4.6 Article

Gut content and stable isotope analyses provide complementary understanding of ontogenetic dietary shifts and trophic relationships among fishes in a tropical river

期刊

FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 10, 页码 2156-2172

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02858.x

关键词

body size; feeding ecology; mixing model; omnivory; organic matter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Despite widespread recognition of the role of body size in fish trophic ecology, little attention has been focused on this issue in isotopic studies, particularly in tropical systems. 2. We used analyses of stomach contents and stable isotopes to examine size-related shifts in diet in a terapontid fish assemblage in the Australian wetdry tropics. Stomach content analysis identified substantial ontogenetic dietary shifts in all species, corresponding to changes in body sizeisotope trajectories for two species. Shifts away from relatively specialised diets of heavily 13C-depleted insect larvae to consumption of a range of items across multiple basal carbon sources appeared to be the proximate cause of observed isotopic changes. 3. Allochthonous organic matter in the form of C3 riparian vegetation was particularly important to smaller terapontids before larger fish shifted to a broad range of dietary items and similarly broad range of basal carbon sources. 4. While there was general agreement between d13C and stomach content analysis, there was minimal concurrence between the latter and d15N isotopic derivation of estimates of trophic position. Due to factors such as omnivory, isotopically overlapping basal sources and uncertainties about rates of isotopic fractionation in both predator and prey species, stomach content analysis provides an essential complement to isotopic methodologies in tropical systems. 5. Given that basal sources supporting any individual species can change markedly with ontogeny, consideration of intraspecific, size-related variation is necessary in isotopic studies of food web structure.

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