Printer Friendly

Variacion espacio temporal de la ictiofauna del Parque Estatal Ilha do Cardoso, Sao Paulo, Brasil.

Spatio-temporal variation in surf zone fish communities at Ilha do Cardoso State Park, Sao Paulo, Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Beach surf zones are considered feeding and growth areas for a large number of fish species at juvenile and larval stage due to the turbidity, turbulence and shallowness that characterized this habitat. These same characteristics also inhibit use by large-sized fish, thus offering the young fish protection against predators (Lasiak, 1981; McLachlan et al, 1981; Gaelzer & Zalmon, 2003). Although the primary production "in situ" is not high, the tidal effect distributes the nutrients and minerals through the surf zone community (Carter, 1988), favoring the phyto and zooplankton bloom in the surf zone (Spring & Woodbum, 1960; Ferreira et al., 2010). This can be used as food resources for many fish species. Beaches adjacent to estuaries also serve as migration routes for various fish at larval or juvenile stage, that spend one or more stages of their life cycle within estuaries (Cowley et al., 2001; Watt-Pringle & Strydom, 2003).

Various environmental factors influence the surf zone fish community structure. Low diversity and high dominance of a few fish species are explained mainly by the extreme beach hydrodynamics (Clark et al., 1996a, 1997). Most fish species present in such environments are classified as non-resident, and occur in the surf zone only at certain times of the year (Brown & McLachlan, 1990; Felix et al., 2007a), or stages of their life cycle (Modde, 1980; Layman, 2000).

Several fish communities have been described mainly based on the spatio-temporal variations, indicating some patterns: as the level of the beach exposure increases it is observed an increase in dominance and decrease in the fish abundance and richness (Romer, 1990; Teixeira & Almeida, 1998; Felix et al., 2007b; Vasconcellos et al., 2007); and a greater fish diversity and richness during the warmer months (Bennett, 1989; Gianinni & Paiva-Filho, 1995; Clark, 1996b; Godefroid et al., 2003; Araujo et al., 2008; Lima & Vieira, 2009).

Studies in Brazilian beaches have mainly examined the structure and spatio-temporal variation on fish communities (Paiva-Filho & Toscano, 1987; Giannini & Paiva-Filho, 1995; Saul & Cunningham, 1995; Gaelzer & Zalmon, 2003; Gomes et al., 2003; Araujo et al., 2008; Oliveira-Silva et al., 2008; Lima & Vieira, 2009), the day and night fish composition and structure variability (Pessanha & Araujo, 2003; Gaelzer & Zalmon, 2008a), the beach dynamics and morphology influence upon fish communities (Felix et al., 2007a; Vasconcellos et al., 2007), the tidal influence (Godefroid et al., 1998; Gaelzer & Zalmon, 2008b; Felix et al., 2010), and the trophic aspects (Stefanoni, 2008).

There are few studies about surf zone fish communities in the Sao Paulo State coast (Paiva-Filho & Toscano, 1987; Giannini & Paiva-Filho, 1995; Saul & Cunningham, 1995), and none in the State Park. Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the spatio-temporal variation in abundance and structure of fish communities at Ilha do Cardoso State Park, Sao Paulo State, Brazil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sampling methods

The beaches studied are located in the Ilha do Cardoso State Park, south of Sao Paulo coast, Brazil (Fig. 1). They were named as "Sheltered", "Moderate" and "Exposed", according to their exposure level. The beach exposure was classified based mainly on their geographical location. Although no studies were found that characterize the morphology of these beaches, it could be observed, during the surveys, that the more into the channel, smaller wave heights and more silty sediments. The slope of the beaches can be used as an index of exposure level, and was calculated from a transect perpendicular to the shore down to 5 m isobath, using the nautical chart number 175.

Fishes were sampled monthly over one year, from February 2009 to January 2010. On each beach and tide, four consecutive hauls, of approximately 30 m each, were made using a beach seine net, 9 m long and 1.5 m height, with a stretched mesh size of 5 mm, totaling 24 fish samples per month. All samples were collected at low and high spring tide. Low tide was sampled at its morning peak while the high tide was usually sampled at the beginning of the afternoon, at a time close to its peak. At the start of the first haul and at the end of the last one, on each beach, the water temperature was measured with a mercury thermometer and the water salinity with a refractometer.

All fish collected were identified following Figueiredo & Menezes (1978, 1980, 2000); Menezes & Figueiredo (1980, 1985) and Richards (2006). Due to the difficulty in identifying juvenile Mugilidae and the lack of adequate bibliography for the specific distinction within this family in Brazilian southeast coast, all mugilids collected were separated based on Vieira (1991). The following nomenclatures were used: Mugil hospes (previously Mugil gaimardianus), Mugil liza (previously Mugil platanus) according to Menezes et al. (2010), Mugil 1 for mugilids that were identified by their anal fin having 13 elements (two spines and 11 rays) and Mugil 2 with two spines and eight rays on the anal fin.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

These fish were then measured to the nearest 1 mm (standard length) and weighted (g), except when samples were too large. In these occasions, measurements were restricted to a subsample of 50 individuals per species, done at random. The excess was weighted, counted and incorporated as weight and number counts. In addition, sex (male, female or non-identified) and maturity stages were documented for the subsample through direct observation, according to Vazzoler (1996) and Dias et al. (1998). Juvenile fish were separated from larvae by the presence of scales.

Data analysis

Analysis of variance (one way ANOVA) was used to test the significance differences between the abiotic data of water temperature and salinity, when calculated monthly, per beach and per tide. Tukey post-hoc tests were conducted to evaluate between-mean differences. The analysis of non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) was used to identify possible patterns among samples, in terms of water temperature and salinity. Groupings found were tested by the analysis of similarity (ANOSIM). The abiotic data was transformed by log (x+1), and Euclidean distance was used.

