1996
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb01781.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Food resource partitioning and trophic morphology of Brevoortia gunteri and B. patronus

Abstract: The menhadens Brevoortia gunteri and B. patronus are sympatric and morphologically similar. The two species are planktophagous and exhibited significant (P<0·0001) food resource partitioning, with phytoplankton predominating in B. patronus stomachs and zooplankton in B. gunteri. The branchial apparatus of both species is of the typical alosine form. Brevoortia patronus has significantly more branchiospinules per mm (x =19·47) and significantly longer gill rakers (x =13·35 mm) than B. gunteri (x =14·11, x =12·0… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
2

Year Published

2000
2000
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
18
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Fish abundance peaked during these two periods coinciding with peaks in primary production in Pueblo Viejo Lagoon in March–May and July–September (De la Lanza & Cantú 1986; Contreras 1995). Thus, during March–May when phytoplankton and zooplankton peaked, filtering phytoplanktivores ( C. edentulus and B. gunteri : Castillo–Rivera et al. 1996; Castillo–Rivera & Kobelkowsky 2000) and zooplanktivores ( Anchoa spp.)…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fish abundance peaked during these two periods coinciding with peaks in primary production in Pueblo Viejo Lagoon in March–May and July–September (De la Lanza & Cantú 1986; Contreras 1995). Thus, during March–May when phytoplankton and zooplankton peaked, filtering phytoplanktivores ( C. edentulus and B. gunteri : Castillo–Rivera et al. 1996; Castillo–Rivera & Kobelkowsky 2000) and zooplanktivores ( Anchoa spp.)…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Winemiller & Taylor 1987). For example, intestine lengths and gill raker morphology are known to be discriminant features among herbivorous, carnivorous and omnivorous fishes (Gatz 1981, Bowen 1983, Castillo-Rivera et al 1996. Apart from these classical examples, however, evidence of a clear relationship between ecomorphological characteristics and fish diets has been mixed, and even when statistically significant, is often rather weak and of questionable biological importance (Ibanez et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One approach to determine the potential for similarity or dissimilarity of the diet is morphological analysis of the organs used for feeding, and there have been many studies that use morphological data for the purpose of explaining the differences in the diets among species of fishes (Stoner & Livingston, 1984; Karpouzi & Stergiou, 2003; Pouilly et al ., 2003). In particular, gill raker morphology is known to play an important role in the feeding behaviour of planktivorous fishes (Gerking, 1994), and therefore it has often been adopted for the purpose of explaining the differences in the diets of planktivorous fishes (MacNeil & Brandt, 1990; Castillo‐Rivera et al ., 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%