Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T23:12:46.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontogenetic niche feeding partitioning in juvenile of white sea catfish Genidens barbus in estuarine environments, southern Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

Manuel Mendoza-Carranza  and
João Paes Vieira
Manuel Mendoza-Carranza*
Affiliation:
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur—ECOSUR, Sistemas de Producción Alternativos, Pesquerías Artesanales Apartado Postal 1042, Admon. de Correos Tabasco, 2000, Calle Planetario Sin Número Esquina Con Circuito 86031, Villahermosa, Tabasco, México
João Paes Vieira
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ictiologia, Departamento de Oceanografia, Fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Avenida Itália Km 8, Caixa Postal 474, Rio Grande—RS—Brazil
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Manuel Mendoza-Carranza, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur—ECOSUR, Sistemas de Producción Alternativos, Pesquerías Artesanales Apartado Postal 1042, Admon. de Correos, Tabasco 2000, Calle Planetario Sin Número Esquina Con Circuito 86031, Villahermosa, Tabasco, México email: xoof1@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ontogenetic diet changes (prey species richness and size) in juveniles of white sea catfish (Genidens barbus) were tested in three southern Brazilian estuaries: Mampituba (29°12′S), Tramandaí (30°02′S), Chuí (33°44′S). Cluster analysis revealed that white sea catfish juvenile populations in the three estuaries are composed of two feeding groups. These two feeding groups are coincident with a bimodal size–age distribution of the juveniles of white sea catfish. In small catfish (5 to 10 cm TL) copepods were the most numerous prey (Chuí = 86.66%N, Tramandaí = 85.52%N and Mampituba = 52.34%N). In large catfish (10 to 20 cm TL) the most abundant and frequent prey was fish (Chuí: 73.19%N and 74.56%FO; Tramandaí: 85.92%N and 73.33%FO; Mampituba: 52.34%N and 61.54%FO). The Morisita overlap index among small and large fish was low in all estuaries; high values of Morisita's similarity index were observed among same size catfish groups. In all cases, no differences were observed among prey bio-volume curves of same size predator groups (small, F = 0.41, P = 0.65; large, F = 2.19, P = 0.11). In all estuaries, prey size increased significantly with increasing predator size. The 90th regression quantile estimated with most precision the predator–prey size relationship.

Keywords

trophic ecologydiet overlapprey sizepredator–prey relationship

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 89 , Issue 4 , June 2009 , pp. 839 - 848
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2008

INTRODUCTION

Species-level designation is commonly used to describe and characterize feeding habits of fish species (e.g. piscivore and insectivore). However, most fish species present a gradual change in their diet along ontogeny; therefore a single species can be divided into lower ecological functional units (Livingston, Reference Livingston1988, Reference Livingston2003; Vieira, Reference Vieira2006).

Ontogenetic changes in feeding habits can be related to fish movements along different environments and seasonal variations (Wheeler & Allen, Reference Wheeler and Allen2003; Scharf et al., Reference Scharf, Manderson, Fabrizio, Pessutti, Rosendale, Chant and Bejda2004; Szedlmayer & Lee, Reference Szedlmayer and Lee2004). Nevertheless, when geographical or temporal segregation is not present and several size-classes of one species share a common area and resources, selective predation along ontogeny can be an important means by which species reduce intraspecific overlap (Schoener, Reference Schoener1974; Werner & Guilliam, Reference Werner and Guilliam1984; Dopman et al., Reference Dopman, Sword and Hillis2002). Selective predation can be reflected as changes in predator–prey size relationships and changes in prey species number and richness (Buckel & McKown, Reference Buckel and McKown2002; Wheeler & Allen, Reference Wheeler and Allen2003; Rudershausen et al., Reference Rudershausen, Tuomikoski and Buckel2005).

In southern Brazilian estuaries, the most abundant sea catfish (Ariidae) is the white sea catfish (Genidens barbus Lacepède, 1803), which is second in overall abundance after the white-mouth croaker (Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest, 1823) (Vieira et al., 1998; Ramos & Vieira, Reference Ramos and Vieira2001; Vieira, Reference Vieira2006; Mendoza-Carranza & Vieira, Reference Mendoza-Carranza and Vieira2008). Nevertheless, information about its population structure and feeding habits has been generated only for Patos Lagoon Estuary bottom fish assemblages (Vieira, Reference Vieira2006). In Patos Lagoon estuary the G. barbus population is composed of two age groups (1 and 2 years old), which can be identified clearly as a bimodal size–frequency distribution (Reis, Reference Reis1986a; Vieira, Reference Vieira2006; Velasco et al., Reference Velasco, Reis and Vieira2007). White sea catfish are generalistic benthophagous feeders, consuming fish, molluscs, polychaetes and crustaceans (Araújo, Reference Araújo1984; Reis, Reference Reis1986b). However, the literature does not give details about ontogenetic dietary changes (Araújo, Reference Araújo1984). Since prey–predator relationships are recognized as very important factors in the interactions within and among species, our first objective was to examine the predator–prey size relationship in southern Brazilian estuarine white sea catfish populations. We also tested differences between diet of the two recognized size–age groups using two niche feeding dimensions (species richness and size of prey). Finally we evaluated if this pattern is observed in all estuaries of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

