Diet of the yellowfin snook, Centropomus robalito (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Centropomidae), in the southwestern Gulf of California

• Autorzy: Moreno-Sanchez X.G. , Palacios-Salgado D.S. , Abitia-Cardenas L.A. , Nieto-Navarro J.T. , Navia A.F.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background. The yellowfin snook, Centropomus robalito Jordan et Gilbert, 1881, is one of the most important species in southwestern Gulf of California fisheries. It is caught in estuarine systems by coastal fishermen and as bycatch on the continental platform, by the industrial shrimp fishery. Dietary analysis are important to understanding the trophic interactions and the position of species within a foodweb and to understand the dynamics of marine communities. In this study, we describe the diet of the yellowfin snook in the southwestern Gulf of California and quantify the effects of sex and size on the species’ diet. Materials and methods. Stomachs of C. robalito were obtained from the shrimp fishery that operates off the southwestern Gulf of California. Percentages by number, weight, and frequency of each food category were determined, and the index of relative importance (%IRI) was calculated to define the main food categories. Diet breadth and diet similarity between sexes and among sizes were also calculated. Results. A total of 401 stomachs were inspected, of which practically all (n = 385; 96%) contained food. According to %IRI, the main prey consumed comprised the shrimp Trachypenaeus pacificus (73%), Xiphopenaeus riveti (10%), and Penaeus spp. (7%). Secondary items included: the stomatopod Squilla mantoidea (4%), Unidentified organic matter (UOM, 3%), and the fish Porichthys sp. (2%). Centropomus robalito is a specialist predator with a low diet Breadth value (Bi = 0.14). While there were no significant differences in diet between the sexes (Analysis of similarities [ANOSIM]; R = 0.014; P = 0.50), there were differences among sizes (ANOSIM, R = 0.361; P = 0.01). Conclusion. Centropomus robalito is a second-order predator that feeds mainly on shrimp, which are abundant throughout its distribution area. The feeding strategy of C. robalito fits the optimal foraging theory. This fish feeds on the most abundant species, obtaining a higher energetic benefit than it would obtain from less available prey, or from more mobile and larger prey that would imply expending more energy in the search, attack, and manipulation of these prey.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 45
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.21-29,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Moreno-Sanchez X.G.

• Departamento de Pesquerias y Biologia Marina, Instituto Politecnico Nacional, La Paz, BCS, Mexico

autor

Palacios-Salgado D.S.

• Escuela National de Ingenieria Pesquera-Universidad Autonoma de Nayarit, San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico

autor

Abitia-Cardenas L.A.

• Departamento de Pesquerias y Biologia Marina, Instituto Politecnico Nacional, La Paz, BCS, Mexico

autor

Nieto-Navarro J.T.

• Escuela National de Ingenieria Pesquera-Universidad Autonoma de Nayarit, San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico

autor

Navia A.F.

• Fundacion Colombiana para la Investigacion y Conservacion de Tiburones y Rayas, Cali, Colombia