Fish numerical abundance was used to calculate ecological indexes: dominance, Shannon diversity, Margalef richness, and evenness according to Begon et al. (2006). Only the occurrence constancy (C) was calculated according to Dajoz (1983), who classifies the species as: constant C [greater than or equal to] 50, accessory 50< C >25 and accidental C [less than or equal to] 25. The differences among indexes were tested using the Bootstrap method, with 95% confidence.

The influence of each abiotic variable upon the fish community was assessed by Canonic Correspondence Analysis (CCA) (Legendre & Legendre, 1998), and the distribution of the species in relation to the significant abiotic variables was determined by CANOCO. Rare species, those with less than 0.2% relative abundance, were eliminated from the biotic matrix that contained the species numerical abundance in each sample. The abiotic data, after a first analysis using a single matrix, were divided into three matrices: environmental (salinity and temperature), temporal (high tide, low tide and months) and spatio (sheltered, moderate and exposed beach). In all analyses the biological data were transformed by log (x+1), and low weight was given to rare species. The percentage of explanation of each abiotic variable, their interaction and the non-explainable, was calculated according to Borcard et al. (1992).

RESULTS

Environmental data

Water temperature varied over the sampling period following a seasonal pattern. Lowest values occurred between May-October and highest from November to April (Fig. 2a). Water temperature did not change among beaches (Fig. 3a), and among different tides (Fig. 4a). The maximum temperature was 30[degrees]C in April and the minimum was 18[degrees]C in August.

There was no significant difference among the water salinity over the months (Fig. 2b). The highest water salinity was obtained on the Exposed beach (maximum 36) followed by the moderate and then by the sheltered one (minimum 10) (Fig. 3b). Highest water salinity was measured at high tide (Fig. 4b).

The nMDS analysis enabled the visualization of two abiotic sample groups, being the cooler months correlated positively with the second axis, while those with greater salinity correlated negatively with the first axis (Fig. 5). The ANOSIM routine separated the two groups (R = 0.63, P < 0.0001).

The beach slope was higher at sheltered (8.2%), than at moderate (5.4%), and exposed (1.9%).

Species composition

A total of 7,286 fish from 20 families and 47 species was collected. The families Mugilidae (37.0%), Carangidae (23.0%), Gerreidae (15.1%), Atherinopsidae (9.3%), Engraulidae (8.3%), Sciaenidae (3.6%) and Clupeidae (2.3%) contributed with 98.6% of total catch. Mugil curema (17.6%), Gerreidae larvae (16.7%), Mugil hospes (15.7%), Trachinotus carolinus (15.5%), Atherinella brasiliensis (9.2%) and Anchoa tricolor (4.6%) were the six most representative species. A predominance of accidental species occurrence was observed, only T. carolinus and Trachinotus goodei were classified as constant, and A. brasiliensis, Oligoplites saliens, M. hospes, Mugil liza, M. curema, Menticirrhus littoralis, Engraulidae and Gerreidae larvae were considered as accessory (Table 1).

Total catch weight was 14,727.11 g. Atherinopsidae (35.5%) and Carangidae (32.2%) equaled 67.6% of biomass. A. brasilensis (35.3%), T. goodei (11.6%), O. saliens (9.5%) and T. carolinus (9.1%) were the species with greatest abundance in terms of biomass. Strongylura timucu, Paralichthys orbignyanus and Sphoeroides testudineus represented the species with greatest standard length. The smaller individuals belonged to T. carolinus, Oligoplites sp., M. littoralis and Gerreidae larvae. Among the specimens with greater range in standard length, more than 100 mm, were S. timucu, T. goodei, M. littoralis, O. saliens and A. brasiliensis. 78% of the specimens measured between 4 and 60 mm, and the standard length modal class predominance was 21 to 40 mm, totaling 34%.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

In most individuals, the sex could not be identified due to their small standard length, or the gonads were not located or were very small, disabling macroscopic classification. These individuals totaled 88.2% of the total sampled, with only 7.8% and 4.0% of females and males, respectively. Among females, there was little presence of mature and spent gonads (5.5% and 1.3% respectively). No hydrated gonad was observed. The immature (39.7%) and maturing (53.4%) stages were the most abundant. Individuals that could not be classified due to their small standard length were considered as immature and/or juvenile.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Atherinella brasiliensis was the only species represented by adult (N = 176), juvenile (N = 497) and larvae stage (N = 1). S. testudineus and S. timucu were represented byadults (N=2) andjuveniles (N=9). P. orbignyanus was represented by a single adult individual. M. littoralis, M. americanus and the Engraulidae were sampled in their juvenile and larvae stages, while Porichthys porosissimus, Elops saurus, Micropogonias furnieri and all the Gerreidae were collected only in larval stage.

Spatio-temporal variation

Although the greater quantity of specimens was collected on the Exposed beach, it presented the least richness among the beaches (Table 2). There was no significant difference in richness values between the Sheltered and Moderate beaches, but the latter presented the smallest number of individuals obtained. The Moderate beach was more diverse than the Sheltered followed by the Exposed one, which in turn showed the highest dominant values (Table 2). The dominant species at Exposed beach were M. hospes and T. carolinus. The Gerreidae larvae and A. brasiliensis were abundant at the Sheltered beach, while M. curema and T. carolinus were abundant at the Moderate beach.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Highest diversity and richness values were obtained at low tide, in addition to a greater quantity of individuals. There was no significant difference in the evenness value, and at high tide dominance was greater than at low tide (Table 2). The Gerreidae larvae and T. carolinus dominated the sampling during high tide.