Chuí (33°44′S), Patos Lagoon (32°10′S), Tramandaí (30°02′S) and Mampituba (29°12′S) estuaries are located along the Rio Grande do Sul coastline, southern Brazil (Figure 1). Chuí Stream is located at the border between Brazil and Uruguay. It is 60 km long and is connected with the sea by a narrow channel (60 m wide); its channel depth ranges from 1.5 to 3 m. Chuí estuarine zone is relatively small (0.3 km2), reaching approximately 1 km upriver (Pereira et al., Reference Pereira, Ramos and Pontes1998). The brackish area of Patos Lagoon is restricted to the southern portion of the lagoon (~10% of total area (201,626 km2)), where it is connected with the sea by a single inlet about 4 km long and 740 m wide at the mouth (Asmus, Reference Asmus, Seeliger, Odebrecht and Castello1996). Tramandaí Lagoon is a small coastal lagoon (1800 km2) connected with the sea by a channel 1.5 km long and 0.3 km wide, with an average depth of 1.5 m in the lagoon and 5 m in its channel (Schwarzbold & Schäfer, Reference Schwarzbold and Schäfer1984). This lagoon is largely influenced by abrupt changes in wind velocity and direction; the estuarine area is extended across the entire lagoon (Seeliger, Reference Seeliger, Seeliger and Kjerfve2001). Mampituba River is located at the northern limit of Rio Grande do Sul state. This river is 8 km long and 300 m wide and average depth in its estuarine zone is 8 m. The estuarine area is estimated to be approximately 0.5 km2.

Fig. 1.

The coastline of Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil, showing the four studied estuaries: Chuí Stream, 33°44′S 53°22′W; Patos Lagoon Estuary, 32°10′S 52°15′W (1: Porto Rei and 2: Marambia estuarine beaches); Tramandaí Lagoon, 30°05′S 50°11′W; Mampituba River, 29°12′S 49°43′W.

Sampling methods

Fish were caught using a beam trawl (4.20 m wide, 0.80 m high and with 10 mm mesh size). Each haul lasted five minutes with a velocity of approximately 3–4 km/h. The depth of trawling in all estuaries ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 m, except in Tramandaí channel (5 m) and Mampituba River (8 m).

At Chuí, six hauls were made bimonthly from January 1999 to March 2000. All hauls started at the estuary's mouth and proceeded upstream. At Patos Lagoon estuary, samples were collected in front of the Porto Rei and Marambaia estuarine beaches, where the white sea catfish is the second most abundant species following Micropogonias furnieri (Chao et al., Reference Chao, Pereira, Vieira and Yáñez-Arancibia1985; Vieira et al., Reference Vieira, Castello, Pereira, Seeliger, Odebrecht and Castello1998). Six hauls were conducted at these locations each month from January 1999 to March 2000. At Tramandaí, 32 hauls were conducted (15 in March and 17 in August of 1999). At Mampituba fish were caught during March (7 hauls) and August (10 hauls) of 1999. In both Tramandaí and Mampituba environment hauls started in the mouth of the river and finished 3 km upriver.

Fish collected in each tow were stored in separate plastic bags and fixed in 10% formaldehyde buffered with sodium borate. In the laboratory fish were identified (following Menezes & Figueiredo, Reference Menezes and Figueiredo1980; Higuichi et al., Reference Higuichi, Reis and Araújo1982), and measured (total length (TL)) to the nearest millimetre below.

Stomach content and data analysis

A total sample of 929 individuals was collected for stomach analysis (516 for Chuí Stream, 320 for Tramandaí Lagoon and 93 for Mampituba River) that contained at least one identifiable item. We were unable to collect white sea catfish at the two sample locations in Patos Lagoon estuary. This species likely migrated to upper regions of the lagoon to avoid the strong saline intrusion, which occurred in this year as a result of ‘La Niña’ conditions (Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Vieira and Winemiller2001, Reference Garcia, Vieira and Winemiller2003).

Stomachs were extracted, by cutting out at the oesophagus and pylorus area. Prey items were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible and counted. The volume (mm3) of entire prey was estimated using the Capitoli (Reference Capitoli1992) volumetric plates method and when prey were too big to use this method, we calculated prey volume based on its approximate geometric form. For subsequent analyses prey items were grouped into higher-level taxonomic categories.

