| Literature DB >> 35671294 |
Benjamin Lejeune1,2, Dorothée Kopp2, Sonia Mehault2, Maud Aline Mouchet1.
Abstract
Discarding practices have become a source of concern for the perennation of marine resources, prompting efforts of discard reduction around the globe. However, little is known about the fate of discards in marine environments. Discarding may provide food for various marine consumers, potentially affecting food web structure and stability. Yet, quantifying reliance upon discards is difficult because identity and frequency of discards may change according to multiple factors, and most previously used diet assessment techniques do not allow to assume consistency of feeding strategies over time. One currently untested hypothesis is that significant contribution of discards over time should reflect in increased trophic level (TL) of marine fauna, particularly in low TL consumers. Here, we explored this hypothesis by modeling the TL and assimilated diet of consumers living in fishing grounds subject to important discarding activity using stable isotope analysis. We found indications that benthic invertebrates and Chondrichthyes may depict a higher than expected TL, while other fish tend to depict similar to lower TL compared to global averages from the literature. Based on prior knowledge of discard consumption in the same area, stable isotope mixing models congruently revealed that discards may represent substantial portions of the assimilated diet of most benthic invertebrate macrofauna, cephalopods and Chondrichthyes. We highlight limitations and challenges of currently used diet assessment techniques to study discard consumption and stress that understanding their reintegration in marine food webs is crucial in the context of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and to better understand the functioning of marine ecosystems subject to fishing.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35671294 PMCID: PMC9173610 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268758
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Map of the sampling location.
The Bay of Bourgneuf, a shallow bay (from 0 to 34m depth) covering a relatively small area (320 km2) is located within the Bay of Biscay (France, northeast Atlantic).
Comparison between global averaged trophic level (TL) and TL modeled from isotopic composition of the 30 consumers.
Global averaged TL are presented as mean ± SE and derived from fishbase and sealifebase databases, except for Cancer pagurus and Necora puber which are derived from seaaroundus database. Modeled TL are provided as mean and 95% credible intervals (CI) and calculated using tRophicPosition R package. ‘n’ = sample size. ‘Code’ = simplified taxa names used in figures. ‘Cluster’ = trophic group according to UPGMA clustering.
| Stable isotopes | Global averaged TL | Modeled TL | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | Taxon | n | Code | Cluster | δ13C (‰) | δ15N (‰) | Mean | SE | Mean | CI |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Clyr | BIF | −17.4 ± 0.2 | 12.6 ± 0.6 | 3.3 | 0.4 | 2.8 | 2.6–3.1 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Cluc | SBF | −15.7 ± 0.9 | 15.3 ± 0.3 | 4 | 0.1 | 3.6 | 3.4–3.8 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 6 | Ccon | DFC | −16.8 ± 0.5 | 15.3 ± 0.7 | 4.3 | 0.4 | 3.6 | 3.3–4.0 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Eenc | PSC | −18.2 ± 0.2 | 13 ± 0.6 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 3.1 | 2.8–3.4 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 6 | Spil | PSC | −18.3 ± 0.6 | 12.8 ± 0.7 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 3.0 | 2.7–3.4 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Sspr | PSC | −19.3 ± 0.3 | 12 ± 0.5 | 3 | 0.1 | 2.9 | 2.7–3.1 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Ssco | PSC | −18.5 ± 0.5 | 12.1 ± 0.8 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 2.8 | 2.5–3.2 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Oepe | DFC | −17.4 ± 0.6 | 15.5 ± 0.5 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 3.8 | 3.6–4.1 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 4 | Bbel | BIF | −17.4 ± 0.6 | 13.4 ± 1.5 | 4.2 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 2.5–4.2 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Ttra | DFC | −18.1 ± 0.4 | 15 ± 0.6 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 3.5–4.0 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Ppol | DFC | −17.2 ± 1 | 15.2 ± 0.6 | 4.3 | 0.3 | 3.7 | 