Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms
Identifieur interne : 001214 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001213; suivant : 001215Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms
Auteurs : E. Dejen ; F. A. SibbingSource :
- Journal of Fish Biology [ 0022-1112 ] ; 2003-12.
Abstract
Gut contents of two co‐occurring species of ‘small’ diploid barbs (<10 LF cm) in Lake Tana revealed that zooplankton is the major diet component for B. tanapelagius(75% based on volume), but less prominent in B. humilis(40%). Functional response experiments in the laboratory were conducted to elucidate the mechanisms causing this difference. The type of functional response by the two ‘small’ barbs under different microcrustacean zooplankton densities (10, 20, 40, 60 and 80 ind.l−1) was examined. The functional response of B. tanapelagius to increasing prey densities corroborates with Holling Type II model, whereas B. humilis exhibits a Type III functional response. Predation rate is higher for B. tanapelagius at low zooplankton density (<40 ind.l−1) and equals the level of B. humilis at higher densities (>40 ind.l−1). This suggests that at lower zooplankton densities B. humilis is a less efficient forager on zooplankton prey items than B. tanapelagius. In Lake Tana average zooplankton density is relatively low (<35 ind.l−1). Under these food conditions, B. humilis is forced to feed on other food items (e.g. benthic invertebrates), whereas B. tanapelagius primarily feeds on zooplankton. The feeding potentials of the two ‘small’ barbs, as deduced from their morphology explain their different performances and their segregation in space and food resources.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.0216i.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65BLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title><author><name sortKey="Dejen, E" sort="Dejen, E" uniqKey="Dejen E" first="E." last="Dejen">E. Dejen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sibbing, F A" sort="Sibbing, F A" uniqKey="Sibbing F" first="F. A." last="Sibbing">F. A. Sibbing</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.0216i.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001214</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001214</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title><author><name sortKey="Dejen, E" sort="Dejen, E" uniqKey="Dejen E" first="E." last="Dejen">E. Dejen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sibbing, F A" sort="Sibbing, F A" uniqKey="Sibbing F" first="F. A." last="Sibbing">F. A. Sibbing</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Fish Biology</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno><idno type="eISSN">1095-8649</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12">2003-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">63</biblScope><biblScope unit="supplement">s1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="229">229</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="230">230</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno></series><idno type="istex">668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.0216i.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JFB216I</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Gut contents of two co‐occurring species of ‘small’ diploid barbs (<10 LF cm) in Lake Tana revealed that zooplankton is the major diet component for B. tanapelagius(75% based on volume), but less prominent in B. humilis(40%). Functional response experiments in the laboratory were conducted to elucidate the mechanisms causing this difference. The type of functional response by the two ‘small’ barbs under different microcrustacean zooplankton densities (10, 20, 40, 60 and 80 ind.l−1) was examined. The functional response of B. tanapelagius to increasing prey densities corroborates with Holling Type II model, whereas B. humilis exhibits a Type III functional response. Predation rate is higher for B. tanapelagius at low zooplankton density (<40 ind.l−1) and equals the level of B. humilis at higher densities (>40 ind.l−1). This suggests that at lower zooplankton densities B. humilis is a less efficient forager on zooplankton prey items than B. tanapelagius. In Lake Tana average zooplankton density is relatively low (<35 ind.l−1). Under these food conditions, B. humilis is forced to feed on other food items (e.g. benthic invertebrates), whereas B. tanapelagius primarily feeds on zooplankton. The feeding potentials of the two ‘small’ barbs, as deduced from their morphology explain their different performances and their segregation in space and food resources.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>E. Dejen</name><affiliations><json:string>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>F. A. Sibbing</name><affiliations><json:string>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>JFB216I</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>abstract</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Gut contents of two co‐occurring species of ‘small’ diploid barbs (>10 LF cm) in Lake Tana revealed that zooplankton is the major diet component for B. tanapelagius(75% based on volume), but less prominent in B. humilis(40%). Functional response experiments in the laboratory were conducted to elucidate the mechanisms causing this difference. The type of functional response by the two ‘small’ barbs under different microcrustacean zooplankton densities (10, 20, 40, 60 and 80 ind.l−1) was examined. The functional response of B. tanapelagius to increasing prey densities corroborates with Holling Type II model, whereas B. humilis exhibits a Type III functional response. Predation rate is higher for B. tanapelagius at low zooplankton density (>40 ind.l−1) and equals the level of B. humilis at higher densities (>40 ind.l−1). This suggests that at lower zooplankton densities B. humilis is a less efficient forager on zooplankton prey items than B. tanapelagius. In Lake Tana average zooplankton density is relatively low (>35 ind.l−1). Under these food conditions, B. humilis is forced to feed on other food items (e.g. benthic invertebrates), whereas B. tanapelagius primarily feeds on zooplankton. The feeding potentials of the two ‘small’ barbs, as deduced from their morphology explain their different performances and their segregation in space and food resources.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.9</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>488 x 703 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1374</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>17483</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>110276</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>34</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>200</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title><genre><json:string>abstract</json:string></genre><host><volume>63</volume><publisherId><json:string>JFB</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>2</total><last>230</last><first>229</first></pages><issn><json:string>0022-1112</json:string></issn><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1095-8649</json:string></eissn><title>Journal of Fish Biology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>marine & freshwater biology</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>applied sciences</json:string><json:string>agriculture, fisheries & forestry</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.0216i.x</json:string></doi><id>668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B</id><score>0.03232246</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2003</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">E.</forename><surname>Dejen</surname></persName><affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">F. A.</forename><surname>Sibbing</surname></persName><affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Fish Biology</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-1112</idno><idno type="eISSN">1095-8649</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12"></date><biblScope unit="volume">63</biblScope><biblScope unit="supplement">s1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="229">229</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="230">230</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.0216i.