The number, volume and occurrence of the three more important taxa (copepods, fish and decapods) and the rest of preys grouped in a simple category (see Table 1) were used for analysis of ontogenetic variation in diet of white sea catfish in each sampled estuary. Stomachs were pooled by estuary and placed in 1 cm size-classes; in some cases, stomach data for some adjacent size-classes were grouped, since the number of stomachs was low (≤2 stomachs). These data were then clustered using the Ward method (minimum variance cluster) with Euclidean distances (Ludwig & Reynolds, Reference Ludwig and Reynolds1988). In all cases, data of prey were log (x+1) transformed (Mendoza-Carranza & Vieira, Reference Mendoza-Carranza and Vieira2008). We used a minimum of 40% of dissimilarity to separate the size-groups (Bock, Reference Bock2005). Significant differences within diet of the size-classes of groups determined by cluster analysis, in each estuary were tested using the G statistic based in the numbers of preys (Crow, Reference Crow, Cailliet and Simenstad1982; Zar, Reference Zar1984). General diet descriptions of groups, identified by cluster analysis, were based in the per cent number of preys (%N), per cent of volume (%V) and frequency of occurrence (%FO; Hyslop, Reference Hyslop1980). The resultant size–predator groups were then considered using posterior analyses.

Table 1.

Specific prey composition of white sea catfish Genidens barbus in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil estuaries.

Diet overlap among fish size–predator groups identified by cluster analyses (small and large fish) within each estuary was determined using the simplified Morisita's overlap index (Krebs, Reference Krebs1989; Hall et al., Reference Hall, Raffaelli, Basford, Robertson and Fryer1990):

C_{ik} = \left( 2\Sigma_j p_{ij}p_{kj}\right) \left(\Sigma p_{ij}^2+\Sigma p_{kj}^2\right)^{-1}

where C ik = simplified Morisita's overlap index for predators i and k; pij and pkj, proportions of predator i and k with prey j in their stomachs. Diet overlap increases as Morisita's index increases from 0 to 1. Overlap is generally considered to be biologically significant when the value exceeds 0.60 (Wallace, Reference Wallace1981; Labropoulou & Eleftheriou, Reference Labropoulou and Eleftheriou1997). Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on 200 simulations was used to estimate the reliability of this index (Hall et al., Reference Hall, Raffaelli, Basford, Robertson and Fryer1990; Labropoulou & Eleftheriou, Reference Labropoulou and Eleftheriou1997). We used a one sample t-test for bootstraps to verify if the Morisita overlap was greater than or equal to 0.60 (Efron & Tibshirani, Reference Efron and Tibshirani1993; Labropoulou & Eleftheriou, Reference Labropoulou and Eleftheriou1997). To compare white sea catfish diets among the three estuaries, we employed the simplified Morisita's similarity index (Krebs, Reference Krebs1989).

We employed the ‘bio-volume curve’ to compare the size-range of prey ingested by each fish size-class. The bio-volume curve was generated based on the volume frequency distribution of prey in each predator size-class. Prey volume was log-transformed before calculating statistics. Statistical comparison among curves was performed by ANOVA, following tests for normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and homogeneity of variances (Levine test). When these assumptions were not fulfilled we tested for differences using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov two sample test (Sokal & Rohlf, Reference Sokal and Rohlf1981; Zar, Reference Zar1984).

To examine possible seasonal effects in total diet comparisons, we perform the simplified Morisita's ovelap index and bio-volume curve comparisons among predator groups identified by cluster analyses, including only monthly data where possible.

Quantile regression analysis was applied to establish relationships among prey size (volume mm3) and white sea catfish size (total length (TL)) in each estuary (Cade & Noon, Reference Cade and Noon2003; Cade et al., Reference Cade, Noon and Flather2005) Unpublished data (Valerin-Solano & Viera) show a good relationship among total length and mouth width of white sea catfish (mouth width = 0.0878+(TL)−0.4595, R2 = 0.96, N = 165). A bootstrap resampling procedure was employed to estimate 95% confidence intervals of 95th, 90th, 85th, 80th and 50th regression quantiles (Gould, Reference Gould1992). Based on confidence intervals and F tests, which compared regression coefficients, we selected the quantile that best reflected the relationship in each estuary. We also compared the regression coefficients selected for each of the three estuaries (Scharf et al., Reference Scharf, Juanes and Sutherland1998).

RESULTS

Cluster analysis and general diet description

Cluster analyses identify almost two size-groups in Chuí Stream (small fish from 7 to 10 cm TL and large fish from 11 to 20 cm TL), Tramandaí Lagoon (small fish from 4 to 10 cm TL and large fish from 13 to 15 cm TL) and Mampituba River (small fish from 6 to 9 cm TL and large fish from 12 to 17 cm TL; Figure 2). In the three estuaries 1 cm size-groups of small fish were characterized by highest number of copepods, instead 1 cm size-groups of large fish were characterized by high number of fish (Figure 2). No significant differences were observed within diet of the size-classes of groups determined by cluster analysis in all cases.

Fig. 2.

Cluster analysis (right panel) and per cent number of principal preys by size-classes (left panel) in juvenile of Genidens barbus in: (A) Chuí Stream; (B) Tramandaí Lagoon; and (C) Mampituba River.

