4.4 Article

Discordance between diet analysis and dietary macronutrient content in four nominally herbivorous fishes from the Southwestern Atlantic

期刊

MARINE BIOLOGY
卷 165, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-018-3438-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. FAPERJ [E-26/111.654/2012]
  2. CNPq [246840/2012-9]
  3. Fundacao O Boticario de Protecao a Natureza [0898/20111]
  4. ECOHUB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Herbivorous fishes are an important component of coral reef systems worldwide, but their nutritional ecology is poorly understood, particularly the relationships between the taxonomic composition and the nutritional composition of their diets. We compared dietary composition with % carbon, % nitrogen and C:N ratios of diet in four species of nominally herbivorous fishes from the Southwestern Atlantic and used literature values to calculate proportional contributions of dietary items to total nitrogen intake. Both Sparisoma axillare (Labridae, Scarinae) and Acanthurus chirurgus (Acanthuridae) had a diet composed mainly of detritus, with contributions of red algae. However, the diet of S. axillare displayed higher %N and a lower C:N ratio, although animal material made only a slightly greater contribution to total nitrogen intake than in A. chirurgus. Kyphosus sectatrix (Kyphosidae) ingested mainly carbon-rich corticated algae, while Diplodus argenteus (Sparidae) had a varied, omnivorous diet. These results indicate that conventional diet analysis may not reveal important interspecific differences in nutrient intake and that a reassessment of the nutrient intake of different herbivorous fishes is required to fully understand their ecology. This finding highlights the fact that foods of nominally herbivorous fishes vary greatly in nutritional quality. Moreover, conventional dietary categories such as detritus may exhibit considerable heterogeneity in taxonomic and nutritional composition, suggesting a previously unrecognised level of dietary selectivity in this fish assemblage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据