Resource Partitioning between Two Piranhas (Serrasalmus gibbus and Serrasalmus rhombeus) in an Amazonian Reservoir.
1. IntroductionIn impacted environments, such as reservoirs, limitations of resource availability may be one of the principal factors determining the composition of fish communities [1] and resource partitioning [2]. Studies of resource partitioning can help elucidate how populations of closely related species can coexist under such conditions, even when one species dominates the system and can, at least theoretically, exclude the others [3, 4]. Despite this, observations in the wild, especially in the tropics, indicate that these species can coexist, even when exploiting the same resources [4].
Studies of the feeding ecology of fish are essential for the understanding of trophic relationships among species in aquatic systems [5]. In general, trophic studies of fish have shown that the same resource may be exploited by a number of different species and that each species may exploit a number of different feeding resources within a given area [6-9]. Resource partitioning tends to involve three principal axes of the niche, time, space, and foraging behavior, which may determine the potential for the coexistence of populations within a given area [3]. In the spatial dimension, for example, the use of distinct microhabitats may permit the development of extremely narrow niches which minimize interspecific competition [10]. When feeding resources are abundant, niches may overlap without affecting the competing species [3]. The stable coexistence of species limited by the same resource is possible if the interaction of conspecifics predominates over that between species [11], which may account for the coexistence of species limited by the same resource without effective niche partitioning [12].
Environmental factors also influence resource partitioning by affecting the availability of resources directly, as in the case of the hydrological cycle in aquatic systems [2, 13]. The niche of a species may vary over time, according to modifications of the environment and the availability of resources [14], and resource dynamics may lead to the adoption of more specialist or generalist niches within a given area [15], with species adjusting to the presence of competitors [16].
Piranha species are phenotypically homogeneous and mostly exploit similar resources, resulting in intense competition [5], although this competition may be mediated by the relative abundance of resources found in tropical environments [17]. Piranhas of the genus Serrasalmus have been studied in a number of Brazilian rivers [18-24], although no data are available for the Araguari-Amapa basin.
The gibbus piranha, Serrasalmus gibbus Castelnau 1855, is a carnivorous species of the family Serrasalmidae, which feeds on fish, insects, and other invertebrates, and is found primarily along the margins of rivers and lakes [25]. The black piranha, Serrasalmus rhombeus Linnaeus 1766 (Serrasalmidae), is also carnivorous. It is the largest piranha species, with adults reaching 50 cm in length, and is considered to be one of the most successful fish species in Amazonian reservoirs [25].
In addition to being closely related, S. gibbus and S. rhombeus are sympatric, although little is known about the ecological variables that support their coexistence. Given this, the present study analyzed the nycthemeral and seasonal variation in the diets of S. gibbus and S. rhombeus in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir in Amapa, northern Brazil, in order to understand the resource partitioning in these closely related carnivores.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area. The study area is located in the middle Araguari River basin (Amapa-Brazil) in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir (0[degrees]57'1.09"N/51o14'50.79"W, 0[degrees]51'10.45" N/51[degrees]17'44.38" W 0 [degrees]52'53.80" N/51[degrees]18'34.72"W, and 0[degrees]52'2.89"N/51[degrees]15'35.51"W). The Coaracy Nunes reservoir lies between the municipalities of Ferreira Gomes and Porto Grande in the state of Amapa and is located approximately 200 km from the Atlantic Ocean. The reservoir drains a total area of 23.5 [km.sup.2] and has a mean discharge of 976[m.sup.3] x [s.sup.-1], mean depth of 15 m, and a total volume of 138 [Hm.sup.3]. The local climate is typical of the Amazon basin, with a rainy season between January and June and a dry season from July to December [26-28] (Figure 1).
2.2. Sampling. Samples of S. gibbus and S. rhombeus were collected every two months between September 2011 and September 2012. The fish were captured in gillnets arranged in sets of increasing mesh size (2 cm, 2.5 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, 5 cm, 8 cm, and 10 cm), varying in length from 10 m to 20 cm, and varying in height from 1.5 m to 4 m. The nets were set at 15:00 h and left until 15:00 h of the following day and were checked every three hours, that is, at 18:00 h, 21:00 h, 24:00 h, 03:00 h, 06:00 h, 09:00 h, 12:00 h, and 15:00 h, with the same standard procedure being followed on each day of fieldwork.
The captured specimens were identified, measured, and weighed, and their stomachs were removed for analysis. Each stomach was weighed, and its contents were analyzed immediately. The total length (TL, in mm) was obtained for each specimen using a caliper and measuring tape, and the total weight (TW), gutted weight (GW), and stomach weight (SW) were determined using a scale with a precision of 0.01 g, based on [29]. The sex of the specimens was determined through the inspection of the gonads.