White sea catfish diet comprised 12 main taxonomic categories: Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Polychaeta, Ostracoda, Copepoda, Balanomorpha, Decapoda, Amphipoda, Isopoda, Tanaidacea, Insecta and Actinopterygii (Table 1). In the three estuaries, the most abundant prey for small white sea catfish was copepods (Chuí = 86.66%N, Tramandaí = 85.52%N and Mampituba = 52.34%N), however fish consumption had highest values of frequency of occurrence (FO) in the three estuaries (Chuí: 56.60%FO, Tramandaí: 64.85%FO and Mampituba: 97.15%FO; Table 1). For the small catfish in Chuí, per cent volume contribution was dominated by decapods (47.92%V), whereas fish comprised the highest values of biomass in Tramandaí and Mampituba (51.65 and 31.95%V respectively; Table 1).

In large white sea catfish the most abundant and frequent prey across all estuaries were fish (Chuí: 73.19%N and 74.56%FO, Tramandaí: 85.92%N and 73.33%FO; and Mampituba: 35.17%N and 61.54%FO). Decapods had the highest contribution to prey volumes in Chuí (%V = 52.52) and Tramandaí (%V = 66.74), whereas gastropods had the highest contribution to prey volume in Mampituba (49.41%; Table 1).

Diet comparisons among predator size-groups

In both Chuí Stream and Tramandaí Lagoon, Morisita's overlap index between fish size-classes was low (0.10±0.08 CI and 0.12±0.04 CI, respectively; Table 2). The highest overlap value between size-classes was observed for Mampituba (0.40±0.19 CI; Table 3), but like Chuí and Tramandaí, this overlap value was not significantly greater than or equal to 0.60 (P < 0.03 for Mampituba, P < 0.001 for Chuí and Tramandaí).

Table 2.

Values of Morisita's similarity (medium typeface) and overlap (bold typeface) indexes among size-classes of white sea catfish Genidens barbus in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil estuaries.

* Overlap value significantly greater than 0.60 (P < 0.001).

Table 3.

Quantile regression estimates of Bo and B1, 95% confidence intervals for B1 and P for Ho: B1 = 0 for four upper regression quantiles between white sea catfish Genidens barbus total length (cm) and prey volume (mm3) in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil estuaries.

When comparing among estuaries all values of Morisita's similarity index for comparisons between the same size-classes were significantly greater than 0.60 (P < 0.001). The highest value was between the small size-classes of Chuí and Tramandaí (1.0±0.02), and the lowest value was observed between Tramandaí and Mampituba large size-classes (0.64±0.13). In contrast, comparisons between different size-classes among estuaries showed low similarity values (from 0.07±0.07 between Chuí small and Mampituba large size-classes, to 0.54±0.13 between Chuí large and Mampituba small size-classes; Table 2).

The average volume of prey of the small size-class in Chuí Stream was 13.50±53.31 SD mm3 and the larger fish had an average prey volume of 39.31±138.11 SD mm3 (Figure 3). Significant difference among curves was observed (ANOVA test, F = 105.77, P < 0.001). In Tramandaí Lagoon, average volumes of small and large size-classes were 13.31±57.70 SD and 40.64±82.95 SD mm3, respectively (Figure 3). Significant difference among bio-volume curves was observed (ANOVA test, F = 52.33, P < 0.001). In Mampituba River, average prey volumes of small and large size-classes were 5.37±7.15 SD and 36.53±129.39 SD mm3, respectively (Figure 3). Significant difference among bio-volume curves was also observed (ANOVA test, F = 31.40, P < 0.05).

Fig. 3.

Prey bio-volume curves of small and large size-classes (left and right panels respectively) of white sea catfish Genidens barbus in Chuí Stream (A, B) Tramandaí Lagoon (C, D) and Mampituba River (E, F).

No significant differences were observed among bio-volume curves of the small size-class across the three estuaries (ANOVA test, F = 0.41, P = 0.65). Likewise, no significant differences were observed among the three estuaries for the large size-class (ANOVA test, F = 2.19, P = 0.11).

Seasonal comparison

In Chuí Stream, white sea catfish were present during the austral summer months (January to April). Both small and large fish were present jointly only during March and April of 1999. The Morisita overlap index was high during March (0.83±0.09 CI). Average prey volumes for small and large size-classes were 3.54±3.78 mm3 and 11.30±5.21 mm3, respectively. Significant differences among bio-volume curves were observed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test D = −0.31, P < 0.01). During April 1999, Morisita's overlap index was low (0.02±0.01 CI), and average prey volumes for small and large size-classes were 2.61±6.32 mm3 and 62.66±14.38 mm3, respectively. Significant differences among bio-volume curves were observed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test D = −0.58, P < 0.01). Only individuals from the smaller size-classes were present during March 2000, and only large individuals were present during January 1999 and January 2000.

