| Literature DB >> 32525959 |
Dongming Lin1,2,3,4,5, Kai Zhu1, Weiguo Qian6, André E Punt7, Xinjun Chen1,2,3,4,5,8.
Abstract
Feeding strategies of sympatric squid species help to understand their role in marine ecosystems. Four loliginid squids, Uroteuthis duvaucelii, Uroteuthis edulis, Uroteuthis chinensis, and Loliolus uyii are the major cephalopod species in the coastal waters of the northern South China Sea, where they occur together. We investigated their feeding strategies in terms of foraging behavior and habitat use by comparing fatty acid profiles and spatial distributions. There were no significant differences in the proportions of saturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids among species. Similar findings were obtained for most individual fatty acids that made up of an average of more than 84% of total fatty acid content for each species. Substantial overlap and high similarity in the fatty acid composition were observed. However, there were no significant effects of individual size or sampling station on the fatty acid compositions. The spatial overlap analysis demonstrated that there was clear spatial segregation and habitat use among the species. Cumulatively, our results suggest that the four squids are opportunistic carnivores, unselectively foraging on similar prey items, while spatial segregation is likely a major mechanism leading to their coexistence in the northern South China Sea.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32525959 PMCID: PMC7289379 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234250
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area and sampling stations in the northern South China Sea.
Stars indicate the sampling stations. Grey lines indicate the selected isobaths of -50m and -200m.
Summary of squid specimens (n = 709) collected from the northern South China Sea, and those used in the fatty acid analyses.
| Species | Sampling station | Sampled | Analyzed fatty acid samples | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mantle length (ML, mm) | n | Mantle length (ML, mm) | ||||||
| mean±sd | min | max | mean±sd | min | max | ||||
| S4 | 13 | 109.2±23.3 | 52 | 158 | 6 | 116.5±15.8 | 92 | 130 | |
| S6 | 273 | 94.2±20.9 | 50 | 165 | 11 | 98.8±21.3 | 75 | 131 | |
| pooled | 286 | 95.2±21.4 | 50 | 165 | 17 | 105.1±20.9 | 75 | 131 | |
| S1 | 48 | 183.2±21.2 | 143 | 241 | 8 | 181.8±11.3 | 165 | 195 | |
| S4 | 7 | 130.0±37.2 | 90 | 176 | 3 | 168.7±7.0 | 162 | 176 | |
| S5 | 11 | 154.6±29.0 | 89 | 186 | 3 | 173.7±10.8 | 166 | 186 | |
| pooled | 66 | 165.1±36.2 | 89 | 241 | 14 | 177.2±11.3 | 162 | 195 | |
| S1 | 96 | 208.7±32.4 | 134 | 275 | 6 | 202.7±34.3 | 171 | 246 | |
| S2 | 39 | 174.3±37.0 | 82 | 226 | 4 | 196.0±27.0 | 166 | 226 | |
| S3 | 73 | 206.7±39.5 | 148 | 320 | 8 | 188.1±25.5 | 163 | 240 | |
| S5 | 24 | 179.7±36.1 | 66 | 201 | 3 | 192.7±8.0 | 185 | 201 | |
| S6 | 25 | 155.8±23.9 | 108 | 199 | 3 | 168.3±3.2 | 166 | 172 | |
| pooled | 257 | 177.3±53.6 | 66 | 320 | 24 | 191.2±25.8 | 163 | 246 | |
| S4 | 100 | 69.3±5.8 | 55 | 84 | 7 | 71.9±7.3 | 59 | 79 | |
| pooled | 100 | 69.3±5.8 | 55 | 84 | 7 | 71.9±7.3 | 59 | 79 | |
Sampling station corresponds to the stars in Fig 1.
Sample size for each factor level of size-class and sampling station for the permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) and canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP).
| Size-class | Sampling station (see | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Bin groups (mm) | n | factor level | n |
| <80 | 9 | S1 | 14 |
| 81–100 | 5 | S2 | 4 |
| 101–120 | 6 | S3 | 8 |
| 121–140 | 4 | S4 | 15 |
| 161–180 | 19 | S5 | 6 |
| 181–200 | 12 | S6 | 15 |
| 201–220 | 4 | ||
| >220 | 3 | ||
Relative abundance of fatty acids for Uroteuthis duvaucelii, Uroteuthis edulis, Loliolus uyii, Uroteuthis chinensis in northern South China Sea.