3.4–4.0 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Tlus | DFC | −16.7 ± 0.7 | 15.7 ± 0.9 | 3.7 | 0.1 | 3.8 | 3.4–4.2 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 6 | Mmerla | DFC | −17.5 ± 0.3 | 16.7 ± 0.6 | 4.4 | 0.2 | 4.2 | 3.9–4.5 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Mmerlu | DFC | −18 ± 0.4 | 14.5 ± 0.7 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 3.3–3.9 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Ppag | DFC | −16.6 ± 0.5 | 15.8 ± 0.5 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 3.8 | 3.5–4.0 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Scant | DFC | −17 ± 0.6 | 15.3 ± 0.5 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 3.7 | 3.4–4.0 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 4 | Lber | BIF | −17.4 ± 1 | 13.8 ± 0.6 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 2.8–3.8 |
| Actinopterygii |
| 7 | Ssol | BIF | −17.2 ± 1.4 | 14.1 ± 0.4 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 3.3 | 3.1–3.6 |
| Chondrichthyes |
| 7 | Rund | SBF | −16 ± 0.6 | 14.6 ± 0.4 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 4.1 | 3.8–4.5 |
| Chondrichthyes |
| 7 | Scani | DFC | −16.8 ± 0.3 | 14.6 ± 0.4 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 4.3 | 3.9–4.7 |
| Cephalopoda | 7 | Allo | DFC | −18.6 ± 0.5 | 14.6 ± 1.3 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 4.4 | 3.7–5.2 | |
| Cephalopoda |
| 7 | Soff | DFC | −17.3 ± 0.2 | 14.7 ± 0.4 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 4.2 | 3.7–4.8 |
| Decapoda |
| 9 | Aund | BIF | −17.1 ± 0.8 | 12.5 ± 0.5 | > 2.8 | NA | 3.2 | 2.9–3.6 |
| Decapoda |
| 7 | Cpag | BIF | −17.3 ± 0.5 | 13.9 ± 0.7 | 3.1 | NA | 3.8 | 3.4–4.4 |
| Decapoda |
| 7 | Npub | BIF | −16.9 ± 0.3 | 12.9 ± 0.6 | 2.6 | NA | 3.5 | 3.1–4.0 |
| Decapoda |
| 7 | Mbra | BIF | −16.8 ± 0.4 | 13.3 ± 0.7 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 3.6 | 3.2–4.2 |
| Decapoda | 7 | Pagu | BIF | −16.2 ± 0.5 | 12.9 ± 0.3 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 3.4 | 3.1–3.9 | |
| Decapoda | 7 | Cran | SBF | −15.3 ± 1.2 | 13.9 ± 0.2 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 3.5–4.4 | |
| Gasteropoda |
| 7 | Bund | BIF | −16.4 ± 0.5 | 13.4 ± 0.7 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 3.7 | 3.3–4.4 |
| Polychaeta |
| 6 | Aacu | BIF | −16.6 ± 0.7 | 13.7 ± 0.7 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 3.8 | 3.3–4.5 |
* = Mean and SE calculated via randomized resampling of diet items when diet proportions were not available [50, 51].
Fig 2Stable isotope composition of the species sampled in the Bay of Bourgneuf.
Data is presented as mean ± SD and species are organized in 6 different trophic groups according to hierarchical clustering. BPC = Benthic primary consumers (green). PPC = Pelagic primary consumers (light blue). PSC = Pelagic secondary consumers (blue). BIF = Benthic invertebrates and fish (black). SBF = Shrimps and benthic fish (grey). DFC = Demersal fish and cephalopods (red). Consumers’ abbreviations are provided in Table 1.
Stable isotope mixing models depicting the assimilated diet of 10 taxa with prior knowledge of important discard ingestion in the Bay of Biscay (France).
Food sources were combined in 6 groups a priori using a hierarchical clustering approach: BPC = Benthic primary consumers, SBF = Shrimps and benthic fish, BIF = Benthic invertebrates and fish, DFC = Demersal fish and cephalopods, PPC = Pelagic primary consumers and PSC = Pelagic secondary consumers. Contributions are presented as mode and 95% credible intervals of diet proportions. NA = source not included in the model. See Material and methods and Table 1 for the list of taxa included within each food source group.
| Consumer | BPC | SBF—BIF | DFC | PSC | PPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42% (21–57) | 30% (3–54) | 14% (1–38) | 12% (1–43) | NA | |
| 39% (18–56) | 13% (1–32) | 20% (2–39) | 28% (4–55) | NA | |
| NA | 7% (0–28) | 19% (2–39) | 72% (53–89) | ||
| 41% (19–57) | 10% (1–28) | 24% (3–41) | 25% (4–52) | NA | |
| 87% (70–96) | 4% (0–17) | 3% (0–11) | 4% (0–19) | NA | |
| 56% (32–74) | 11% (1–30) | 12% (1–30) | 18% (1–47) | NA | |
| 74% (54–88) | 15% (1–33) | 5% (0–19) | 4% (0–21) | NA | |
| 67% (48–83) | 18% (2–35) | 6% (0–24) | 6% (0–27) | NA | |
| 57% (31–75) | 24% (3–44) | 8% (0–29) | 8% (0–39) | NA | |
| 63% (41–78) | 25% (5–45) | 5% (0–23) | 5% (0–25) | NA | |
* = PSC and PPC sources were pooled together in Alloteuthis spp. mixing models. SBF and BIF sources were pooled in all models.