Bibliografia

• Abitia-Cárdenas L.A., Galván F., Rodríguez J. 1997. Food habits and energy values of prey of striped marlin, Tetrapturus audax, off the coast of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 95 (2): 360–368.
• Adams A.J., Wolfe R.K., Layman C.A. 2009. Preliminary examination of how human-driven freshwater flow alteration affects trophic ecology of juvenile snook (Centropomus undecimalis) in estuarine creeks. Estuaries and Coasts 32 (4): 819–828. DOI: 10.1007/s12237-009-9156-x
• Aliaume C., Zerbi A., Miller J.M. 1997. Nursery habitat and diet of juvenile Centropomus species in Puerto Rico estuaries. Gulf of Mexico Science 15 (2): 77–87.
• Amundsen P.A., Gabler H.M., Staldvik F.J. 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 (4): 607–614.DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb01455.x
• Arreguín-Sánchez F., Arcos-Huitrón E. 2011. La pesca en México: estado de la explotación y uso de los ecosistemas. Hidrobiológica 21 (3): 431–462.
• Barbosa-Saldaña M.L., Díaz-Jaimes P., Uribe-Alcocer M. 2012. Variación morfológica del camarón café (Farfantepenaeus californiensis) en el Pacífico mexicano. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 83 (1): 42–50.
• Braga R.R., Bornatowski H., Vitulé J.R.S. 2012. Feeding ecology of fishes: An overview of worldwide publications. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 22 (4): 915–929.DOI: 10.1007/s11160-012-9273-7
• Brusca R.C. 1980. Common intertidal invertebrates of the Gulf of California. 2nd edn. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, AZ, USA.
• Carvajal J. 1975. Contribución al conocimiento de la biología de los robalos Centropomus undecimalis y C. poeyi en la Laguna de Términos, Campeche, México. Boletín del Instituto Oceanográfico de Venezuela de la Universidad de Oriente 14 (1): 51–70.
• Cervigón F. 1966. Los peces marinos de Venezuela. Estación de Investigaciones Marinas de Margarita.Monografías 1 y 2. Carácas, Venezuela: Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales.
• Chávez M. 1963. Contribución al conocimiento de la biología de los robalos, chucumite y constantino (Centropomus spp.) del estado de Veracruz (Pisces; Centropomidae). Ciencia México 22 (5): 141–160.
• Clarke K.R., Gorley R.N. 2006. PRIMER v6 User Manual/Tutorial. Primer–E, Plymouth, UK.
• Colwell R.K. 2009. EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. Version 8.2, URL http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates
• Cortés E. 1997. A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: Application to elasmobranch fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54 (3): 726–738. DOI: 10.1139/f96-316
• Cortés E. 1999. Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of sharks. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56 (5): 707–717. DOI: 10.1006/jmsc.1999.0489
• Cruz-Escalona V.H., Abitia-Cardenas L.A., Campos-Dávila L., Galvan-Magaña F. 2000. Trophic interrelations of the three most abundant fish species from Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 66 (2): 361–373.
• Dale J.J., Wallsgrove N.J., Popp B.N., Holland K. 2011. Nursery habitat use and foraging ecology of the Brown stingray Dasyatis lata determined from stomach contents, bulk and amino acid stable isotopes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 433: 221–236.
• Díaz González G., Soto L.A. 1988. Hábitos alimenticios de peces depredadores del sistema lagunar Huizache-Caimanero, Sinaloa, México. Anales del Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología 15: 97–123.
• Feltrin-Contente R., Freitas-Stefanoni M., Gadig O.B.F. 2009. Size-related shifts in dietary composition of Centropomus parallelus (Perciformes: Centropomidae) in an estuarine ecosystem of the southeastern coast of Brazil. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 25 (3): 335–342.DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2008.01179.x
• Fischer W., Krupp F., Schneider W., Sommer C., Carpenter K.E., Niem V.H. 1995. Guía FAO para la identificación de especies para los fines de pesca, Pacífico Centro-Oriental. Vol. 2 and 3. Vertebrados- Partes 1 and 2. FAO, Roma.
• Gerking S.D. 1994. Feeding ecology of fish. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
• Hacunda J.S. 1981. Trophic relationships among demersal fishes in a coastal area of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin 79 (4): 775–788.
• Hendrickx M.E. 1984. The species of Sicyonia H. Milne Edwards (Crustacea: Penaeoidea) of the Gulf of California, Mexico, with a key for their identification and a note on their zoogeography. Revista Biología Tropical 32: 279–298.
