| Literature DB >> 29874244 |
Leopold A J Nagelkerke1, Eline van Onselen1, Nils van Kessel2,3,4, Rob S E W Leuven2,4.
Abstract
Invasions of Ponto-Caspian fish species into north-western European river basins accelerated since the opening of the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal in 1992. Since 2002, at least five Ponto-Caspian alien fish species have arrived in The Netherlands. Four species belong to the Gobiidae family (Neogobius fluviatilis, Neogobius melanostomus, Ponticola kessleri, and Proterorhinus semilunaris) and one to the Cyprinidae family (Romanogobio belingi). These species are expected to be potentially deleterious for the populations of four native benthic fish species: Gobio gobio (Cyprinidae), Barbatula barbatula (Nemacheilidae), Cottus perifretum, and C. rhenanus (Cottidae). Invasion success may be dependent on competitive trophic interactions with native species, which are enabled and/or constrained by feeding-related morphological traits. Twenty-two functional feeding traits were measured in nine species (in total 90 specimens). These traits were quantitatively linked to the mechanical, chemical and behavioral properties of a range of aquatic resource categories, using a previously developed food-fish model (FFM). The FFM was used to predict the trophic profile (TP) of each fish: the combined capacities to feed on each of the resource types. The most extreme TPs belonged to three alien species, indicating that they were most specialized among the studied species. Of these three, only P. kessleri overlapped with the two native Cottus species, indicating potential trophic competition. N. fluviatilis and R. belingi did not show any overlap, indicating that there is low trophic competition. The two remaining alien goby species (N. melanostomus and P. semilunaris) had average TPs and could be considered generalist feeders. They overlapped with each other and with G. gobio and B. barbatula, indicating potential trophic competition. This study suggests that both generalist and specialist species can be successful invaders. Since the FFM predicts potential interactions between species, it provides a tool to support horizon scanning and rapid risk assessments of alien species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29874244 PMCID: PMC5991376 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197636
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Origin and length of fish used for morphological trait analysis.
| Species | Status | Number of specimens | Standard length range (mm) | Mean (mm) | SD (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native | 10 | 41.1–75.2 | 64.3 | 12.2 | |
| Native | 8 | 40.5–69.6 | 54.4 | 8.9 | |
| Native | 9 | 43.8–64.6 | 55.2 | 5.5 | |
| Native | 6 | 92.7–115.7 | 106.4 | 10.4 | |
| Alien | 10 | 51.4–118.3 | 72.4 | 19.6 | |
| Alien | 13 | 46.5–99.7 | 69 | 21.6 | |
| Alien | 9 | 68.2–95.0 | 80 | 8 | |
| Alien | 10 | 40.0–68.3 | 54.5 | 8.3 | |
| Alien | 10 | 63.0–105.6 | 85.5 | 15.8 |
Morphological traits used in the trophic profile analysis of fish species.
| Morphological trait | Abbreviation / description | Unit | Scaled by |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barbels (adapted from Sibbing and Nagelkerke [ | Ba | presence / absence | N.A. |
| Body depth | BD | mm | SL |
| Caudal peduncle depth | CPD | mm | SL |
| Eye diameter | ED | mm | SL |
| Gape size | OGAr | mm2 | SL2 |
| Gill arch resistance | GiRL/GiRD: ratio between gill raker length and gill raker distance | ratio | N.A. |
| Gill raker distance | GiRD | mm | SL |
| Gill raker length | GiRL | mm | SL |
| Gut length | GuL | mm | SL |
| Head length | HL | mm | SL |
| Hyoid length | HyL | mm | SL |
| Lower jaw closing force efficiency | Ljin/Ljout: the ratio between input and output closing lever of the lower jaw | ratio | N.A. |
| Lower jaw length | LJL | mm | SL |
| Operculum area | OpAr: Postorbital length × Operculum depth | mm2 | SL2 |
| Oral gape axis | OGAx | degrees | N.A. |
| Oral teeth presence | TOT | presence / absence | N.A. |
| Pharyngeal molariform teeth | TPT2 | presence / absence | N.A. |
| Postlingual organ width | PLOW | mm | SL |
| Protrusion length | ProtL: extension of the upper jaw when opening the mouth | mm | SL |
| Relative gape area | OGAr/Bar: ratio between oral gape area and body area (body width × body depth) | ratio | N.A. |
| Velocity suction capacity | HyL/LJSL: ratio between hyoid and lower jaw-suspensorium length | ratio | N.A. |
| Volume capacity operculum | POrL/OpD: ratio between postorbital length and operculum depth | ratio | N.A. |
N.A.: not applicable; SL: standard length (SL2 in case of surface area). All measures follow Sibbing and Nagelkerke [29], unless otherwise stated.
* This is an adapted trait: in Sibbing and Nagelkerke [29] barbel length is measured, but because most species in this study do not have barbels, the absence or presence of barbels is used instead.
** These are new traits of tooth presence. Shape description of molariform pharyngeal teeth follows Fryer and Iles [39].
Interpretation of the functionality of the presence of teeth is based on Sibbing [40] and Sibbing and Nagelkerke [29].
Fig 1Ordination of overall trophic morphology.
Principal component analysis of 22 functional feeding traits of five alien and four native fish species. In the left panel each marker represents an individual, and different symbols and colors indicate different species. Alien species are indicated with an asterisk. In the right panel the directions and sizes of the loadings of the feeding traits on the ordination are indicated (note that for clarity not all traits are shown).
Fig 2Ordination of trophic profiles.
Principal component analysis of the trophic profiles of five alien and four native fish species. In the left panel each marker represents an individual, and different symbols and colors indicate different species. Alien species are indicated with an asterisk. In the right panel the directions and sizes of the loading of the food specialist profiles are indicated.
Fig 3Mean trophic profiles per species.
Capacities of species to utilize aquatic food types, expressed as the mean trophic profiles per species. Pies indicate the mean correlations of a species’ morphology with the hypothetical profiles for each food resource specialist (red indicate negative, green positive correlations). Trophic profiles were both clustered for species and food types. Numbers in the tree diagrams are significant (>95%) bootstrap values. Alien species are indicated with an asterisk.