At Tramandaí Lagoon, both size-groups of white sea catfish were present together only during March 1999, in August only individuals of the small group were present. The Morisita overlap index was high (0.74±0.16 CI), and the average prey volumes for small and large size-classes were 2.00± 4.17 mm3 and 10.65±4.59 mm3, respectively. Significant differences among bio-volume curves were observed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test D = −0.48, P < 0.01). At Mampituba River, seasonal values are the same as the total comparison because the white sea catfish was only present in March 1999.

Predator–prey size relationships

In Chuí and Tramandaí, no significant differences were observed among regression coefficients of 85th, 90th and 95th quantiles (F (2, 862) = 1.48, P > 0.2275 and F (2, 612) = 6.40, P > 0.0018 respectively). In Mampituba, significant differences were observed among the three quantile slopes at the 95% confidence interval (F (2, 316) = 3.03, P < 0.0498). Post hoc comparison showed that differences were between the 90th and 95th quantile slopes. In all cases, the 90th regression quantiles estimated the white sea catfish TL–volume prey with the greatest precision (Figure 4A–C; Table 3).

Fig. 4.

White sea catfish Genidens barbus total length versus prey volume relationship in: (A) Chuí Stream; (B) Tramandaí Lagoon; and (C) Mampituba River, illustrating estimates of upper slopes generated by the quantile regression technique.

Comparison between 90th quantiles of the three estuaries showed significant differences among quantile coefficient regression (F (2, 1790) = 20.62, P < 0.000). Nevertheless, volume of prey increased significantly with increasing predator size (TL) at highest quantiles in all three estuaries (Figure 4A–C; Table 3). The minimum prey size changed relatively little along predator sizes in the three estuaries. No significant increase was observed in all cases (quantiles: 5th, 10th and 15th).

DISCUSSION

In Patos Lagoon estuary, most juvenile fish species feed on benthic invertebrates. These species change their prey type according to the age and size of predator (Vieira et al., Reference Vieira, Castello, Pereira, Seeliger, Odebrecht and Castello1998). This observation suggests that dietary descriptions to the level of predator are not adequate to explain how species partition their alimentary resources in a common area or habitat (Livingston, Reference Livingston1988, Reference Livingston2003). Eggold & Motta (Reference Eggold and Motta1992) and Livingston (Reference Livingston2003) suggest that one species is composed of a number of trophic subunits called ‘ontogenetic trophic units’ differentiated by its change in trophic habits as it increases in age and size. These changes in feeding habits are the result of ontogenetic modifications in morphology and behaviour (Cook, Reference Cook1996; Adriaens et al., Reference Adriaens, Aerts and Verraes2001).

The annual co-occurrence of two to three size-classes of white sea catfish in estuaries of Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil, has been suggested based on studies from the large estuarine area (201,626 km2) of Patos Lagoon (Vieira et al., Reference Vieira, Castello, Pereira, Seeliger, Odebrecht and Castello1998; Vieira, Reference Vieira2006; Velasco et al., Reference Velasco, Reis and Vieira2007). In the present study, we present evidence that juvenile populations of this species also maintain a similar pattern in other smaller estuaries of southern Brazil. We typically found two size-classes of white sea catfish in the sampled estuaries.

Cluster analysis and diet comparison between size-groups of white sea catfish revealed that intraspecific trophic partitioning occurs in two dimensions: richness and size of prey, and the same pattern is replicated across different habitats and prey availabilities in southern Brazilian estuaries (Rosa- Filho & Bemvenuti, Reference Rosa-Filho and Bemvenuti1998; Mendoza-Carranza & Vieira, Reference Mendoza-Carranza and Vieira2008). The nature of these interactions is critically important to understand species life histories, the dynamic of species interactions and the structure of the estuarine communities in which they are embedded (Werner & Guillian, 1984). In addition to size shifts, temporal segregation of those trophic units also plays an important role in reducing trophic overlap and competition in the estuaries sampled where differential use of benthic habitats play a critical role in trophic partitioning among size-classes (Stehlik & Meise, Reference Stehlik and Meise2000; Szedlmayer & Lee, Reference Szedlmayer and Lee2004).

We observed significant ontogenetic increases in prey size for the white sea catfish, with differences being more evident at maximum prey sizes. In spite of this, small preys are consumed by all sizes of white sea catfish; this trend is usual in fish where larger individuals continued to consume small prey but include large prey also (Scharf et al., Reference Scharf, Juanes and Rountree2000; Floeter & Temming, Reference Floeter and Temming2003; Rudershausen et al., Reference Rudershausen, Tuomikoski and Buckel2005).

