Coexistence of fish species in a large lowland river: food niche partitioning between small-sized percids, cyprinids and sticklebacks in submersed macrophytes

PLoS One. 2014 Nov 3;9(11):e109927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109927. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

In the spring and summer of each year, large patches of submersed aquatic macrophytes overgrow the bottom of the alluvial Warta River downstream of a large dam reservoir owing to water management practices. Environmental variables, macroinvertebrates (zoobenthos and epiphytic fauna, zooplankton) and fish abundance and biomass were assessed at this biologically productive habitat to learn intraseasonal dynamics of food types, and their occurrence in the gut contents of small-sized roach, dace, perch, ruffe and three-spined stickleback. Gut fullness coefficient, niche breadth and niche overlap indicated how the fishes coexist in the macrophytes. Chironomidae dominated in the diet of the percids. However, ruffe consumed mostly benthic chironomids, while perch epiphytic chironomids and zooplankton. The diet of dace resembled that in fast flowing water although this rheophilic species occurred at unusual density there. The generalist roach displayed the lowest gut fullness coefficient values and widest niche breadth; consequently, intraspecific rather than interspecific competition decided the fate of roach. Three-spined stickleback differed from the other fishes by consuming epiphytic simuliids and fish eggs. The diet overlap between fishes reaching higher gut fullness coefficient values was rather low when the food associated with the submersed aquatic macrophytes was most abundant; this is congruent with the niche overlap hypothesis that maximal tolerable niche overlap can be higher in less intensely competitive conditions.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Biodiversity*
  • Ecosystem*
  • Environment
  • Fishes*
  • Food Chain
  • Poland
  • Rivers*

Grants and funding

This work was supported by a grant of the University of Lodz No 505/424. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.