4.4 Article

A re-evaluation of the diel feeding hypothesis for marine herbivorous fishes

Journal

MARINE BIOLOGY
Volume 141, Issue 3, Pages 571-579

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-002-0849-y

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We re-evaluated the diel feeding hypothesis by measuring diel variation in starch, protein, and floridoside in three algal types collected from a fringing coral reef at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Samples of two species of rhodophyte algae, Gracilaria arcuata and Acanthophora spicifera, and the turf assemblage from the territories of the herbivorous pomacentrid Stegastes nigricans were collected at four time periods through the day: 0630-0730, 1000-1100, 1330-1430, and 1630-1730 hours. We also measured the ability of several species of marine fish (the herbivores Acanthurus nigricans, A. lineatus, A. olivaceus, and Parma alboscapularis and the detritivore Ctenochaetus striatus) to hydrolyse floridoside by estimating alpha-galactosidase activity in tissue from the anterior intestine. We detected no diel pattern in protein content of the algae but found a significant steady increase in starch content throughout the day. Floridoside content increased in the morning and decreased in the afternoon, a pattern that may be driven by midday photoinhibition of the algae. All the fishes tested could utilise floridoside. Our results support the diel feeding hypothesis. Although floridoside content decreased in the afternoon, our results suggest floridoside was used during the day by the algae to synthesise starch. Thus the algae increased in nutritional value until photoinhibition occurred at midday then subsequently maintained their nutritional value during the afternoon. This pattern of algal nutrients increasing to a midday peak and remaining relatively constant throughout the afternoon correlates well with the diel feeding pattern in many species of marine herbivorous fish.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available