2.3. Analysis of Stomach Contents. The repletion of the stomachs was determined by visual inspection and classified as (i) void (no content), (ii) partly full (25-75% full), and (iii) full (>75%), following [30]. The contents of the stomachs classified as full or partly full were identified and quantified using a stereomicroscope [31]. For the standardization of the samples, the items were grouped in broad categories, that is, fish, insect, crustacean, microcrustacean, plant, and others [31].
2.4. Data Analysis. The activity pattern of each species was estimated based on the relative frequency of the specimens captured at each net check (3-hour intervals). The temporal variation in activity was analyzed using a [chi square] test, considering differences among the 3-hour intervals and between the nocturnal (18:00-06:00 h) and diurnal (06:00-18:00 h) periods. The lengths and weights of the males and females of each species were allocated to classes, which were tested for normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) and homoscedasticity (Bartlett) before being tested for differences using Student's t-test, with [alpha] = 0.05.
The analysis of stomach contents was based on the frequency of occurrence and volumetric methods [32]. The frequency of occurrence was determined by [FO.sub.i] = ([n.sub.i] x 100)/N, where [FO.sub.i] is the frequency of occurrence of item i in the sample, [n.sub.i] is the number of stomachs in the sample which contain item I, and N is the total number of stomachs containing ingesta in the samples. The volumetric method was based on the relative volume of each item in the stomach contents. The volume of the items was estimated based on the method of [33, 34]. The relative importance of each item in the diet of the species and the FO and volumetric values were combined in the index of feeding importance (IF;) of [30], calculated for the two seasons (dry and flood). The nycthemeral and seasonal variation in the frequency of occurrence and [IF.sub.i] of each species were evaluated using the G test, with [alpha] = 0.05. The variation in the repletion of the stomachs and the overlap in the nycthemeral and seasonal niches of the two species were evaluated using [chi square], with [alpha] = 0.05.
Levin's standardized index (Bi) was used to define trophic niche breadth [35], which was classified as low (Bi < 0.4), medium (0.4-0.6), or high (Bi > 0.6) [36]. Niche overlap was analyzed using 3 indices, which varies from 0 (no overlap) to 1 (complete overlap), representing the degree of resource partitioning. As for niche breadth, this index was classified as low (<0.4), moderate (0.4-0.6), or high (>0.6) [36]. The index was calculated in EcoSim 7.0 [37].
To evaluate whether the observed overlap was different from that expected by chance (in the absence of competition), the abundance of the different food items in the diet of each species was randomized using null models with 5000 randomizations, run in the RA3 randomization algorithm in EcoSim [38]. In this analysis, interspecific competition may be occurring when the mean trophic niche overlap is lower than that expected by chance [39].
3. Results
A total of 341 specimens of S. gibbus were collected during the present study, including 177 males (51.9% of the total) and 164 (48.1%) females, with no significant bias in the sex ratio ([chi square] = 0.49, df = 1, and p [greater than or equal to] 0.05). In the case of S. rhombeus, 39 (64.0%) of the 61 specimens were female and 22 (36.0%) were male, with a significant female bias ([chi square] = 4.73, df = 1, and p = 0.02; Yates = 4.19 and p < 0.05).
The mean total length of the male S. gibbus specimens was 120.9 [+ or -] 25.5 mm and that of S. rhombeus males was 323.0 [+ or -] 59.0 mm. The female S. gibbus were slightly larger than the males, with a mean length of 125.0 [+ or -] 31.4 mm, whereas the female S. rhombeus were much smaller than the males, with a mean length of 303.6 [+ or -] 61.2 mm. The mean weight of the male S. gibbus (90.56 [+ or -] 29.61 g) was also lower than that of the females (131.21 [+ or -] 51.95 g), whereas that of the male S. rhombeus (742.0 [+ or -] 423.0 g) was slightly higher than that of the females (729.9 [+ or -] 449.7 g). The body length (t = 17.49, df = 105, and p < 0.0001) and weight (t = 19.58, df = 105, and p < 0.0001) of the two species were significantly different, although no statistical differences were found between the sexes of either species (S. gibbus: t = -0.1433, df = 116.0, and p > 0.05; S. rhombeus: t = -0.1294, df = 71.0, and p > 0.05). However, while the distributions of body lengths and weight classes were relatively similar in the two sexes in S. gibbus (Figure 2), the most frequent classes in the female S. rhombeus were higher than those in the males (Figure 3).
No clear nycthemeral pattern was observed in S. gibbus (Figure 4) either among 3-hour intervals ([chi square] = 0.948; df = 7; p [greater than or equal to] 0.05) or between nocturnal and diurnal periods ([chi square] = 0.823; df = 1; p [greater than or equal to] 0.05). By contrast, S. rhombeus presented a clear preference for the nocturnal period (Figure 4), peaking in the first half of the night, with highly significant differences among intervals ([chi square] = 56.298; df = 7; p < 0.05) and between nocturnal and diurnal periods ([chi square] = 22.601; df = 1; p < 0.05; Yates = 21.661 and p < 0.05), but there was no difference between seasons ([chi square] = 0.981; df = 1; p [greater than or equal to] 0.05).