The greatest quantity of individuals was collected in months with higher water temperatures. The Margalef richness, Shannon diversity and Pielou's evenness indexes varied similarly, with October being the month with the highest values of the three indexes, in spite of the small quantity of specimens collected at that time. After October, March and January presented high diversity and richness values, while the evenness was followed by May and March. The least rich and diverse months were August, September and November, and the latter had, in addition, the least evenness. November and September showed high dominance due to the large capture of gerreids and A. brasiliensis, respectively (Fig. 6).

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

T. carolinus, T. goodei and A. brasiliensis were collected during the entire year. O. saliens only did not occur in August, and M. littoralis in February. The Gerreidae larvae and M. hospes did not occur during low water temperatures months. Nineteen and nine species occurred, respectively, in only one or two months during the year (Table 1).

The abiotic variables explained 41.3% of the variability on biological data, being only water salinity not significant (P < 0.05), by Monte Carlo permutation test. The first two axes were responsible for 54.5% of the biological data variation. The axis 1 was positively correlated with Exposed beach and high tide, and negatively correlated with the sheltered beach. The axis 2 was negatively correlated with water temperature. The species-environment correlation presented high values with the first (0.84) and second (0.82) axis (Table 3). The canonic axes were significantly different by the Monte Carlo permutation test (F = 3.16; P = 0.0001). Figure 7 represents the distribution of the species in relation to the significant abiotic variables. Water temperature explained 13.93% of biological data variation (sum of all canonic eigenvalues = 0.321). Excluding water temperature influence from the spatio-temporal interaction, the explanation percentage decreased to 2.70%. Gerreidae larvae, T. carolinus and M. hospes showed preference for warmer waters, while M. liza and A. brasiliensis preferred cooler waters (Fig. 7).

The different beach types explained 11.41% of biological data variation (sum of all canonic eigenvalues = 0.263). Removing the interaction with temporal variables, the percentage of explanation decreased approximately 1%. The following species were abundant on the most sheltered beach A. brasiliensis, A. tricolor, S. timucu, A. lepidentostole and Engraulidae larvae, while M. hospes, T. carolinus, T. goodei and M. littoralis were abundant on the most exposed one (Fig. 7).

The temporal variables explained 31.9% of biological data variation (sum of all canonic eigenvalues = 0.734). Two influences were observed on this variable, one related to the different tide amplitudes and the other with the months sampled. Only tidal variation, excluding the seasonal effect, explained 6.1%, while seasonality, without the tidal effect, explained 26.3%. At high tide T. carolinus and M. littoralis were sampled in abundance, while at low tide A. tricolor, A. brasiliensis and S. timucu were abundant.

DISCUSSION

The fish community studied was characterized by the dominance of few species, a pattern described in several studies on surf zone fish communities (Brown & McLachlan, 1990; Godefroid et al., 2003; Pessanha & Araujo, 2003; Felix et al., 2007b; Stefanoni, 2008).

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Species of Trachinotus, Mugil, Atherinella and Anchoa genera were the most abundant. Several studies carried out in the Paranagua Coastal System at Parana coast, an ecosystem contiguous to the area of this study, indicated the importance of these genera in structuring the surf zone fish community, even when sampled at different beaches and years (Godefroid et al, 1998, 2003; Spach et al, 2004; Felix et al, 2006, 2007b, Stefanoni, 2008). These genera are also representative on south Brazilian beaches, except for Anchoa (Lima & Vieira, 2009). At Rio de Janeiro state coast, it was observed that the relative abundance of Mugilidae decreased (Gaelzer & Zalmon, 2003; Gomes et al., 2003; Pessanha & Araujo, 2003; Vasconcellos, 2007). In a beach in Espirito Santo state, mugilids were not observed and the most abundant species were Lutjanus synagris, Achosargus romboidalis, Eucinostomus lefroyi, Paralonchurus brasiliensis (Araujo et al., 2008). On beaches at Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia State, L. synaris, Larimus breviceps, Chaetodipterus faber, Polydactylus virginicus, Ophioscion punctatissimus and Conodon nobilis were dominant (Oliveira-Silva, 2008). In Pernambuco state, approximately 40% of the total species were represented by O. punctatissimus (Lira & Teixeira, 2008).

Thus, it is possible to observe a greater difference in the species composition of the studied beaches than in the ones in Espirito Santo state along the northeast. It is known that the southeast and southern Brazilian coast have subtropical characteristics, and is commonly considered as transition area to a temperate fauna. (Floeter et al., 2006). This fact probably explains the difference of the surf zone ichthyofauna observed in the southeast and southern Brazilian coast compared to the northeast, which has tropical characteristics.

Comparing the surf zone fish composition with the fish species collected in hauls at Cananeia Estuary Complex and in beaches at Bom Abrigo Island, located on the platform adjacent to the estuary (Zani-Teixeira, 1983; Saul & Cunningham, 1995; Maciel, 2001), it is possible to notice that a low number of species were exclusive to the studied beaches, indicating connectivity of the surf zone fish community with other habitats, both inside and outside the Cananeia-Iguape Coastal System.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

The great abundance of sampled specimens at juvenile and larval stages corroborated the importance of the studied area for the initial ontogenetic stages. Godefroid et al. (2003), Felix et al. (2007a), Inoue et al. (2008) and Stefanoni (2008) also reported a high proportion of juvenile and/or larval individuals in surf zone fish communities.

The beach exposure is considered one of the main surf zone fish community structuring factors (Romer, 1990; Clark, 1996b; Gaelzer & Zalmon, 2003; Vasconcellos et al., 2007). However, the beach exposure influence on fish community composition may be misunderstood, mainly due to the interconnection between this variable and others, such as macroalgae abundance and/or organic matter decomposing, water salinity and water transparency (Clark, 1997). In the present study, the beach exposure explained only 11.41% of biological data variation.

