Yaqiu Liu, Xinhui Li, Weitao Chen, Guangpeng Feng, Fangchan Chen, Jie Li, Qiong Zhou
Fish dietary niche is a core focus, and it reflects the diversity of resources, habitats, or environments occupied by a species. However, whether geographic segregation among different populations triggers dietary diversification and concomitant fish niche shift remains unknown. In the present study, we selected the Black Amur bream () is a migratory fish species that plays an important role in the material transfer and energy cycling of river ecosystems, inhabiting southern China drainage with multiple geographic populations. Here, we utilized the combined analyses of 18S rDNA high-throughput sequencing in fish gut contents and fatty acid (FA) in muscle tissues to evaluate potential spatial patterns of habitat and resource use for in three rivers of southern China. Our results showed that prey items of the Xijiang (XR) population (Pearl River) exhibited the highest species diversity and richness among the three geographic populations. Moreover, diet composition of was affected by spatial differences associated with geographic segregation. Analyses of FA biomarkers indicated that the highest levels of C16:0, C18:3n-3, and C18:2n-6c were found in Wanquan (WS) population (Wanquan River). The XR population exhibited a distinct FA profile characterized by higher amounts of arachidonic acid (ARA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The Moyang (MY) population (Moyang River) acted as the linkage between WS and XR populations and consisted of middle levels of saturated FAs (SFAs) and polyunsaturated FAs (PUFAs). The XR population displayed a greater FA niche width compared with WS population. Furthermore, we observed a close positive relationship between the niche width and α-diversity indices of dietary resources for FA proflies. Our study provides valued information to develop different conservation strategies among different populations and improve fisheries management for and other endemic species in local rivers.
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39341
[PMID:
22768075]
Lipids. 2016 Oct;51(10):1193-1206
[PMID:
27631676]
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 18;8(6):e65923
[PMID:
23824177]
Ecol Evol. 2021 Apr 04;11(10):5150-5163
[PMID:
34025998]
Sci Total Environ. 2008 Aug 1;400(1-3):369-78
[PMID:
18644618]
Mol Ecol. 2019 Jan;28(2):391-406
[PMID:
29858539]
PLoS One. 2009 Jul 27;4(7):e6372
[PMID:
19633714]
Lipids. 2015 Mar;50(3):283-302
[PMID:
25519933]
Ecol Lett. 2007 Jun;10(6):522-38
[PMID:
17498151]
Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
[PMID:
20383131]
Front Microbiol. 2022 Apr 08;13:858454
[PMID:
35464925]
Bioinformatics. 2011 Aug 15;27(16):2194-200
[PMID:
21700674]
Sci Adv. 2018 May 02;4(5):eaar6849
[PMID:
29732410]
Ecology. 2022 Dec;103(12):e3818
[PMID:
35852891]
Ecol Evol. 2024 Apr 16;14(4):e11226
[PMID:
38628924]
Sci Total Environ. 2015 Dec 1;536:858-865
[PMID:
26282609]
Ecol Evol. 2019 Jan 10;9(3):1410-1430
[PMID:
30805170]
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Dec;75(23):7537-41
[PMID:
19801464]
Adv Mar Biol. 2003;46:225-340
[PMID:
14601414]
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 27;8(11):e82168
[PMID:
24312405]
Genome Res. 2011 Mar;21(3):494-504
[PMID:
21212162]
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(5):2320-5
[PMID:
17406474]
Nat Methods. 2013 Oct;10(10):996-8
[PMID:
23955772]
Mol Ecol. 2012 Apr;21(8):1931-50
[PMID:
22171763]
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 9;11(1):5488
[PMID:
33658626]
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 11;15(6):e0234250
[PMID:
32525959]
Mol Biol Evol. 2021 Sep 27;38(10):4238-4251
[PMID:
34003267]
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6
[PMID:
23193283]
Bioinformatics. 2011 Nov 1;27(21):2957-63
[PMID:
21903629]
Ecol Evol. 2021 Mar 30;11(10):5584-5597
[PMID:
34026031]
Mol Ecol Resour. 2010 Jan;10(1):96-108
[PMID:
21564994]
ISME J. 2020 Jul;14(7):1675-1687
[PMID:
32238913]
Nat Ecol Evol. 2021 Mar;5(3):330-337
[PMID:
33495591]
Ecol Lett. 2007 Oct;10(10):937-44
[PMID:
17845294]
Gene. 2020 May 5;737:144478
[PMID:
32061762]
J Anim Ecol. 2022 Oct;91(10):2061-2073
[PMID:
35869605]