3.1. Stomach Contents and Repletion. A total of 137 specimens had at least partly full stomachs, of which 115 were S. gibbus and 22 were S. rhombeus. In S. gibbus, the void class was the most frequent in both seasons (Figure 5), followed by the full class, although there was no significant seasonal difference in either class (void: [chi square] = 1.25; df = 1; p [greater than or equal to] 0.05; full: [chi square] = 1.32; df = 1; p [greater than or equal to] 0.05). In S. rhombeus, the void class was the most frequent in the flood season, followed by the full class. In the dry season, the full and partly full classes were the most frequent, and while there was no seasonal variation in the full class ([chi square] = 3.48; df = 1; p [greater than or equal to] 0.05), the partly full class varied seasonally ([chi square] = 5.91; df = 1; p < 0.05; Yates = 5.378 and p < 0.05).
No nycthemeral variation was found in the frequency of S. gibbus specimens with at least partly full stomachs (Figure 6). In S. rhombeus, however, a highly significant peak was recorded between 21:00 h and 03:00 h, with only void stomachs being recorded during the other intervals ([chi square] = 194.22; df = 7; p < 0.05).
The two piranha species consumed five dietary items (fish, crustaceans, microcrustaceans, insects, and plants), with fish being the principal item consumed by both species, during both seasons (Table 1). The diet of S. gibbus was composed of fish (remains including fins, bones, scales, and muscle), crustaceans (shrimp, Macrobrachium sp.), insects (Odonata, Orthoptera), microcrustaceans (Isopoda), and plant matter (fragments of leaves, twigs, and seeds). The diet of S. rhombeus consisted of fish, crustaceans, microcrustaceans, and insects. Fish was more predominant in the diet during the dry season, with significant seasonal variation in the FO in both S. gibbus and S. rhombeus (Table 1). However, [IF.sub.i] did not vary significantly between seasons in either species.
Niche breadth did not vary seasonally in S. gibbus (Figure 7). In S. rhombeus, by contrast, while niche breadth was higher than that of S. gibbus in the flood season, it fell to zero in the dry season, when only fish was consumed.
A high degree of niche overlap was recorded in both the dry ([O.sub.jk] = 0.999) and flood ([O.sub.jk] = 0.899) seasons (Table 2). The mean observed index (0.997) was significantly higher than the simulated mean (0.241), reflecting the niche overlap of the species in this environment. The observed C scores were significantly higher than the expected scores, indicating that they were not random, and thus reflect biological processes. In the analysis of the nycthemeral variation, however, the observed C scores were significantly lower than those expected by chance in both seasons.
4. Discussion
One fundamental ecological difference between the two study species was the difference in their abundance, with S. rhombeus being far less common than S. gibbus. This may reflect the effects of interspecific competition on the demographic parameters of the two populations [40].
The sex ratio of S. gibbus was unbiased (1 : 1), although it was female-biased (64%; n = 39) in S. rhombeus. Females tend to predominate in populations when feeding resources are abundant [29, 41, 42]. When the sex ratio is balanced (1: 1), the males compete for access to females and this reduces quantities of them [41-45]. Anderson [44] concluded that the lack of a male reduces competition for females.
The body size structure of a fish population varies as a function of recruitment and mortality, which are influenced by the biotic and abiotic variables that determine their nutritional condition [46] and birth and survival rates [47]. In the present study, however, no significant sexual dimorphism was found in either S. gibbus or S. rhombeus. While sexual dimorphism may contribute to the avoidance of intraspecific competition [48, 49], no evidence was found of this phenomenon in the study populations. However, the differences in body size between the two species may represent an important feature of interspecific niche partitioning, which may be related primarily to the differences in activity patterns, while morphologically similar species tend to occupy similar niches, implying competition for resources and eventual competitive exclusion [50, 51]. In the present case, S. gibbus and S. rhombeus are morphologically so similar that [52] originally classified them as a single species, although [53] concluded that S. gibbus is a valid species, based on its relatively more elongated body and larger interorbital distance in comparison with S. rhombeus. In fish, the trophic level is normally related to the size of the predator [54], which indicates that S. gibbus feeds on smaller prey than S. rhombeus, reducing the potential for direct competition and permitting the coexistence of the two species.