In several studies there was an increase in the species richness and diversity as the beach shelter increased, while the most exposed beaches were dominated by few species (Romer, 1990; Gaelzer & Zalmon, 2003; Vasconcellos et al., 2007). This pattern was also observed in the present study, but, as in Stefanoni (2008), the study area may not have been appropriate to test this hypothesis because there were interactions with other variables related to the estuary presence. Beaches considered as Sheltered and Moderate in the present study were influenced by estuary waters, while the Exposed beach had marine waters influence. The greater species richness and fish diversity on sheltered beaches may be due to the greater food availability and accessibility compared to more exposed beaches. The turbulence generated by waves may reduce the food ingestion rate due to the continuous need to adjust the body position in the water column and a decrease of the visual field (Clark, 1997).

T. goodei and M. littoralis were associated with the high energy environments where the greatest salinity was registered as a reflex of greater exposure. This was also observed by Felix et al. (2007a), Vasconcellos et al. (2007) and Stefanoni (2008). Water salinity can be a structuring factor in estuaries (Barletta et al., 2005), but at exposed beaches this factor does not satisfactorily explain the biological data variability. The species that are correlated with the more protected beaches were also associated with estuary regions (Zani-Teixeira, 1983; Maciel, 2001; Peres-Rios, 2001; Ramos & Vieira, 2001).

The highest water salinity measured at high tide probably was due to the fact that, at low tide, the beaches suffered greater influence from inland waters.

Temporal variations had the greatest influence on fish community composition and structuring by approximately 30%. Within the temporal variations, a small relevance was due to tidal variation, with seasonal variation the most important variable. Although the main seasonal alterations measured were related to water temperature, this variable alone showed a low percentage of explained biological data variation. Thus, it is emphasized that, as already reported by Ross et al. (1987) and Felix et al. (2007a), seasonal changes in the surf zone fish community are mainly due to recruitment patterns determined by reproductive activity and coastal circulation. As in the present study, several studies as Bennett (1989), Giannini & Paiva-Filho (1995), Clark (1996b), Godefroid et al. (2003); Felix et al. (2006) and Araujo et al. (2008), reported the highest diversities and abundance values during warmer months, coinciding with the reproductive period of many fish species. High water temperatures also favor phytoplankton and zooplankton bloom, increasing the food available for larvae and juvenile fish, and consequently, their chances of survival (Nybakken & Bertness, 2004).

However, a problem concerning fish population studies on dynamic and fish reproductive aspects is the sampling frequency. Thus, relating warmer months (end of spring or summer) and capture of juvenile specimens in the same period is not very enlightening. The fish length and their growth rate should be investigated and related with the hatching period and not with the reproductive period. Studies on growth rates of the most abundant surf zone species were not available, and therefore might restrict interpretation of the results.

DOI: 10.3856/vol41-issue2-fulltext-4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank all the volunteers and employees involved in the fieldwork and fish identification. We also thank CNPq, which has conceded the author's postgraduate scholarship.

REFERENCES

Araujo, C.C.V., D.M. Rosa, J.M. Fernandes, L.V. Ripoli & W. Kroling. 2008. Composicao e estrutura da comunidade de peixes de uma praia arenosa da Ilha do Frade, Vitoria, Espirito Santo. Iheringia, Ser. Zool., 98(1): 129-135.

Barletta, M., A. Barletta-Bergan, U. Saint-Paul & G. Hubold. 2005. The role of salinity in structuring the fish assemblages in a tropical estuary. J. Fish Biol., 66(1): 45-72.

Begon, M., C.R. Townsend & J.L. Harper. 2006. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystem. Blackwell Publishing, Victoria, 759 pp.

Bennett, B.A. 1989. The fish community of a moderately exposed beach on the southwestern cape coast of South Africa and an assessment of this habitat a nursey for juvenile fish. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 28(3): 293-305.

Borcard, D., P. Legendre & P. Drapeau. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology, 73(3): 1045-1055.

Brown, A.C. & A. Mclachlan. 1990. Ecology of sandy shores. Elsevier, New York, 328 pp.

Carter, R.W.G. 1988. Coastal environments. An introduction to physical, ecological and cultural systems of coastlines. Academic Press, London, 617 pp.

Clark, B.M., B.A. Bennett & S.J. Lambert. 1996a. Factors affecting spatial variability in seine net catches of fish in the surf zone of False Bay, South Africa. Mar. Ecol., Prog. Ser., 31: 17-34.

Clark, B.M., B.A. Bennett & S.J. Lambert. 1996b. Temporal variations in surf zone fish assemblages from False Bay, South Africa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 131: 35-47.

Clark, B.M. 1997. Variation in surf-zone fish community structure across a wave-exposure gradient. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 44(6): 659-674.

Cowley, P.D., A.K. Whitfield & K.N.I. Bell. 2001. The surf zone ichthyoplankton adjacent to an intermittently open estuary, with evidence of recruitment during marine overwash events. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci., 52: 339-348.

Dajoz, R. 1983. Ecologia geral. Editora da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 472 pp.

Dias, J.F., E. Peres-Rios, P.T.C. Chaves & C.L.D.B. Rossi-Wongtschowski. 1998. Analise macroscopica dos ovarios de teleosteos: problemas de classificacao e recomendacoes de procedimentos. Rev. Brasil. Biol., 58(1): 55-69.

Felix, F.C., H.L. Spach, C.W. Hackradt, P.S. Moro & D.C. Rocha. 2006. Abundancia sazonal e a composicao da assembleia de peixes em duas praias estuarinas da Baia de Paranagua, Parana. Rev. Brasil. Zooc., 8(1): 35-47.