We observed two principal tendencies in the trophic strategies of juvenile white sea catfish: the small size-class consumes mainly zooplankton (high %N and %FO) and the large size-class was characterized by high frequency of occurrence of nekton and epifauna. Changes in optimal or preferred prey size often result in changes in the taxonomic composition of the diet (Zahorcsak et al., Reference Zahorcsak, Silvano and Sazima2000), but, aside from these differences among size-groups, all size-classes, in the three estuaries, show high frequency of occurrence of fish-scales, which have not been reported for this species until now (Araújo, Reference Araújo1984). The average size of scales (8 mm) and the presence of ectoparasitic copepods (Calligidae) in stomach contents indicate that white sea catfish are lepidophagus, which has been reported for other marine catfish also (Hoese, Reference Hoese1966; Sazima & Uieda, Reference Sazima and Uieda1980; Sazima, Reference Sazima1983; Chaves & Vendel, Reference Chaves and Vendel1996).

Based on our results we can affirm that ontogenetic diet shifts are an important means to reduce intra- and interspecific competition in estuarine fish with size-structured populations such as the white sea catfish (Zahorcsak et al., Reference Zahorcsak, Silvano and Sazima2000; Denny & Schiel, Reference Denny and Schiel2001). Precise descriptions of ecological patterns are fundamental to create hypotheses about the mechanisms generating them (Petrik & Levin, Reference Petrik and Levin2000); our results show that ecological patterns based on ‘species’ category are not always appropriate as the smallest ecological entity (Polis, Reference Polis1984; Gelwick, Reference Gelwick1990; Vieira, Reference Vieira2006).

Future studies should consider the interactions of Genidens barbus with other abundant species in southern Brazilian estuaries such as whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) and catfish (Genidens genidens (Cuvier, 1829) (Sardiña & Lopez, Reference Sardiña and Lopez2005; Mendoza-Carranza & Vieira, Reference Mendoza-Carranza and Vieira2008). Similarly, it is important to know the structure and dynamic of prey communities (Rudershausen et al., Reference Rudershausen, Tuomikoski and Buckel2005; Galarowicz et al., Reference Galarowicz, Adams and Wahl2006). Analyses of isotopic ratios (i.e. carbon, nitrogen and sulphur) and stomach contents might enhance the assessment of ontogenetic trophic shifts and overlap (Kelly, Reference Kelly2000; Araújo et al., Reference Araújo, Bolnick, Machado, Giaretta and Reis2007).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Kirk Winemiller for reviewing an early draft. We thank David Hoeinghaus for revision of our English and critical revision. Thanks to Ângela Milach, Ricardo Marcelo Geraldi and Marcelo Raseira for field and laboratory assistance. The first author received a doctoral fellowship from Banco de México and Coordenadoria de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—CAPES (Brazil). We are also grateful to two anonymous referees who contributed valuable comments.

