Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9klzr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-21T06:18:09.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding habits of the seahorse Hippocampus patagonicus in San Antonio Bay (Patagonia, Argentina)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

Lorena P. Storero  and
Raúl A. González
Lorena P. Storero*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquera Almirante Storni, Ministerio de Producción de Río Negro/Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Güemes 1030, 8520 San Antonio Oeste, Río Negro, Argentina
Raúl A. González
Affiliation:
Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquera Almirante Storni, Ministerio de Producción de Río Negro/Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Güemes 1030, 8520 San Antonio Oeste, Río Negro, Argentina
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Lorena P. Storero, Instituto de Biología Marina y Pesquera Almirante Storni, Ministerio de Producción de Río Negro/Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Güemes 1030, 8520 San Antonio Oeste, Río Negro, Argentina email: lorestorero@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dietary composition of the Patagonian seahorse Hippocampus patagonicus in San Antonio Bay, Patagonia, Argentina. To this end, analyses of stomach and gut contents were carried out and the diet composition was compared to the potential preys available in the natural environment. Samples were collected from different places in San Antonio Bay, a Marine Protected Area in San Matías Gulf. Type and number of prey present in the digestive tracts were registered and frequency of occurrence (%FO) and number of prey (%N) were calculated for each study area. Amphipods (Gammaridae, Caprellidae and Hiperidae) and decapods are the main dietary items of H. patagonicus in San Antonio Bay. There were differences in %FO and %N at different sites, which could indicate differences in abundance and availability of prey in the environment. No dietary differences were detected between sex and size of seahorse (ANOVA, P > 0.05). Results from the present study show that, in nature and probably due to limiting environmental factors, H. patagonicus behaves as an opportunistic predator, which preys on the most abundant and vulnerable species present in the environment.