The large number of empty stomachs recorded in both species throughout the study period is characteristic of carnivorous species [55]. This situation was evident in S. gibbus in both seasons but different in S. rhombeus, in which more individuals had full stomachs, especially during the dry season, when prey are more concentrated in a small space. It is important to note that easily digested items of high nutritional value spend less time in the digestive tract, resulting in higher rates of empty stomachs [56]. One other important factor may have been the use of gillnets to capture the specimens, which may regurgitate their stomach contents in their attempt to free themselves from the net [57].
In addition to the difference in body size, niche partitioning between the two species was supported by the difference in activity patterns. While S. gibbus was active throughout the nycthemeral cycle, S. rhombeus was mainly active during the night. This difference may contribute decisively to niche partitioning [58, 59] and may have evolved in the context of the coexistence of the two species [39].
The third aspect of the coexistence of the two species was the composition of their diets. While both piranhas fed primarily on fish, S. gibbus fed on a greater diversity of items, including plants. The other items were consumed in varying proportions by the two piranhas, except for insects during the flood season. While insects and fish were potentially the most disputed items during the flood season, competition for these resources was probably assuaged by their abundance during this period. During the dry season, S. rhombeus fed exclusively on fish, and while the diet of S. gibbus included some other items, it also fed predominantly on fish, although the concentration of stocks during this low water period facilitated predation, which, once again, would have reduced direct competition for this resource.
The compositions of the diets of the study species were typical of piranhas [21, 60, 61]. In the present study, insects were a prominent component of the diet of both species, except for S. rhombeus during the dry season, confirming the relative importance of this item, as reported by other authors [19, 20, 62-64]. The predation of insects is an important aspect of the dietary plasticity of the piranhas, allowing them to adjust their intake of nutrients to the local availability of resources [31, 62, 65].
The high level of overlap (>6) in the composition of the diets of S. gibbus and S. rhombeus recorded in the present study may have been influenced by the frequent predation of fish trapped in the fishing nets, resulting in the high indices recorded for this item. It is likely that the two piranha species had preferences for different types of fish prey, although it was not possible to confirm this based on the material collected from the stomach contents, which was mostly indistinguishable. While the two piranhas inhabit the same environment and often consume the same types of food, the minor differences in their diets probably minimize competition between them [66]. In the present case, the relative abundance of resources may allow for considerable overlap in the diets of the different species, especially where temporal or spatial segregation mediates competition between them [67].
In fact, the analysis of niche overlap over the nycthemeral cycle (Pianka's index) indicated significantly lower than expected overlap, which implies an absence of competition. In the seasonal analysis, however, there was evidence that the observed patterns were not random, indicating the role of biological processes, such as competition, which may nevertheless be mediated by the relative abundance of the most consumed resources. It is important to remember that, in more complex environments, where a greater diversity of resources is available, each item may be exploited less intensively, reducing competition and favoring the coexistence of the species [68].
Overall, the results of the present study indicate that the coexistence of S. gibbus and S. rhombeus in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir is mediated by the relative abundance of feeding resources (Leporinus af. parae, Leporinus affinis, Leporinus maculatus, Tometes trilobatus, Hemiodus unimaculatus, Geophagus proximus, Plagioscion squamosissimus, Satanoperca acuticeps, Triportheus trifurcatus, etc.) and differences in the timing of foraging behavior, which minimize the direct competition between the two species. The two species studied represent those of greater abundance in this reservoir. The adaptive success of these predators in dammed environments promotes the reduction of fish diversity, especially those species occupying other trophic niches, which increases the initial environmental impact generated by the dam. Understanding the functional dynamics of fish trophic guilds in dammed environments can be an important step in the conservation orientation of these environments.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8064126
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] E. Benedito-Cecilio and A. A. Agostinho, "Estrutura das populacoes de peixes do reservatario de Segredo," in Reservatorio de Segredo: bases ecologicas para o manejo, A. A. Agostinho and L. C. Gomes, Eds., EDUEM, Maringa, Brazil, 1997.
[2] L. Brandoo-Goncalves, S. E. Lima-Junior, and Y. R. Suarez, "Feeding habits of Bryconamericus stramineus Eigenmann, 1908 (Characidae), in different streams of Guirai River Sub-Basin, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil," Biota Neotropica, vol. 9, no. I, pp. 135-144, 2009.
[3] E. R. Pianka, "The structure of lizard communities," Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 53-74, 1973.
[4] H. C. Giacomini, "Os mecanismos de coexistencia de espacies como vistos pela teoria ecolagica," Oecologia Brasiliensis, vol. II, no. 04, pp. 521-543, 2007.
[5] R. J. Wootton, Ecology of Teleost Fishes, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1990.
[6] N. S. Hahn, R. Fugi, and I. F. Andrian, "Trophic ecology of the fish assemblages," in The upper Parana river and its floodplain physical aspects, ecology and conservation, S. M. Thomaz, A. A. Agostinho, and N. S. Hahn, Eds., Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Holland, 2004.