References

REFERENCES

Adriaens, D., Aerts, P. and Verraes, W. (2001) Ontogenetic shift in mouth opening mechanisms in a catfish (Clariidae, Siluriformes): a response to increasing functional demands. Journal of Morphology 247, 197–216.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araújo, F.G. (1984) Hábitos alimentares de três bagres marinhos (Ariidae) no estuário da Lagoa dos Patos (RS), Brasil. Atlântica 7, 47–63.Google Scholar
Araújo, M.S., Bolnick, D.I., Machado, G., Giaretta, A.A. and Reis, S.F. (2007) Using δ13C stable isotope to quantify individual-level diet variation. Oecologia 152, 643–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asmus, M.L. (1996) Coastal plain and Patos Lagoon. In Seeliger, U., Odebrecht, C. and Castello, J.P. (eds) Subtropical convergence environments, the coast and sea in the south-western Atlantic. Berlin: Springer, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar
Bock, H.H. (2005) On some significance tests in cluster analysis. Journal of Classification 2, 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckel, J. and McKown, K.A. (2002) Competition between juvenile striped bass and bluefish: resource partitioning and growth rate. Marine Ecology Progress Series 234, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cade, B.S. and Noon, B.R. (2003) A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, 412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cade, B.S., Noon, B.R. and Flather, C.H. (2005) Quantile regression reveals hidden bias and uncertainty in habitat models. Ecology 86, 786–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capitoli, R.R. (1992) Métodos para estimar volumes do conteúdo alimentar de peixes e macroinvertebrados. Atlântica, Rio Grande 4, 117–120.Google Scholar
Chaves, P.T.C. and Vendel, A.L. (1996) Aspectos da alimentação de Genidens genidens (VALENCIENNES) (SILURIFORMES, ARIIDAE) na Baía de Garatuba, Paraná. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 13, 669–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, L.N., Pereira, L.E. and Vieira, J.P. (1985) Estuarine fish community of the Patos Lagoon (Lagoa dos patos, RS) Brasil. A baseline study. In Yáñez-Arancibia, A. (ed.) Fish community ecology in estuaries and coastal lagoons. Towards an ecosystem integration. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, pp. 429–450.Google Scholar
Cook, A. (1996) Ontogeny of feeding morphology and kinematics in juvenile fishes: a case study of the cottid fish Clinocottus analis. Journal of Experimental Biology 199, 1961–1971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crow, M.E. (1982) Some statistical techniques for analyzing the stomach contents of fish. In Cailliet, G.M. and Simenstad, C.A. (eds) Gutshop'81, fish food habits studies. Proceedings of the Third Pacific Workshop, Pacific Grove, CA, 6–9 December 1981. Washington: Washington Sea-Grant Publications, pp. 8–15.Google Scholar
Denny, C.M. and Schiel, D.R. (2001) Feeding ecology of the banded wrasse Notolabrus fucicola (Labridae) in southern New Zealand: prey items, seasonal differences, and ontogenetic variation. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35, 925–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dopman, E.B., Sword, G.A. and Hillis, D.M. (2002) The importance of the ontogenetic niche in resource-associated divergence: evidence from a generalist grasshopper. Evolution 56, 731–740.Google ScholarPubMed
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggold, B.T. and Motta, P.J. (1992) Ontogenetic dietary shifts and morphological correlates in striped mullet, Mugil cephalus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 34, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floeter, J. and Temming, A. (2003) Explaining diet composition of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua): prey size preferences vs. prey availability. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60, 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galarowicz, T.L., Adams, J.A. and Wahl, D.H. (2006) The influence of prey availability on ontogenetic diet shifts of a juvenile piscivore. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63, 1722–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, A.M., Vieira, J.P. and Winemiller, K.O. (2001) Dynamics of the shallow-water fish assemblage of the Patos Lagoon estuary (Brazil) during cold and warm ENSO episodes. Journal of Fish Biology 59, 1218–1238.Google Scholar
Garcia, A.M., Vieira, J.P. and Winemiller, K.O. (2003) Effects of 1997–1998 El Niño on the dynamics of the shallow water fish assemblage of the Patos Lagoon estuary (Brazil). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 57, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelwick, F.P. (1990) Longitudinal and temporal composition of riffle and pool fish assemblages in a northeastern Oklahoma Ozark stream. Copeia 4, 1072–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, W. (1992) Quantile regression with bootstrapped standard errors. Stata Technical Bulletin 9, 19–21.Google Scholar
Hall, S.J., Raffaelli, D., Basford, D.J., Robertson, M.R. and Fryer, R. (1990) The feeding relationship of the larger fish species in a Scottish Sea Loch. Journal of Fish Biology 37, 775–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higuichi, H., Reis, E.G. and Araújo, F.G. (1982) Uma nova espécie de bagre marinho do litoral do Rio Grande do Sul e considerações sobre o gênero nominal Netuma Bleeker, 1858 no Atlântico sul ocidental (Siluriformes, Ariidae). Atlântica 5, 1–15.Google Scholar
Hoese, H.D. (1966) Ectoparisitism by juvenile sea catfish, Galeichthys felis. Copeia 1996, 880–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, E.J. (1980) Stomach contents analysis: a review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17, 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, J.F. (2000) Stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen in the study of avian and mammalian trophic ecology. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, C.J. (1989) Ecological methodology. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Livingston, R.J. (1988) Inadequacy of species-level designations for ecological studies of coastal migratory fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 22, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingston, R.J. (2003) Trophic organization in coastal systems. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Labropoulou, M. and Eleftheriou, A. (1997) The foraging ecology of two pairs of congeneric demersal fish: importance of morphological characteristics in prey selection. Journal of Fish Biology 50, 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, J.A. and Reynolds, J.F. (1988) Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Carranza, M. and Vieira, J.P. (2008) Whitemouth croaker Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest, 1823) feeding strategies across four southern Brazilian estuaries. Aquatic Ecology 42, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menezes, N.A. and Figueiredo, J.L. (1980) Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil. IV. Teleostei (3). São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia. Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar
