stations 1.1 and 1.2); P = spring; V = summer; O = autumn; I = winter; 1 = year 1; 2 = year 2.

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Canonical analysis of the absolute frequencies, of Tetraodontiformes and environmental variables, in the tropical estuary of Guanabara Bay, between July 2005 and June 2007. Axis 1 (abscissa) = 13.9%; Axis 2 (ordered) = 4.4% of the variation in the data.

Figure 8

Table 4. Weighted averages and coefficients of variation of abiotic parameters at the time of capture of the main Tetraodontiformes species in Guanabara Bay between July 2005 and June 2007.

Figure 9

Table 5. Distribution of the absolute and percentage frequencies, of the major Tetraodontiformes species, by sediment according to Folk's textural classification, in Guanabara Bay, between July 2005 and June 2007.

Figure 10

Fig. 6. Spatiotemporal distributions of Lagocephalus laevigatus, Stephanolepis hispidus and Chilomycterus spinosus, based on total n/CPUE and total w/CPUE, in Guanabara Bay between July 2005 and June 2007.

Figure 11

Fig. 7. Spatiotemporal distributions of Sphoeroides greeleyi, S. testudineus and S. tyleri, based on total n/CPUE and total w /CPUE, in Guanabara Bay between July 2005 and June 2007.

Figure 12

Table 6. Classification of the identified species of Tetraodontiformes within functional groups, according to the analyses of a 2-year twice-monthly sampling effort, in five distinct areas of Guanabara Bay (July 2005 to June 2007).