| Species | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatty acid (%TFA) | ||||
| 14:0 | 2.63±3.10 | 2.25±2.09 | 2.66±0.84 | 2.33±1.46 |
| 16:0 | 19.23±2.66 | 18.46±2.10 | 19.01±3.45 | 19.01±5.24 |
| 0.80±0.46ab | 0.63±0.45a | 0.97±1.20ab | 1.79±1.56b | |
| 17:0 | 0.71±0.08 | 0.70±0.14 | 0.84±0.10 | 0.74±0.22 |
| 7.41±2.38a | 6.51±3.17a | 10.3±2.4b | 7.05±2.34a | |
| 18:1n9t | 0.66±0.40 | 0.77±0.71 | 0.69±0.14 | 0.79±1.13 |
| 18:1n9c | 2.51±0.47 | 2.24±0.47 | 2.79±1.37 | 3.59±2.27 |
| 1.72±1.10b | 1.40±1.33ab | 0.44±0.46a | 0.93±0.57ab | |
| 18:2n6c | 0.66±0.22 | 0.54±0.27 | 0.50±0.22 | 0.51±0.19 |
| 18:3n6 | 0.69±0.45 | 0.55±0.52 | 0.57±0.15 | 0.60±0.21 |
| 20:0 | 0.60±0.28 | 0.52±0.36 | 0.36±0.13 | 0.44±0.17 |
| 0.97±0.52b | 0.72±0.60ab | 0.32±0.25a | 0.63±0.40ab | |
| 20:1 | 1.85±0.91 | 2.46±1.05 | 2.02±0.31 | 2.04±0.84 |
| 20:2 | 0.72±0.42 | 0.70±0.53 | 0.42±0.21 | 0.47±0.22 |
| 20:4n6 (ARA) | 2.95±1.32 | 3.36±1.73 | 3.32±1.71 | 3.08±1.60 |
| 0.64±0.44b | 0.49±0.52ab | 0.16±0.11a | 0.38±0.22ab | |
| 20:5n3 (EPA) | 11.15±2.04 | 12.74±2.38 | 13.01±2.40 | 11.55±2.98 |
| 22:6n3 (DHA) | 41.96±5.45 | 39.39±7.78 | 39.22±5.6 | 40.70±7.48 |
| FAs<0.5% | 3.40±1.76 | 4.09±3.17 | 1.76±1.14 | 2.94±1.84 |
| Main FA Classes (%TFA) | ||||
| SFA | 32.59±4.05 | 30.70±4.97 | 34.25±4.78 | 31.12±5.98 |
| 7.71±2.02ab | 8.28±2.84ab | 6.70±2.82a | 9.64±3.5b | |
| PUFA | 59.71±4.43 | 61.03±6.12 | 59.05±4.90 | 59.24±7.94 |
| Total fatty acids (mg/g dry weight) | ||||
| 66.20±9.78c | 59.01±3.35b | 71.07±4.62c | 50.71±4.54a | |
FAs <0.5% include 11:0, 12:0, 13:0, 14:1n5, 15:0, 15:1n5, 17:1n7, 21:0, 20:3n6, 22:0, 20:3n3, 23:0, 22:2n6, 24:0, 24:1n9. ARA, arachidonic acid; EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; SFA, saturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; TFA, total fatty acids. Values are mean ± standard deviation; TFA is reported as dry tissue weight (mg/g dry weight), other values are reported as percentages of TFA (% TFA). Fatty acids highlighted in bold indicate significant differences (P<0.05) among species. Superscripted letters within rows represent the results of post-hoc test, and different letters indicate significant differences in the relative content of FA between species.
Fig 2Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination of fatty acid composition among Uroteuthis duvaucelii, Uroteuthis edulis, Uroteuthis chinensis and Loliolus uyii in the northern South China Sea.
Urd, Uroteuthis duvaucelii; Ure, Uroteuthis edulis; Lou, Loliolus uyii; Urc, Uroteuthis chinensis.
Results of the analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) for the fatty acid composition among Uroteuthis duvaucelii, Uroteuthis edulis, Uroteuthis chinensis and Loliolus uyii in the northern South China Sea.
| Terms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pooled | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| 0.13 | 0.05 | |
| 0.36 | 0.01 | |
| 0.06 | 0.11 | |
| 0.12 | 0.14 | |
| 0.003 | 0.43 | |
| 0.05 | 0.33 |
R ranges from -1 to 1, with values close to 0 indicating high similarity.
Fig 3Canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) based on size-class (a) and sampling station (b) of the fatty acid profiles among Uroteuthis duvaucelii, Uroteuthis edulis, Loliolus uyii and Uroteuthis chinensis in northern South China Sea.
Station in (b) corresponds to the stars in Fig 1.
Fig 4Percentage of specimens collected by sampling station for Uroteuthis duvaucelii, Uroteuthis edulis, Loliolus uyii, Uroteuthis chinensis.
S1, S2,….S6 correspond to the stations in Fig 1. The size of grey circle represents the percentage of specimens collected at the station.
Spatial niche overlap (%) among pairs of squid species—Uroteuthis duvaucelii, Uroteuthis edulis, Loliolus uyii, Uroteuthis chinensis in northern South China Sea.
| Species | Urd | Ure | Urc | Lou |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | ||||
| 0.6% | - | |||
| 14.6% | 76.1% | - | ||
| 4.6% | 12.0% | 0 | - |
Percentages were calculated based on Morisita’s index.