3.8 Article

Food availability and the feeding ecology of ichthyofauna of a Ria Formosa (South Portugal) water reservoir

Journal

ESTUARIES
Volume 26, Issue 4A, Pages 938-948

Publisher

ESTUARINE RESEARCH FEDERATION
DOI: 10.1007/BF02803352

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The feeding habits of several fish species in a water reservoir of the Ria Formosa, Portugal, that has similar ecological characteristics to the outside tidal channels, were studied and compared with food availability. The gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata), the most abundant fish species, mainly selected gastropods and bivalves, although occasionally fish and small crustaceans such as tanaids, ostracods, and cumaceans were also selected. Polychaetes, although abundant in the environment, were not particularly selected by any of the fish species studied. The diets of all the species studied were characterized by a large variety of prey, allowing them to survive in environments of low diversity and poor stability, such as coastal lagoons. These fish are largely benthic feeders, essentially eating the epimacroinvertebrates and endomacroinvertebrates and, occasionally, fish. Diplodus vulgaris and Diplodus annularis preferentially selected gastropods and small crustaceans. Spondyliosoma cantharus generally preyed on crustaceans, including the highly mobile epifauna, the mysids, and decapods. Halobatrachus didactylus and Anguilla anguilla, had very diversified diets that included fish. Mullus barbatus were found to have selected all groups of crustaceans and also bivalves. Wrasses, gobies, and Diplodus sargus, all small-sized fish, singled out small crustaceans, gastropods, and bivalves. The Sparids were the least specialized predators, with broader niches than the other species. They preferentially selected molluscs, which were abundant in the environment. A large overlap of diets was observed and competition may be important when fish biomass is high.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available