Felix, F.C., H.L. Spach, P.S. Moro, C.W. Hackradt, G.M.L.N. Queiroz & M. Hostim-Silva. 2007a. Icthyofauna composition across a wave-energy gradient on southern Brazil beaches. Braz. J. Oceanogr., 55(4): 281-292.

Felix, F.C., H.L. Spach, P.S. Moro, R. Schwarz Jr., C. Santos, C.W. Hackradt & M. Hostim-Silva. 2007b. Utilization pattern of surf zone inhabiting fish from beaches in southern Brazil. Pan-Am. J. Aquat. Sci., 2(1): 27-39.

Felix-Hackradt, F.C., H.L. Spach, P.S. Moro, H.A. Piechler, A.S. Maggi, H. Hostim-Silva & C.W. Hackradt. 2010. Diel and tidal variation in surf zone fish assemblages of a sheltered beach in southern Brazil. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 38(3): 447-460.

Figueiredo, J.L. & N.A. Menezes. 1978. Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil. II. Teleostei (1). Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 110 pp.

Figueiredo, J.L. & N.A. Menezes. 1980. Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil. III. Teleostei (2). Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 90 pp.

Figueiredo, J.L. & N.A. Menezes. 2000. Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil. VI. Teleostei (5). Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 116 pp.

Ferreira, L.C., M.G.G.S. Cunha, M.L. Koening, F.A.N. Feitosa, M.F. Santiago & K. Muniz. 2010. Variacao temporal do fitoplancton em tres praias urbanas do litoral sul do estado de Pernambuco, Nordeste do Brasil. Acta Bot. Bras., 24(1): 214-224.

Floeter, R.S., A. Soares-Gomes & E. Hajdu. 2006. Biogeografia marinha. In: R.C. Pereira & A. Soares-Gomes (eds.). Biologia marinha. Interciencia, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 421-441.

Gaelzer, L.R. & I.R. Zalmon. 2003. The influence of wave gradient on the ichthyofauna of southeastern brazil: focusing the community structure in surf zone. J. Coast. Res., 35: 456-462.

Gaelzer, L.R. & I.R. Zalmon. 2008a. Diel variation of fish community in sandy beaches of southeastern Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr., 56(1): 23-39.

Gaelzer, L.R. & I.R. Zalmon. 2008b. Tidal influence on surf zone ichthyofauna structure ate three sandy beaches, Southeastern. Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr., 56(3): 165-177.

Giannini, R. & A.M. Paiva-Filho. 1995. Analise comparativa da ictiofauna da zona de arrebentacao de praias arenosas do Estado de Sao Paulo, Brasil. Bol. Inst. Oceanogr., 43(2): 141-152.

Godefroid, R.S., M. Hofstaetter & H.L. Spach. 1998. Moon, tidal and diel influences on catch composition of fishes in the surf zone of Pontal do Sul Beach, Parana. Rev. Bras. Zool., 15(3): 697-701.

Godefroid, R.S., H.L. Spach, R. Schwarz Jr. & G. MacLaren. 2003. A fauna de peixes da praia do Balneario Atami, Parana, Brasil. Atlantica, 25(2): 147-161.

Gomes, M.P., M.S. Cunha & I.R. Zalmon. 2003. Spatial and temporal variations of diurnal ichthyofauna on surf-zone of Sao Francisco do Itabapoaba Beaches, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol., 46(4): 653-664.

Inoue, T., Y. Suda & M. Sano. 2008. Surf zone fishes in an exposed sandy beach at Sanrimatsubara, Japan: Does fish assemblage structure differ among microhabitats? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 77(1): 1-11.

Lasiak, T.A. 1981. Nursey grounds of juvenile teleosts: evidence from the surf-zone of King's Beach, Port Elizabeth. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 77: 388-390.

Layman, C.A. 2000. Fish assemblage structure of the shallow ocean surf-zone on the eastern shore of Virginia Barrier Islands. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 51(2): 201-213.

Legendre, P. & L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical ecology. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 870 pp.

Lima, M.S.P. & J.P. Vieira. 2009. Variacao espaco-temporal da ictiofauna da zona de arrebentacao da Praia do Cassino, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Zoologia, 26(3): 499-510.

Lira, A.K.F. & S.F. Teixeira. 2008. Ictiofauna da praia de Jaguaribe, Itamaraca, Pernambuco. Iheringia, Ser. Zool., 98(4): 475-480.

Maciel, N.A.L. 2001. Composicao, Abundancia e distribuicao espago-temporal da ictiofauna do complexo estuarino lagunar de Iguape-Cananeia-Sao Paulo, Brasil. Tese Doutorado em Oceanografia Biologica, Instituto Oceanografico, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 252 pp.

Mclachlan, A., T. Erasmus, G. Van Der Horst, G. Rossouw, T.A. Lasiak & L. Mcgmynne. 1981. Sand beach energetics: an ecosystem approach towards a high energy interface. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.,13(1): 11-25.

Menezes, N.A. & J.L. Figueiredo. 1980. Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil. IV. Teleostei (3). Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 96 pp.

Menezes, N.A. & J.L. Figueiredo. 1985. Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil. V. Teleostei (4). Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 105 pp.

Menezes, N.A., C. Oliveira & N. Nirchio. 2010. An old taxonomic dilemma: the identity of the western south Atlantic lebranche mullet (Teleostei: Perciformes: Mugilidae). Zootaxa, 2519: 59-68.

Modde, T. 1980. Growth and residency of juvenile fishes within a surf zone habitat in the gulf of Mexico. Gulf Res. Rep., 6(4): 377-385.

Oliveira-Silva, J.T., M.C. Peso-Aguiar & P.R.D. Lopes. 2008. Ictiofauna das praias de Cabucu e Berlinque: Uma contribuicao ao conhecimento das comunidades de peixes na Baia de Todos os Santos-Bahia-Brasil. Biotemas, 21(4): 105-115.