Keywords

Patagonian seahorseHippocampus patagonicusfeeding habitsamphipodscrustacea
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 88 , Issue 7 , November 2008 , pp. 1503 - 1508
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alonso de Pina, G.M. (1997) Records of intertidal amphipods from the southwest atlantic, with the description of a new species of Elasmopus. Journal of Crustacean Biology 17, 754–757.Google Scholar
Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of threatened species. A global species assessment. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.Google Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J.L. and Townsend, C.R. (1995) Ecología. Individuos, poblaciones y comunidades. Barcelona: Ediciones Omega, SA.Google Scholar
Bres, M. (1986) A new look at optimal foraging behaviour; rule of thumb in the rainbow trout. Journal of Fish Biology 29 (Supplement A), 25–36.Google Scholar
Caraco, T. and Gillespie, R.G. (1986) Risk-sensitive: foraging mode in an ambush predator. Ecology 67, 1180–1185.Google Scholar
Castillo-Rivera, M., Kobelkowsky, A. and Chavez, A.M. (2000) Feeding biology of the flatfish Citharichthys spilopterus in a tropical estuary of Mexico. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 16, 73–78.Google Scholar
D'Entremont, J. (2002) Sex-related differences in feeding behaviour and diet in Hippocampus guttulatus. In Foster, S.J. and Vincent, A.C.J. (eds) Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for conservation and management. Journal of Fish Biology 65, 1–61.Google Scholar
Foster, S. and Vincent, A. (2004) Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for conservation and management. Journal of Fish Biology 65, 1–61.Google Scholar
Herald, E. and Rakowicz, M. (1951) Stable requirements for raising seahorses. Aquarium Journal 22, 234–242.Google Scholar
James, P.L. and Heck, K.L. (1994) The effects of habitat complexity and light intensity on ambush predation within a simulated seagrass habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 176, 187–200.Google Scholar
Kitsos, M.S., Tzomos, Th., Anagnostopoulou, L. and Koukouras, A. (2008) Diet composition of the seahorses, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier, 1829 and Hippocampus hippocampus (L., 1758) (Teleostei, Syngnathidae) in the Aegean Sea. Journal of Fish Biology 72, 1259–1267.Google Scholar
Kuiter, R. (2001) Revision of the Australian seahorses of the genus Hippocampus (Syngnathiformes: Syngnathidae) with descriptions of nine new species. Records of the Australian Museum 53, 293–340.Google Scholar
Lin, Q., Gao, Y., Sheng, J., Chen, Q., Zhang, B. and Lu, J. (2007) The effects of food and the sum of effective temperature on the embryonic development of the seahorse, Hippocampus kuda Bleeker. Aquaculture 262, 481–492.Google Scholar
Lourie, S., Vincent, A. and Hall, H. (1999) Seahorses: an identification guide to the world's species and their conservation. London, UK: Project Seahorse.Google Scholar
Martinez-Cárdenas, L. and Purser, G.J. (2007) Effect of tank colour on Artemia ingestion, growth and survival in cultured early juvenile pot-bellied seahorses (Hippocampus abdominalis). Aquaculture 264, 92–100.Google Scholar
Molinero, A. and Flos, R. (1991) Influence of sex and age on the feeding habits of the common sole Solea solea. Marine Biology 111, 493–501.Google Scholar
Okuda, N. (1999) Female mating strategy and male brood cannibalism in a sand-dwelling cardinalfish. Animal Behaviour 58, 273–279.Google Scholar
Rosa, I.M.L., Alves, R.R.N., Bonifácio, K.M., Mourão, J.S., Osório, F.M., Oliveira, T.P.R. and Nottingham M., C. (2005) Fishers' knowledge and seahorse conservation in Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1, 12.Google Scholar
Scarratt, A. (1996) Techniques for raising lined seahorses (Hippocampus erectus). Aquarium Frontiers 3, 24–29.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. (1995) About seahorses. SeaScope 12, Aquarium Systems, 2 pp.Google Scholar
Schnack, E., Aliotta, S., Isla, F. and Lizasoain, G. (1996) Formas de fondo asociadas a un delta de reflujo macromareal, San Antonio Oeste, Provincia de Río Negro, Argentina. Thalassas 12, 121–135.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. and Rohlf, F. (1979) Biometría: principios y métodos estadísticos en la investigación biológica. España: H. Blume Ediciones.Google Scholar
Storero, L. (2004) Hábitos alimentarios y comportamiento trófico del caballito de mar Hippocampus sp. en la Bahía de San Antonio (Río Negro). Tesis de grado. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.Google Scholar
Takeyama, T., Okuda, N. and Yanagisawa, Y. (2007) Filial cannibalism as a conditional strategy in males of a paternal mouthbrooding fish. Evolutionary Ecology 21, 109–119.Google Scholar
Teixeira, R.L. and Musick, J.A. (2001) Reproduction and food habits of the lined seahorse, Hippocampus erectus (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) of Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Revista Brasileira de Biología 61, 79–90.Google Scholar
Tipton, K. and Bell, S.S. (1988) Foraging patterns of two sygnathid fishes: importance of harpacticoid copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series 47, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Georgia (2000) University of Georgia Geneticist Among The First To Study Genetic Mating Systems of Fishes and Turtles. Science Daily. Retrieved 23 May 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001013074520.htmGoogle Scholar
Vincent, A. (1994) Seahorses exhibit conventional sex role in mating competition, despite male pregnancy. Behaviour 128, 135–151.Google Scholar
Vincent, A. (1995) A role for daily greetings in maintaining seahorse pair bonds. Animal Behaviour 49, 258–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. and Vincent, A. (1999) Preliminary success in closing the life cycle of exploited seahorse species Hippocampus spp., in captivity. Aquarium Sciences and Conservation 2, 179–196.Google Scholar
Woods, C. (2000) Preliminary observations on breeding and rearing the seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) in captivity. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 34, 475–485.Google Scholar
Woods, C. (2002) Natural diet of the seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 36, 655–660.Google Scholar
Woods, C. (2005) Growth of cultured seahorses (Hippocampus abdominalis) in relation to feed ration. Aquaculture International 13, 305–314.Google Scholar
Woods, C. and Valentino, F. (2003) Frozen mysids as an alternative to live Artemia in culturing seahorses Hippocampus abdominalis. Aquaculture Research 34, 757–763.Google Scholar
Xie, S., Cui, Y., Zhang, T. and Li, Z. (2000) Seasonal patterns in feeding ecology of three small fishes in the Biandantang Lake, China. Journal of Fish Biology 57, 867–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar