4.5 Article

Effects of social organization on the feeding of the striped parrotfish, Scarus iseri

期刊

CORAL REEFS
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 951-957

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00338-021-02080-3

关键词

Sociobiology; Fish feeding behavior; Territoriality; Herbivory; Functional ecology; Coral reefs

资金

  1. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal do Nivel Superior)
  2. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parrotfishes contribute to reef processes through feeding, and their sociobiology influences their ecosystem impact. Territorial groups show selectivity for sandy substrate while stationary groups prefer filamentous algae. Differences in feeding preferences are also observed between initial phase and terminal phase individuals.
Parrotfishes contribute to important reef processes through their feeding. Individuals may join groups with distinctive social behavior, with unknown implications for their feeding ecology and, ultimately, their functional roles in reef systems. Using Scarus iseri populations in Isla Colon, Panama, we investigated whether individuals belonging to the two main social groups formed by this species ('Territorial' and 'Stationary' groups) differed in their feeding preferences. Territorial groups had access to a diversity of potential food sources, yet showed selectivity for feeding on sandy substrate. Stationary groups showed high selectivity for filamentous algae, despite this resource being less available for this group than for territorial individuals. Initial phase fish had higher bite rates on plants than terminal phase individuals, while the latter had higher bite rates on soft substrata and sponges, both indicating detritus consumption. Parrotfish sociobiology may therefore influence their relative ecosystem impact, with territorial and terminal individuals in both social groups more involved in the detrital food web and stationary groups contributing to a greater extent on algal removal.

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

4.5
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