4.7 Article

Harnessing a mesopelagic predator as a biological sampler reveals taxonomic and vertical resource partitioning among three poorly known deep-sea fishes

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41298-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pelagic predators play a crucial role in sampling midtrophic organisms, especially in deep-sea habitats. This study investigated the diets and foraging behaviors of three poorly known deep-sea fish species by examining specimens from the stomachs of longnose lancetfish. We found high diet overlap but distinct differences in foraging strategies and prey sizes among the three species. Resource partitioning was observed, with each species specializing on different prey types.
Pelagic predators are effective biological samplers of midtrophic taxa and are especially useful in deep-sea habitats where relatively mobile taxa frequently avoid observation with conventional methods. We examined specimens sampled from the stomachs of longnose lancetfish, Alepisaurus ferox, to describe the diets and foraging behaviors of three common, but poorly known deep-sea fishes: the hammerjaw (Omosudis lowii, n = 79, 0.3-92 g), juvenile common fangtooth (Anoplogaster cornuta, n = 91, 0.6-22 g), and juvenile Al. ferox (n = 138, 0.3-744 g). Diet overlap among the three species was high, with five shared prey families accounting for 63 +/- 11% of the total prey mass per species. However, distinct differences in foraging strategies and prey sizes were evident. Resource partitioning was greatest between An. cornuta that specialized on small (mean = 0.13 +/- 0.11 g), shallow-living hyperiid amphipods and O. lowii that specialized on large (mean = 0.97 +/- 0.45 g), deep-dwelling hatchetfishes. Juvenile Al. ferox foraged on a high diversity of prey from both shallow and deep habitats. We describe the foraging ecologies of three midtrophic fish competitors and demonstrate the potential for biological samplers to improve our understanding of deep-sea food webs.

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

4.7
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