[7] B. d. Merona and J. Rankin-de-Marona, "Food resource partitioning in a fish community of the central Amazon floodplain," Neotropical Ichthyology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 75-84, 2004.
[8] M. Pouilly, T. Yunoki, C. Rosales, and L. Torres, "Trophic structure of fish assemblages from Mamore River floodplain lakes (Bolivia)," Ecology of Freshwater Fish, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 245-257, 2004.
[9] A. C. Souto, Partilha de recursos alimentares nas assembleoias de peixes do reservatorio de Salto Grande (Medio rio Paranapanema SP/PR, Brasil), Universidade Estadual Paulista, Dissertacoo, Brazil, 2011.
[10] C. A. Toft, "Resource paratitioning in amphibians and repitiles," Copeia, vol. 1, p. 21, 1985.
[11] S. Hartley and B. Shorrocks, "A general framework for the aggregation model of coexistence," Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 651-662, 2002.
[12] M. Begon, J. L. Harper, and C. R. Townsend, Ecology. Individuals, Populations and Communities, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1996.
[13] J. Berg, "Discussion of methods of investigating the food of fishes, with reference to a preliminary study of the prey of Gobiusculus flavescens (Gobiidae)," Marine Biology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 263-273, 1979.
[14] C. J. Krebs, Ecological Methodology, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 1989.
[15] M. C. F. Abelha, A. A. Agostinho, and E. Goulart, "Plasticidade trafica em peixes de agua doce," Acta Scientiarum Biological Sciences, vol. 23, pp. 425-434, 2001.
[16] A. N. Andersen, "Regulation of 'momentary' diversity by dominant species in exceptionally rich ant communities of the Australian seasonal tropics," The American Naturalist, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. 401-420, 1992.
[17] R. H. Lowe-McConnell, Estudos Ecologicos de Comunidade de Peixes Tropicais, Edusp, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1999.
[18] C. S. Agostinho and E. E. Marques, "Selection of netted prey by piranhas, Serrasalmus spilopleura and Serrasalmus marginatus (Pisces, Serrasalmidae)," Acta Scientiarum Biological Sciences, vol. 23, pp. 461-464, 2001.
[19] A. K. Oliveira, M. M. C. Alvim, A. C. Peret, and C. B. M. Alves, "Diet shifts related to body size of the pirambeba (Serrasalmus brandtii) Lutken, 1875 (Osteichthyes, Serrasalminae) in the Cajuru reservoir, Sao Francisco river basin, Brazil," Brazilian Journal of Biology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 117-124, 2004.
[20] A. C. Costa, L. F. Salvador Junior, F. F. Domingos, and M. L. Fonseca, "Alimentacao da pirambeba Serrasalmus spilopleura Kner, 1858 (Characidae; Serrasalminae) em um reservatoario do Sudeste brasileiro," Acta Scientiarum. Biological Sciences, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 365-369, 2005.
[21] N. M. Piorski, J. D. R. L. Alves, M. R. B. Machado, and M. M. F. Correia, "Alimentacao e ecomorfologia de duas espacies de piranhas (Characiformes: Characidae) do lago de Viana, estado do Maranhao, Brasil," Acta Amazonica, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 63-70, 2005.
[22] D. Peretti, Alimentacao e analise morfologica de quatro especies de peixes (Astyanax altiparanae, Parauchenipterus galeatus, Serrasalmus marginatus e Hoplias aff. malabaricus) na planicie de inundacao do alto rio Parana, Brasil, Tese, Universidade Estadual de Maringaa, Maringaa, Brazil, 2006.
[23] N. Hubert, F. Duponchelle, J. Nunez, C. Garcia-Davila, D. Paugy, and J.-F. Renno, "Phylogeography of the piranha genera Serrasalmus and Pygocentrus: implications for the diversification of the Neotropical ichthyofaunal," Molecular Ecology, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 2115-2136, 2007.
[24] M. E. De Jesus Trindade and R. Juca-Chagas, "Diet of two serrasalmin species, Pygocentrus piraya and Serrasalmus brandtii (Teleostei: Characidae), along a stretch of the rio de Contas, Bahia, Brazil," Neotropical Ichthyology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 645-650, 2008.
[25] G. M. Santos, E. J. G. Ferreira, and J. A. S. Zuanon, Peixes comerciais de Manaus, Ibama/AM, Pro Varzea, Manaus, Brazil, 2006.
[26] P. E. L. Bezerra, V. Oliveira, W. D. E. Regis, J. E. M. Brazao, I. Gavinho, and R. C. P. Coutinho, Projeto de Zoneamento de Recursos Naturais da Amazonia Legal, IBGE/Departamento de Recursos Naturais e Estudos Ambientais, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1990.
[27] IBGE, "Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica," 2012, http://www.ibge.gov.br.