Pereira, L.E., Ramos, L.A. and Pontes, S.X. (1998) Lista comentada dos peixes e crustáceos decápodos do estuário do Arroio Chuí e região costeira adjacente, RS. Atlântica 20, 165–172.Google Scholar
Petrik, R. and Levin, P. (2000) Estimating relative abundance of seagrass fishes: a quantitative comparison of three methods. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58, 461–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G.A. (1984) Age structure components of niche width and intraspecific resource partitioning: can age function as ecological species? American Naturalist 123, 541–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos, L.A. and Vieira, J.P. (2001) Composição específica e abundância de peixes de zonas rasas dos cinco estuários do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca, São Paulo 27, 109–121.Google Scholar
Reis, E.G. (1986a) Age and growth of the marine catfish, Netuma barba (Siluriformes, Ariidae), in the estuary of the Patos Lagoon (Brazil). Fishery Bulletin 84, 679–686.Google Scholar
Reis, E.G. (1986b) Reproduction and feeding habits of the marine catfish, Netuma barba (Siluriformes, Ariidae), in the estuary of the Patos Lagoon (Brazil). Atlântica 8, 35–55.Google Scholar
Rosa-Filho, J.S. and Bemvenuti, C.E. (1998) Caracterización de las comunidades macrobentónicas de fondos blandos en regiones estuarinas de Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil). Thalassas 14, 43–56.Google Scholar
Rudershausen, P.J., Tuomikoski, J.A. and Buckel, J.A. (2005) Prey selectivity and diet of striped bass in Western Albemarle Sound, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134, 1059–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardiña, P. and Lopez, A.C. (2005) Feeding interrelationships and comparative morphology of two young sciaenids co-occurring in south-western Atlantic waters. Hydrobiologia 548, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sazima, I. (1983) Scale-eating characoids and other fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 9, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sazima, I. and Uieda, V.S. (1980) Comportamento lepidofágico de Oligoplites saurus e registro de lepidofagia em O. palometa e O. saliens (PISCES: CARANGIDAE). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 40, 701–710.Google Scholar
Scharf, F.S., Juanes, F. and Sutherland, M. (1998) Inferring ecological relationships from the edges of scatter diagrams: comparison of regression techniques. Ecology 79, 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, F.S., Juanes, F. and Rountree, R.A. (2000) Predator size–prey size relationships of marine fish predators: interspecific variation and effects of ontogeny and body size on trophic-niche breadth. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, F.S., Manderson, J.P., Fabrizio, M.C., Pessutti, J.P., Rosendale, J.E., Chant, R.J. and Bejda, A.J. (2004) Seasonal and interannual patterns of distribution and diet of bluefish within a middle Atlantic bight estuary in relation to abiotic and biotic factors. Estuaries 27, 426–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T.W. (1974) Resources partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarzbold, A. and Schäfer, A. 1984. Gênese das lagoas costeiras do Rio Grande do Sul—Brasil. Amazoniana 9, 87–104.Google Scholar
Seeliger, U. (2001) The Patos Lagoon estuary, Brazil. In Seeliger, U. and Kjerfve, V. (eds) Coastal marine ecosystems of Latin America. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1981) Biometry. 2nd edition. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Stehlik, L.L. and Meise, C.J. (2000) Diet of winter flounder in a New Jersey estuary: ontogenetic change and spatial variation. Estuaries 23, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szedlmayer, S.D. and Lee, J.D. (2004) Diet shifts of juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) with changes in habitat and fish size. Fishery Bulletin 102, 366–375.Google Scholar
Velasco, G., Reis, E.G. and Vieira, J.P. (2007) Calculating growth parameters of Genidens barbus (Siluriformes, Ariidae) using length composition and age data. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23, 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira, J.P. (2006) Ecological analogies between estuarine bottom trawl fish assemblages from Patos Lagoon (32S), Brazil, and York River (37N), USA. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 23, 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira, J.P., Castello, J.P. and Pereira, L.E. (1998) Ictiofauna. In Seeliger, U., Odebrecht, C. and Castello, J.P. (eds) Os ecossistemas costeiro e marinho do extremo sul de Brasil. Brasil: Editora Ecoscientia, pp. 60–68.Google Scholar
Wallace, R.K. (1981) An assessment of diet-overlap indexes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110, 72–76.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, E.E. and Guilliam, J.F. (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15, 393–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, A.P. and Allen, M.A. (2003) Habitat and diet partitioning between shoal bass and largemouth bass in the Chipola River, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132, 438–449.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahorcsak, P., Silvano, R.A.M. and Sazima, I. (2000) Feeding biology of a guild of benthivorous fishes in a sandy shore on south-eastern Brazilian coast. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 60, 511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H. (1984) Biostatistical analysis. 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The coastline of Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil, showing the four studied estuaries: Chuí Stream, 33°44′S 53°22′W; Patos Lagoon Estuary, 32°10′S 52°15′W (1: Porto Rei and 2: Marambia estuarine beaches); Tramandaí Lagoon, 30°05′S 50°11′W; Mampituba River, 29°12′S 49°43′W.

Figure 1

Table 1. Specific prey composition of white sea catfish Genidens barbus in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil estuaries.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Cluster analysis (right panel) and per cent number of principal preys by size-classes (left panel) in juvenile of Genidens barbus in: (A) Chuí Stream; (B) Tramandaí Lagoon; and (C) Mampituba River.

Figure 3

Table 2. Values of Morisita's similarity (medium typeface) and overlap (bold typeface) indexes among size-classes of white sea catfish Genidens barbus in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil estuaries.

Figure 4

Table 3. Quantile regression estimates of Bo and B1, 95% confidence intervals for B1 and P for Ho: B1 = 0 for four upper regression quantiles between white sea catfish Genidens barbus total length (cm) and prey volume (mm3) in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil estuaries.

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Prey bio-volume curves of small and large size-classes (left and right panels respectively) of white sea catfish Genidens barbus in Chuí Stream (A, B) Tramandaí Lagoon (C, D) and Mampituba River (E, F).

Figure 6

Fig. 4. White sea catfish Genidens barbus total length versus prey volume relationship in: (A) Chuí Stream; (B) Tramandaí Lagoon; and (C) Mampituba River, illustrating estimates of upper slopes generated by the quantile regression technique.