4.6 Article

Trophic segregation underlies the coexistence of two piranha species after the removal of a geographic barrier

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 797, 期 1, 页码 57-68

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-017-3159-6

关键词

Stable isotopes; Pre-adaptation; Species invasion; Serrasalmus; Neotropical floodplain

资金

  1. Nupelia/UEM
  2. CNPq/SISBIOTA project
  3. Graduate Program in Ecology of Continental Aquatic Environments (Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquaticos Continentais - PEA)
  4. CNPq/PELD
  5. CNPq
  6. CAPES
  7. CAPES, an organ of the Brazilian Government for the training of human resources

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The processes that determine the coexistence of phylogenetically close species are very complex, particularly when species introduction leads to sympatry among species that did not co-evolved. We evaluated possible differences in delta C-13 and delta N-15 signatures between two piranha species (Serrasalmus marginatus and S. maculatus), in a system where S. marginatus invaded 30 years ago (floodplain ponds in the Upper Parana River). We predicted that carbon and nitrogen stable isotope values would not differ between piranha species. Additionally, we evaluated the abundance (CPUE) of both piranha populations along the years (1986-2015). Native and non-native Serrasalmus species have different delta C-13 signatures, likely exploiting different energy pathways on the food web. Overall, native and non-native piranhas have similar delta N-15 values and occupy the third trophic level in the food web. Regarding the two piranha population fluctuations, there was an inversion of dominance after the non-native species establishment, where S. marginatus became dominant over S. maculatus (after 1988). Our results showed that trophic niche dimension (revealed by trophic segregation) is not the reason of the observed inversion in the dominant species, and this could be a primary factor driving the persistence of the native species in the ecosystem.

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