[28] J. C. Sa-Oliveira and V J. Isaac-Nahum, "Diet Breadth and Niche Overlap Between Hypostomusplecostomus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Hypostomus emarginatus (Valenciennes, 1840) (Siluriformes) in the Coaracy Nunes Hydroelectric Reservoir, Ferreira Gomes, Amapa-Brazil," Biota Amazonia, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 116-125, 2013.
[29] A. E. A. M. Vazzoler, Biologia da reproducao de peixes teleosteos: teoria epratica, EDUEM, Maringa, Brazil, 1996.
[30] E. Kawakami and G. Vazzoler, "Matodo grafico e estimativa de indice alimentar aplicado no estudo de alimentacao de peixes," Boletim do Instituto Oceanografico, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 205-207, 1980.
[31] N. S. Hahn and R. Fugi, "Alimentacao de peixes em reservatorios brasileiros: alteracoes e consequencias nos estagios iniciais do represamento," Oecologia Brasiliensis, vol. 11, no. 04, pp. 469-480, 2007.
[32] E. J. Hyslop, "Stomach contents analysis--a review of methods and their application," Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 411-429, 1980.
[33] J. M. Hellawell and R. Abel, "A rapid volumetric method for the analysis of the food of fishes," Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 29-37, 1971.
[34] A. A. Fonteles-Filho, Recursos Pesqueiros: Biologia E Dinamica Populacional, Impressa Oficial do Ceara, Fortaleza, Brazil, 1989.
[35] S. H. Hurlbert, "The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives," Ecology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 67-77, 1978.
[36] G. C. Novakowski, N. S. Hahn, and R. Fugi, "Diet seasonality and food overlap of the fish assemblage in a pantanal pond," Neotropical Ichthyology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 567-576, 2008.
[37] N. J. Gotelli and G. L. Entsminger, Ecosim: Null Models Software for Ecology, Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear, Jericho, Brazil, 2006.
[38] G. L. Entsminger, Journal of Waste Conversion, Bioproducts and Biotechnology, vol. 1, Acquired Intelligence Inc., Kesey-Bear, & Pinyon Publishing, Montrose, Brazil, 2012, http://www .garyentsminger.com/ecosim/index.htm.
[39] M. Albrecht and N. J. Gotelli, "Spatial and temporal niche partitioning in grassland ants," Oecologia, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 134-141, 2001.
[40] C. R. Townsend, M. Begon, and J. L. Harper, Fundamentos em Ecologia, Artmed, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2006.
[41] G. V. Nikolsky, The Ecology of Fishes, Academic press, Massachusetts, MA, USA, 1963.
[42] G. V. Nikolsky, Theory of Fish Population Dynamics, Oliver e Boyd, Edinburgh, UK, 1969.
[43] R. J. Wootton, "Introduction: tactics and strategies in fish reproduction," in Fish Reproduction: Strategies and Tactics, G. W. Potts and R. J. Wootton, Eds., Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1984.
[44] M. Andersson, Sexual Selection, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1994.
[45] J. Hunt, C. J. Breuker, J. A. Sadowski, and A. J. Moore, "Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13-26, 2009.
[46] T. Bagarinao and K. Thayaparan, "The length-weight relationship, food habits and condition factor of wild juvenile milkfish in Sri Lanka," Aquaculture, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 241-246, 1986.
[47] H. d. Gurgel, "Estrutura populacional e apoca de reproducao de Astyanax fasciatus (Cuvier) (Characidae, Tetragonopterinae) do Rio Ceara Mirim, Poco Branco, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil," Zoologia, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 131-135, 2004.
[48] P. R. Stephens and J. J. Wiens, "Bridging the gap between community ecology and historical biogeography: niche conservatism and community structure in emydid turtles," Molecular Ecology, vol. 18, no. 22, pp. 4664-4679, 2009.
[49] D. Punzalan and D. J. Hosken, "Sexual dimorphism: Why the sexes are (and are not) different," Current Biology, vol. 20, no. 22, pp. R972-R973, 2010.
[50] G. F. Gause, "Experimental studies on the struggle for existence. I. Mixed populations of two species of yeast," Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 9, pp. 399-402, 1932.
[51] G. Hardin, "The competitive exclusion principle," Science, vol. 131, no. 3409, pp. 1292-1297, 1960.
[52] J. R. Nokman, "The South American characid fishes of the subfamily with Serrasalmoninae a revision of the genus," Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 781-829, 1928.
[53] M. Jegu and G. M. Dos Santos, "Une nouvelle espece du genre Mylesinus(Pisces, Serrasalmidae), M. paucisquamatus, decrite du bassin du rio Tocantins (Amazonie, Brasil)," Cybium, vol. 12, pp. 331-341, 1988.
[54] T. N. Romanuk, A. Hay ward, and J. A. Hutchings, "Trophic level scales positively with body size in fishes," Global Ecology and Biogeography, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 231-240, 2011.