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JFB216I</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2003</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Gut contents of two co‐occurring species of ‘small’ diploid barbs (<10 LF cm) in Lake Tana revealed that zooplankton is the major diet component for B. tanapelagius(75% based on volume), but less prominent in B. humilis(40%). Functional response experiments in the laboratory were conducted to elucidate the mechanisms causing this difference. The type of functional response by the two ‘small’ barbs under different microcrustacean zooplankton densities (10, 20, 40, 60 and 80 ind.l−1) was examined. The functional response of B. tanapelagius to increasing prey densities corroborates with Holling Type II model, whereas B. humilis exhibits a Type III functional response. Predation rate is higher for B. tanapelagius at low zooplankton density (<40 ind.l−1) and equals the level of B. humilis at higher densities (>40 ind.l−1). This suggests that at lower zooplankton densities B. humilis is a less efficient forager on zooplankton prey items than B. tanapelagius. In Lake Tana average zooplankton density is relatively low (<35 ind.l−1). Under these food conditions, B. humilis is forced to feed on other food items (e.g. benthic invertebrates), whereas B. tanapelagius primarily feeds on zooplankton. The feeding potentials of the two ‘small’ barbs, as deduced from their morphology explain their different performances and their segregation in space and food resources.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2003-12">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-02-9">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</doi><issn type="print">0022-1112</issn><issn type="electronic">1095-8649</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JFB"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY">Journal of Fish Biology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12000"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jfb.2003.63.issue-s1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="63">63</numbering><numbering type="supplement">s1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2003-12">December 2003</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="abstract" position="0022900" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.0216i.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JFB216I"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="2"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Abstracts of Oral Papers not published in the Supplement</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2003-12-19"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2003-12-19"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-02-28"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="229">229</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="230">230</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JFB.JFB216i.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="0"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’<i>Barbus</i> spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title><title type="shortAuthors"><sc>Paper Abstracts</sc></title><title type="short"><sc>Paper Abstracts</sc></title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a31"><personName><givenNames>E.</givenNames><familyName>Dejen</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a31"><personName><givenNames>F. A.</givenNames><familyName>Sibbing</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a31" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>(<sup>*</sup>Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>Gut contents of two co‐occurring species of ‘small’ diploid barbs (<10 <i>L</i><sub>F</sub> cm) in Lake Tana revealed that zooplankton is the major diet component for <i>B. tanapelagius</i>(75% based on volume), but less prominent in <i>B. humilis</i>(40%). Functional response experiments in the laboratory were conducted to elucidate the mechanisms causing this difference. The type of functional response by the two ‘small’ barbs under different microcrustacean zooplankton densities (10, 20, 40, 60 and 80 ind.l<sup>−1</sup>) was examined. The functional response of <i>B. tanapelagius</i> to increasing prey densities corroborates with Holling Type II model, whereas <i>B. humilis</i> exhibits a Type III functional response. Predation rate is higher for <i>B. tanapelagius</i> at low zooplankton density (<40 ind.l<sup>−1</sup>) and equals the level of <i>B. humilis</i> at higher densities (>40 ind.l<sup>−1</sup>). This suggests that at lower zooplankton densities <i>B. humilis</i> is a less efficient forager on zooplankton prey items than <i>B. tanapelagius</i>. In Lake Tana average zooplankton density is relatively low (<35 ind.l<sup>−1</sup>). Under these food conditions, <i>B. humilis</i> is forced to feed on other food items (e.g. benthic invertebrates), whereas <i>B. tanapelagius</i> primarily feeds on zooplankton. The feeding potentials of the two ‘small’ barbs, as deduced from their morphology explain their different performances and their segregation in space and food resources.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Paper Abstracts</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Dejen</namePart><affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">F. A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Sibbing</namePart><affiliation>(*Experimental Zoology Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands).</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="abstract" displayLabel="abstract"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2003-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Gut contents of two co‐occurring species of ‘small’ diploid barbs (<10 LF cm) in Lake Tana revealed that zooplankton is the major diet component for B. tanapelagius(75% based on volume), but less prominent in B. humilis(40%). Functional response experiments in the laboratory were conducted to elucidate the mechanisms causing this difference. The type of functional response by the two ‘small’ barbs under different microcrustacean zooplankton densities (10, 20, 40, 60 and 80 ind.l−1) was examined. The functional response of B. tanapelagius to increasing prey densities corroborates with Holling Type II model, whereas B. humilis exhibits a Type III functional response. Predation rate is higher for B. tanapelagius at low zooplankton density (<40 ind.l−1) and equals the level of B. humilis at higher densities (>40 ind.l−1). This suggests that at lower zooplankton densities B. humilis is a less efficient forager on zooplankton prey items than B. tanapelagius. In Lake Tana average zooplankton density is relatively low (<35 ind.l−1). Under these food conditions, B. humilis is forced to feed on other food items (e.g. benthic invertebrates), whereas B. tanapelagius primarily feeds on zooplankton. The feeding potentials of the two ‘small’ barbs, as deduced from their morphology explain their different performances and their segregation in space and food resources.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Fish Biology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0022-1112</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1095-8649</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JFB</identifier><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>63</number></detail><detail type="supplement"><caption>Suppl. no.</caption><number>s1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>229</start><end>230</end><total>2</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.0216i.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JFB216I</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Eau/explor/EsturgeonV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001214 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001214 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Eau
|area= EsturgeonV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:668190B4A78B4E1F1DE4BECFC5A510289B1ED65B
|texte= Diet segregation between two sympatric ‘small’Barbus spp: an experimental study of mechanisms
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.27. |  |