Paiva-Filho, A.M. & A.P. Toscano. 1987. Estudo comparativo e variacao sazonal da ictiofauna na zona entremares do Mar Casado-Guaruja e Mar Pequeno-Sao Vicente, SP. Bol. Inst. Oceanogr., 35(2): 153-165.

Pessanha, A.L.M. & F.G. Araujo. 2003. Spatial, temporal and diel variations of fish assemblages at two sandy beaches in the Sepetiba Bay, RJ. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 57(5-6): 817-828.

Ramos, L.A. & J.P. Vieira. 2001. Composicao especifica e abundancia de peixes de zonas rasas dos cinco estuarios do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Bol. Inst. Pesca, 21(1): 109-121.

Richards, W.J. 2006. Early stages of Atlantic fishes: an identification guide for the western central North Atlantic. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2640 pp.

Romer, G.S. 1990. Surf zone fish community and species response to wave energy gradient. J. Fish Biol., 36: 279-287.

Ross, S.W., R.H. McMichael Jr. & D.L. Ruple. 1987. Seasonal and diel variation in the standing crop of fishes and macroinvertebrates from a Gulf of Mexico surf zone. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 25(4): 391-412.

Saul, A.C. & P.T.M. Cunningham. 1995. Comunidade ictiofaunistica da ilha do Bom Abrigo, Cananeia.Brasil. 2- Lango. Arq. Biol. Tecnol., 38(4): 1053-1069.

Spach, H.L., R.S. Godefroid, R. Schwarz Jr. & M.L. Queiroz. 2004. Temporal variation in fish assemblage composition on a tidal flat. Braz. J. Oceanogr., 52(1): 47-58.

Spring, V.G. & K.D. Woodbum. 1960. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tamba Bay area. Mar. Res. Lab., 1: 1-104.

Stefanoni, M.F. 2008. Ictiologia e ecologia trofica de peixes em ambientes praias da Ilha das Pegas, Complexo Estuarino de Paranagua, Parana. Dissertacao Mestrado em Zoologia, Setor de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal do Parana, Curitiba, 154 pp.

Teixeira, R.L. & G.I. Almeida. 1998. Composicao da ictiofauna de tres praias arenosas de Maceio, AL-Brasil. Bol. Mus. Biol. Mello Leitao, 8: 21-38.

Vasconcellos, R.M., J.N. Santos, M.A. Silva & F.G. Araujo. 2007. Efeito do grau de exposicao as ondas sobre a comunidade de peixes juvenis em praias arenosas do Municipio do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Biota Neotrop., 7(1): 93-100.

Vazzoler, A.E.A.M. 1996. Biologia da reproducao de peixes teleosteos: teoria e pratica. Eduem, Maringa, 169 pp.

Vieira, J.P. 1991. Juvenile mullets (Pisces: Mugilidae) in the estuary of Lagoa dos Patos, RS, Brazil. Copeia, 2: 409-418.

Watt-Pringle, P. & N.A. Strydom. 2003. Habitat use by larval fishes in a temperate South African surf zone. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 58: 765-774.

Zani-Teixeira, M.L. 1983. Contribuicao ao conhecimento da ictiofauna da Baia do Trapande, Complexo Estuarino Lagunar de Cananeia, Sao Paulo. Dissertacao Mestrado em Oceanografia Biologica, Instituto Oceanografico, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, 254 pp.

Received: 16 May 2011; Accepted: 22 October 2012

Jana Menegassi del Favero (1) & June Ferraz Dias (1)

(1) Instituto Oceanografico, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Pca do Oceanografico, 191 Sao Paulo, Brazil

Corresponding author: Jana M. del Favero (janamdf@usp.br)
Table 1. Relative frequency (%), total contribution and occurrence
constancy (C) and standard length (SL) of fish sampled in the surf
zone of Ilha do Cardoso State Park. * larvae, ** larvae and
juveniles, *** larvae, juveniles and adults.

                               Relative frequency (%)

Family/Species                 2009
                               Feb    Mar    Apr    May
Elopidae
Elops saurus *                  4.1    0.8
Engraulidae
Anchoa jamaria
Anchoa lyolepis                        1.1           0.7
Anchoa tricolor                 9.3   11.1    0.4
Anchoviella lepidentostole      0.2    1.1
Cetengraulis edentulus                        7.7
Non identified larvae           3.7    2.5    4.6    4.8
Lycengraulis grossidens         0.2    0.3
Clupeidae
Harengula clupeola              2.4    9.5    2.6    4.1
Opisthonema oglinum                           0.4
Platanichthys platana
Sardinella brasiliensis
Synodontidae
Synodus foetens
Belonidae
Strongylura marina
Strongylura timucu                     1.1    1.1    0.7
Batrachoididae
Porichthys porosissimus *
Mugilidae
Mugil eurema                    0.7    0.8           2.7
Mugil hospes                    2.2    0.3    1.1    6.8
Mugil liza                      0.4                  0.7
Mugil 1                         0.2
Mugil 2
Atherinopsidae
Atherinella brasiliensis ***    3.7   21.4    5.5    8.2
Odontesthes argentinensis                     0.2
Hemiramphidae
Hemiramphus spp.                0.2
Carangidae
Caranx latus                           0.8
Choloroscombrus chrysurus
Oligoplites saliens             2.6    3.3    1.1    4.8
Oligoplites spp.                       0.3
Selene vomer                           0.6
Trachinotus carolinus          38.2   24.2   24.0   38.1
Trachinotus falcatus            0.6    0.3
Trachinotus goodei              5.4    6.1    5.5   17.7
Syngnathidae
Syngnathus folletti
Lobotidae
Lobotes surinamensis            0.2
Gerreidae
Non-identified larvae          25.5   13.1   44.7    6.8
Haemulidae
Pomadasys corvinaeformis               0.6
Polynemidae
Polydactylus oligodon
Sciaenidae
Menticirrhus americanus **                    0.2
Menticirrhus littoralis **             0.6    0.4    4.1
Micropogonias fumieri *
Umbrina coroides
Pomatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix
Paralichthyidae                0.2
Etropus crossotus
Paralichthys orbignyanus
Tetraodontidae
Sphoeroides greeleyi
Sphoeroides testudineus                       0.2
Diodontidae
Chilomycterus spp.