[55] S. D. Gerking, Feeding Ecology of Fish, Academic Press, London, UK, 1994.
[56] N. S. Hahn, V. E. Loureiro, and R. L. Delariva, "Atividade alimentar da curvina Plagioscion squamosissimus (Heckel, 1840) (Perciformes, Sciaenidae) no rio Parana," Acta Scientiarum Biological Sciences, vol. 21, pp. 309-314, 1999.
[57] L. A. Zavala-Camin, Introducao aos Estudos Sobre Alimentacao Natural em Peixes, EDUEM, Maringaa, Brazil, 1996.
[58] B. Holldobler and E. O. Wilson, The Ants, Belknap, Cambridge, 1990.
[59] N. Kronfeld-Schor and T. Dayan, "Partitioning of time as an ecological resource," Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, vol. 34, pp. 153-181, 2003.
[60] I. Sazima and F. A. Machado, "Underwater observations of piranhas in western Brazil," Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 28, no. 1-4, pp. 17-31, 1990.
[61] C. S. Agostinho, N. S. Hahn, and E. E. Marques, "Patterns of food resource use by two congeneric species of piranhas (Serrasalmus) on the upper parana river floodplain," Brazilian Journal of Biology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 177-182, 2003.
[62] K. O. Winemiller, "Ontogenetic diet shifts and resource partitioning among piscivorous fishes in the Venezuelan ilanos," Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 177-199, 1989.
[63] P. S. Pompeu and H. P. Godinho, "Dieta e estrutura trofica das comunidades de peixes de tres lagoas marginais do medio Sao Francisco," in Aguas, peixes e pescadores do Sao Francisco das Minas Gerais, PUC Minas, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2003.
[64] R. D. M. G. Raposo and H. D. C. B. Gurgel, "Variacoo da alimentaccaoo natural de Serrasalmus spilopleura Kner, 1860 (Pisces, Serrasalmidae) em funccaoo do ciclo lunar e das estaccooes do ano na lagoa de Extremoz, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil," Acta Scientiarum Biological Sciences, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 267-272, 2003.
[65] M. A. Marcal-Simabuku and A. C. Peret, "Alimentacao de peixes (osteichthyes, characiformes) em duas lagoas de uma planicie de evundacoo brasileira da bacia do rio parana," Interciencia, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 299-306, 2002.
[66] H. B. N. Hynes, The Ecology of Running Waters, Toronto Press, Canadaa, 1970.
[67] W. J. Matthews, Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, USA, 1998.
[68] I. M. Fernandes, R. Henriques-Silva, J. Penha, J. Zuanon, and P. R. Peres-Neto, "Spatiotemporal dynamics in a seasonal metacommunity structure is predictable: the case of floodplain-fish communities," Ecography, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 464-475, 2014.
Julio C. Sa-Oliveira, (1) Stephen F. Ferrari, (2) Huann C. Gentil Vasconcelos, (1) Andrea S. Araujo, (3) Carlos E. Costa Campos, (4) Claudio A. Gellis Mattos-Dias, (5) Amanda A. Fecury, (6) Euzebio Oliveira, (7) Raimundo N. G. Mendes-Junior, (8) and Victoria J. Isaac (9)
(1) Ichthyology and Limnology Laboratory, Federal University of Amapa (UNIFAP), Campus Universitario Marco Zero do Equador, Rod. Juscelino Kubitscheck, KM-02, 68903-419 Macapa, AP, Brazil
(2) Department of Ecology, Federal University of Sergipe, Avenida Marechal Rondon s/n Rosa Elze, 49000-100 Sao Cristavao, SE, Brazil
(3) Zoology Laboratory, Federal University of Amapa (UNIFAP), Campus Universitario Marco Zero do Equador, Rod. Juscelino Kubitscheck, KM-02, 68903-419 Macapa, AP, Brazil
(4) Herpetology Laboratory, Universidade Federal do Amapa (UNIFAP), Rod. Juscelino Kubitscheck, KM-02, 68903-419 Macapa, AP, Brazil
(5) Instituto Federal do Amapa, Rod. BR-210, Km 03, s/n, Brasil Novo. 68909-398 Macapa, AP, Brazil
(6) Departamento de Ciencias Biologicas e da Saude, Federal University of Amapa (UNIFAP), Campus Universitario Marco Zero do Equador, Rod. Juscelino Kubitscheck, KM-02, 68903-419 Macapa, AP, Brazil
(7) Federal University of Para (UFPA), Campus Guama, 01 Rua Augusto Correa, Guama, 66075-110 Belem, PA, Brazil
(8) Cajari River Extractive Reserve, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservacao da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), Rua Leopoldo Machado, 1126, Centro, Macapa, AP, Brazil
(9) Fisheries Biology Laboratory, Federal University of Para (UFPA), Campus Guama, 01 Rua Augusto Correa, Guama, 66075-110 Beleam, PA, Brazil
Correspondence should be addressed to Julio C. Sa-Oliveira; [email protected]
Received 11 August 2017; Accepted 16 October 2017; Published 20 November 2017
Academic Editor: Joao P. Barreiros
Caption: Figure 1: Study area: reservoir of the Coaracy Nunes hydroelectric power station in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa, Brazil.
