4.6 Article

Comparative functional responses predict the predatory impact of the highly invasive fish Cichla kelberi

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 848, 期 9, 页码 2203-2211

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-020-04440-6

关键词

Biological invasion; Resource use; Type-II functional response; Voracity

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The highly invasive peacock bass, Cichla kelberi, demonstrated higher consumption rates compared to the baseline predator, indicating a strong predatory impact on invaded communities.
Peacock basses (genus Cichla) are a group of Amazonian predatory fishes that invaded many systems worldwide. Severe ecological impacts have been reported, but no study investigated the functional response of these fishes to variations in prey abundance, a crucial information to determine predator consumption and impact. In this study, we evaluated the functional response of the highly invasive Cichla kelberi toward prey species of different taxonomic groups, and compared it to the response of the wolf fish Hoplias malabaricus, a voracious predator used as baseline. We hypothesized that higher feeding rates drive the predatory impact of the invasive predator. Using a non-replacement experimental setup, we manipulated prey densities (fish and shrimp) in 1000-L mesocosm tanks to quantify the consumption response of each predator during 24 h. Both predators consumed more fish than shrimp, but C. kelberi consumed significantly more than H. malabaricus. We found that C. kelberi consistently displayed higher Type-II functional response than H. malabaricus toward both prey species. There was a non-significant effect of predator species on attack rates, but C. kelberi presented significantly lower handling time values and higher maximum feeding rates. Our findings provide empirical evidence that high individual consumption rates explain the predatory impact of the highly invasive C. kelberi, and predict strong effects on invaded communities.

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

4.6
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