• Hernández-Aguilar S.B., Abitia-Cárdenas L.A., Moreno-Sánchez X.G., Arellano-Martínez M., González-Rodríguez E. 2013. Trophic spectrum of the sailfish Istiophorus platypterus caught off Acapulco in the southern Mexican Pacific. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93 (4): 1097–1104.DOI: 10.1017/S0025315412001622
• Hurlbert S.H. 1978. The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives. Ecology 59 (1): 67–77. DOI: 10.2307/1936632
• Jiménez-Valverde A., Hortal J. 2003. Las curvas de acumulación de especies y la necesidad de evaluar la calidad de los inventarios biológicos. Revista Ibérica de Aracnología 2008 (8): 151–161.
• Krebs C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. Addison Wesley Educational Publishers, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
• Lemos D., Netto B., Germano A. 2006. Energy budget of juvenile fat snook Centropomus parallelus fed live food.Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A:Molecular and Integrative Physiology 144 (1): 33–40.DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2006.01.028
• Liao H., Pierce C.L., Larscheid J.G. 2001. Empirical assessment of indices of prey importance in the diets of predacious fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130 (4:) 583–591.DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659(2001)130<0583:EAOIOP>2.0.CO;2
• López-García J., Navia A.F., Mejía-Falla P.A., Rubio E.A. 2012. Feeding habits and trophic ecology of Dasyatis longa (Elasmobranchii:Myliobatiformes): sexual, temporal and ontogenetic effects. Journal of Fish Biology 80 (5): 1563–1579. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03239.x
• Marshall A.D., Kyne P.M., Bennett M.B. 2008. Comparing the diet of two sympatric urolophid elasmobranchs (Trygonoptera testacea Müller & Henle and Urolophus kapalensis Yearsley & Last): Evidence of ontogenetic shifts and possible resource partitioning. Journal of Fish Biology 72 (4): 883–898. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01762.x
• Menge B. 1995. Indirect effects in marine rocky intertidal interaction webs: patterns and importance. Ecological Monographs 65 (1): 21–74. DOI: 10.2307/2937158
• Morris R.C., Abbott D.P., Haderlie E.C. (eds.) 1980. Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA.
• Navia A.F., Cortés E., Jordán F., Cruz-Escalona V.H., Mejía-Falla P.A. 2012. Changes tomarine trophic networks caused by fishing. Pp. 417–452. DOI: 10.5772/37787. In: Mahamane A. (ed.) Diversity of ecosystems. InTech Europe, Rijeka, Croatia. DOI: 10.5772/2276
• Nieto-Navarro J.T., Zetina-RejónM., Arreguín-Sánchez F.,Arcos-HuitrónN.E., Peña-MessinaE. 2010. Length–Wright relationship of demersal fish from the eastern coast of the mouth of the Gulf of California. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 5 (6): 494–502.DOI: 10.3923/jfas.2010.494.502
• Orrell T.M. 2002. Order Perciformes; Suborder Percoidei; CentropomidaeSnooks.Pp. 1286–1293. In:CarpenterK.E. (ed.)The living marine resources of the western central Atlantic. Vol. 2. Bony fishes part 1 (Acipenseridae to Grammatidae). FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5. FAO, Rome.
• Pinkas L., Oliphant M.S., Iverson L.K. 1971. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito in California waters. Fish Bulletin 152 (1): 1–105.
• Robertson D.R., Allen G.R. 2008. Shorefishes of the tropical eastern Pacific: An information system. CD-ROM. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama. Sturges H. 1926. The choice of a class-interval. Journal of American Statistical Association 21 (1): 65–66.DOI: 10.2307/2965501
• Ulloa-Ramírez P.A., Patiño-Valencia J.L., Guevara-Rascado M.L., Hernández-Ventura S., Sánchez-Regalado R., Pérez-Velázquez A. 2008. Peces marinos de valor comercial del estado de Nayarit,México. Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Bahia de Banderas, Nayarit, México.
• White W.T., Platell M.E., Potter I.C. 2004. Comparisons between the diets of four abundant species of elasmobranchs in a subtropical embayment: Implications for resource partitioning. Marine Biology 144 (3): 439–448.DOI: 10.1007/s00227-003-1218-1
• Yáñez-Arancibia A. 1978. Taxonomía, ecología y estructura de las comunidades de peces en lagunas costeras con bocas efímeras del Pacífico de México. Publicaciones Especiales Centro de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM, Mexico.
• Zetina-Rejón M.J., Arreguín-Sánchez F., Chávez A.E. 2003. Trophic structure and flows of energy in the Huizache–Caimanero lagoon complex on the Pacific coast of Mexico. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 57 (5–6): 803–815. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-7714(02)00410-9

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3750/AIP2015.45.1.03