Individuals number             537    359    454    147
Species number                  19     21     16     13
Family number                   11      9      9      8

                               Relative frequency (%)
Family/Species
                               Jun    Jul      Aug
Elopidae
Elops saurus *
Engraulidae
Anchoa jamaria
Anchoa lyolepis
Anchoa tricolor                 1.4
Anchoviella lepidentostole                     0.7
Cetengraulis edentulus
Non identified larvae          23.4    1.8     1.4
Lycengraulis grossidens
Clupeidae
Harengula clupeola                     2.9    24.3
Opisthonema oglinum
Platanichthys platana
Sardinella brasiliensis
Synodontidae
Synodus foetens                                0.7
Belonidae
Strongylura marina
Strongylura timucu
Batrachoididae
Porichthys porosissimus *
Mugilidae
Mugil eurema                    0.7
Mugil hospes                    3.5
Mugil liza                      1.4   32.6     8.8
Mugil 1                         1.4
Mugil 2                                0.4     0.7
Atherinopsidae
Atherinella brasiliensis ***   15.6   43.2    50.7
Odontesthes argentinensis
Hemiramphidae
Hemiramphus spp.
Carangidae
Caranx latus
Choloroscombrus chrysurus
Oligoplites saliens             2.8    1.1
Oligoplites spp.
Selene vomer
Trachinotus carolinus          43.3    4.4     1.4
Trachinotus falcatus
Trachinotus goodei              5.7    1.5     1.4
Syngnathidae
Syngnathus folletti
Lobotidae
Lobotes surinamensis
Gerreidae
Non-identified larvae
Haemulidae
Pomadasys corvinaeformis
Polynemidae
Polydactylus oligodon
Sciaenidae
Menticirrhus americanus **
Menticirrhus littoralis **      0.7   11.0    10.1
Micropogonias fumieri *                0.4
Umbrina coroides                       0.4
Pomatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix
Paralichthyidae
Etropus crossotus
Paralichthys orbignyanus
Tetraodontidae
Sphoeroides greeleyi
Sphoeroides testudineus                0.4
Diodontidae
Chilomycterus spp.

Individuals number             141    273      148
Species number                  11     12       10
Family number                    5      7        7

                                  Relative frequency (%)
Family/Species
                                Sep    Oct    Nov    Dec
Elopidae
Elops saurus *                          3.3    0.3
Engraulidae
Anchoa jamaria                                        0.2
Anchoa lyolepis
Anchoa tricolor                                       0.2
Anchoviella lepidentostole
Cetengraulis edentulus
Non identified larvae                   6.6    3.9
Lycengraulis grossidens
Clupeidae
Harengula clupeola              26.5    1.2
Opisthonema oglinum
Platanichthys platana                                <0.1
Sardinella brasiliensis                               0.2
Synodontidae
Synodus foetens
Belonidae
Strongylura marina                                   <0.1
Strongylura timucu                             0.4
Batrachoididae
Porichthys porosissimus *               0.4
Mugilidae
Mugil eurema                    2.0     7.8    0.2   39.2
Mugil hospes                            0.4          33.1
Mugil liza                      1.4    11.5           1.2
Mugil 1                                 0.8           2.5
Mugil 2
Atherinopsidae
Atherinella brasiliensis ***   58.5    19.3    1.6    0.3
Odontesthes argentinensis
Hemiramphidae
Hemiramphus spp.
Carangidae
Caranx latus                                          1.2
Choloroscombrus chrysurus                             5.3
Oligoplites saliens             2.0     0.4    0.4    2.1
Oligoplites spp.
Selene vomer
Trachinotus carolinus           4.1    13.6    9.9   11.8
Trachinotus falcatus                                 <0.1
Trachinotus goodei              2.7    10.3    0.4    0.6
Syngnathidae
Syngnathus folletti
Lobotidae
Lobotes surinamensis
Gerreidae
Non-identified larvae                   1.2   81.6    1.1
Haemulidae
Pomadasys corvinaeformis
Polynemidae
Polydactylus oligodon                   0.4
Sciaenidae
Menticirrhus americanus **              6.2
Menticirrhus littoralis **      2.7     4.9    1.1    0.9
Micropogonias fumieri *
Umbrina coroides
Pomatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix                                  <0.1
Paralichthyidae                         7.4
Etropus crossotus
Paralichthys orbignyanus                0.4
Tetraodontidae
Sphoeroides greeleyi                    2.9
Sphoeroides testudineus                 0.8          <0.1
Diodontidae
Chilomycterus spp.                             0.1

Individuals number              147    243    940    3163
Species number                    8     20     11     20
Family number                     5     12      9     10

                                 Relative
                               frequency (%)