Caption: Figure 2: Population structure in total length (a) and weight (b) of S. gibbus in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa (Brazil).
Caption: Figure 3: Population structure in total length (a) and weight (b) of S. rhombeus in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa (Brazil).
Caption: Figure 5: Seasonal variation in the repletion of the stomachs of the S. gibbus (blue) and S. rhombeus (green) specimens collected in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa (Brazil).
Caption: Figure 6: Nycthemeral variation in the relative frequency of repletion of the stomachs (at least partly full) of the S. gibbus and S. rhombeus specimens collected in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa (Brazil).
Caption: Figure 7: Seasonal variation in niche breadth in S. gibbus and S. rhombeus in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa (Brazil).
Table 1: Frequency of occurrence (FO), volumetric frequency (VF),
and index of feeding importance ([IF.sub.i]) of the items
encountered in the stomach contents of the S. gibbus and S. rhombeus
specimens captured in the dry and flood seasons in the Coaracy Nunes
reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa (Brazil).
Flood
Species Food item FO (%) VF (%) [IF.sub.i]
S. gibbus Fish 65.517 22.014 0.9671
Crustacean 10.345 2.510 0.0174
Insect 20.689 1.089 0.0151
Plant 3.448 0.138 0.0003
Microcrustacean 3.448 0.055 0.0001
S. rhombeus Fish 80.000 0.906 0.9747
Crustacean 20.000 0.089 0.0239
Insect 20.000 0.004 0.0011
Microcrustacean 20.000 0.001 0.0003
Dry
Species Food item FO (%) VF (%) IAi
S. gibbus Fish 96.429 37.118 0.9588
Crustacean 10.714 3.857 0.0111
Insect 14.286 0.843 0.0032
Plant 25.000 4.007 0.0268
Microcrustacean 3.571 0.075 0.0001
S. rhombeus Fish 100.000 1.000 1.000
Crustacean 0.000 0.000 0.000
Insect 0.000 0.000 0.000
Microcrustacean 0.000 0.000 0.000
G test
Species Food item FO [IF.sub.i]
S. gibbus Fish
Crustacean
Insect 16.94 * 0.044 **
Plant
Microcrustacean
S. rhombeus Fish
Crustacean 78.70 * 0.04 **
Insect
Microcrustacean
* p < 0.05; ** p > 0.05.
Table 2: Mean observed and simulated Pianka indices and their
respective p values for the dietary overlap of S. gibbus and S.
rhombeus in the Coaracy Nunes reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa
(Brazil).
Nycthemeral
Parameter Seasonal Flood Dry
([O.sub.jk]): observed mean 0.997 0.531 0.519
([O.sub.jk]): simulated mean 0.241 0.606 0.606
Variance of the simulated indices 0.083 0.001 0.002
C score: p (observed [less than or 1.000 0.018 * 0.016 *
equal to] expected)
C score: p (observed [greater than 0.000 * 0.982 0.984
or equal to] expected)
* p < 0.05.
Figure 4: Relative frequency of the S. gibbus and S. rhombeus
specimens captured per 3-hour interval in the Coaracy Nunes
reservoir in Ferreira Gomes, Amapa (Brazil).
(Hour)
Nocturnal Diurnal
S. gibbus S. rhombeus
18:00 14.4 13.1
21:00 12.3 24.6
23:00 11.4 21.3
03:00 10.9 19.7
06:00 13.5 18.0
09:00 13.8 3.3
12:00 11.1 0.0
15:00 15.00 12.6
S. gibbus: [chi square] = 0.948; df = 7; p > 0.05
S. rhombeus: [chi square] = 56.298; df = 7; p > 0.0001
Note: Table made from bar graph.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Title Annotation: | Research Article |
|---|---|
| Author: | Sa-Oliveira, Julio C.; Ferrari, Stephen F.; Vasconcelos, Huann C. Gentil; Araujo, Andrea S.; Campos, |
| Publication: | The Scientific World Journal |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Geographic Code: | 3BRAZ |
| Date: | Jan 1, 2017 |
| Words: | 6276 |
| Previous Article: | Evaluation of the Expression of the Human Epithelial Receptor 2 (HER2) in Gastric Carcinoma. |
| Next Article: | Effect of Harvesting Stage on Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) Genotypes in Western Kenya. |
| Topics: | |