Family/Species                 2010                      SL (mm)
                               Jan    Total       C     Min   Max
Elopidae
Elops saurus *                  0.1     0.5    19.7      20    39
Engraulidae
Anchoa jamaria                  5.3     0.6     4.2      25    85
Anchoa lyolepis                         0.1     2.8      33    46
Anchoa tricolor                31.6     4.6    14.1      26    73
Anchoviella lepidentostole      2.5     0.3     9.9      23    53
Cetengraulis edentulus          0.7     0.5     4.2      33    73
Non identified larvae           1.0     2.2    36.6      15    53
Lycengraulis grossidens                <0.1     2.8      53    74
Clupeidae
Harengula clupeola              1.4     2.2    23.9      25    80
Opisthonema oglinum             0.1    <0.1     2.8      52    54
Platanichthys platana                  <0.1     1.4      26    26
Sardinella brasiliensis                 0.1     1.4      40    50
Synodontidae
Synodus foetens                        <0.1     1.4      83    83
Belonidae
Strongylura marina                     <0.1     1.4     119   119
Strongylura timucu              0.5     0.2    12.7    18.5   460
Batrachoididae
Porichthys porosissimus *              <0.1     1.4      16    16
Mugilidae
Mugil eurema                    1.1    17.6    29.6      14    76
Mugil hospes                    8.7    15.7    33.8      17    69
Mugil liza                      0.1     2.4    32.4      18    26
Mugil 1                         0.3     1.2     8.5      17    54
Mugil 2                                <0.1     2.8      21    22
Atherinopsidae
Atherinella brasiliensis ***   22.9     9.3    42.3      25   125
Odontesthes argentinensis              <0.1     1.4     122   122
Hemiramphidae
Hemiramphus spp.                       <0.1     1.4      22    22
Carangidae
Caranx latus                            0.6     2.8      33    86
Choloroscombrus chrysurus               2.3     1.4      22    40
Oligoplites saliens             5.0     2.1    33.8      11   127
Oligoplites spp.                       <0.1     1.4       8     8
Selene vomer                           <0.1     1.4      73    92
Trachinotus carolinus          13.1    15.5    77.5       4    64
Trachinotus falcatus            0.1     0.1     7.0      11    56
Trachinotus goodei              0.4     2.3    56.3      16   134
Syngnathidae
Syngnathus folletti             0.1    <0.1     1.4      70    70
Lobotidae
Lobotes surinamensis                   <0.1     1.4      14    14
Gerreidae
Non-identified larvae           1.9    16.7    38.0       8    15
Haemulidae
Pomadasys corvinaeformis               <0.1     1.4       45   46
Polynemidae
Polydactylus oligodon                  <0.1     1.4      32    32
Sciaenidae
Menticirrhus americanus **              0.2     4.2      10    16
Menticirrhus littoralis **      2.3     1.8    26.8       9   126
Micropogonias fumieri *                <0.1     1.4      11    11
Umbrina coroides                       <0.1     1.4      32    32
Pomatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix                    <0.1     1.4      72    72
Paralichthyidae                         0.3     2.8      31    59
Etropus crossotus
Paralichthys orbignyanus               <0.1     1.4     242   242
Tetraodontidae
Sphoeroides greeleyi            0.7     0.2     9.9      29    71
Sphoeroides testudineus                 0.1     5.6     171   199
Diodontidae
Chilomycterus spp.                     <0.1     1.4      25    25

Individuals number             734     7286
Species number                  22       47
Family number                   11       20

Table 2. Ecological indexes calculated using fish data collected at
different beaches and tides. In indicated the significatives
differences.

                       Beach                              Tide

                     Sheltered   Moderate   Exposed   High   Low

Species number          33          34        21       26     43
Individuals number     2036        1985      3265     1245   6041
Dominance              0.22        0.12      0.24     0.20   0.14
Diversity              2.08        2.48      1.69     2.12   2.32
Richness               4.20        4.35      2.47     3.51   4.82
Equitability           0.60        0.70      0.55     0.65   0.62

Table 3. Summary of the CCA performed on abundance of 22
most numerous fish species.

                                                     Axes

                                            1         2         3
Correlation of environmental variables
December                                  0.3179     0.203    0.6998
January                                  -0.1815    0.0492    0.4429
June                                     -0.0015    0.0042   -0.0526
November                                  0.0109   -0.4957   -0.2619
October                                   0.0971    0.2236    -0.254
Sheltered beach                          -0.6748   -0.0323   -0.1926
Moderate beach                            0.0129    0.0598     0.236
Exposed beach                             0.6995   -0.0305   -0.0512
High tide                                 0.5054    0.0211   -0.3216
Low tide                                 -0.5054   -0.0211    0.3216
Water temperature                         0.0583   -0.7298    0.5439
Summary statistics for ordination axes
Eigenvalues                                 0.31     0.208      0.15
Species-environment correlations           0.839     0.822     0.861
Cumulative percentage variance:
of species data                             13.5      22.5        29
of species-environment relation             32.6      54.5      70.2
Sum of all eigenvalues
Sum of all canonical eigenvalues

                                          Axes

                                            4
Correlation of environmental variables
December                                  0.3057
January                                  -0.3217
June                                     -0.0537
November                                  0.3959
October                                   0.3282
Sheltered beach                           0.0562
Moderate beach                           -0.3381
Exposed beach                             0.3058
High tide                                -0.4958
Low tide                                  0.4958
Water temperature                        -0.1321
Summary statistics for ordination axes
Eigenvalues                                0.113
Species-environment correlations            0.79
Cumulative percentage variance:
of species data                             33.9
of species-environment relation             82.1
Sum of all eigenvalues                              2.304
Sum of all canonical eigenvalues                    0.952
COPYRIGHT 2013 Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Escuela de Ciencias del Mar
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:articulo en ingles
Author:Menegassi del Favero, Jana; Ferraz Dias, June
Publication:Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research
Date:Apr 1, 2013
Words:6958
Previous Article:Balance de nutrientes del sistema lagunar Piratininga-Itaipu (sudeste de Brasil): efectos del manejo del sistema a traves del intercambio con el agua...
Next Article:Perfil quimico bruto y calculo de los factores de conversion de nitrogeno a proteina en nueve especies de peces de aguas costeras de Brasil.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters