Refining the trophic diversity, network structure, and bottom‐up importance of prey groups for temperate reef fishes

Abstract Marine fish communities are highly diverse and contribute significantly to ecosystem processes. However, understanding their specific functional roles and the importance of different prey groups for sustaining fish communities has been limited by the historical classification of fishes into a few coarse trophic guilds. Using diet information to perform a high‐resolution trophic classification of 298 temperate reef fish species distributed across south‐western Australia, we built metacommunity and subregional trophic networks to evaluate the most important trophic relationships and energy pathways in temperate reefs. We identified 26 specialized trophic guilds within the groups of herbivores, zoobenthivores, zooplanktivores, piscivores, and cleaners. Zoobenthivorous fishes had the highest species richness and trophic diversity with 191 species in nine guilds. Consumers of crustaceans showed greater species redundancy at the metacommunity level. In contrast, a low redundancy of echinodermivores could represent a risk to local capacity for top‐down control of sea urchins across the region. Finer scale analysis of prey at the family level showed that piscivorous guilds may influence different trophic pathways, with some guilds consuming other piscivorous fishes, while others consume lower trophic levels, particularly crustaceavores. Evidence of predation on herbivorous guilds was only found for turf grazers, suggesting that fish herbivory might not function as a major direct link between primary producers and higher trophic levels. Among the prey consumed by fishes, micro‐crustaceans and decapods accounted for 33% of all diet proportions. The importance of macrophytes to the fish community likely resides indirectly through the trophic pathway of herbivorous and detritivorous invertebrates, particularly crustaceans, which are more consumed by fishes than macrophytes themselves. Comparison of trophic networks in the region showed that warmer locations had higher species redundancy per node and higher strength in trophic interactions. Yet, all networks had structural properties consistent with the meta‐network regarding the importance of prey groups and modularity. Considering high‐resolution predator–prey interactions enhances our understanding of the blue‐print of ecosystem functions in shallow marine systems. Identifying the specific trophic significance of different consumers and prey groups is important for ecological forecasting and the prioritization of conservation and resource management regulations in our current fast‐changing world.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecosphere
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70193
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.72

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Refining the trophic diversity, network structure, and bottom‐up importance of prey groups for temperate reef fishes

Rick D. Stuart‐Smith, Thomas H. Holmes, Easton R. White, S. Zarco‐Perello et al.
1 citations
Ecosphere
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
1.72
article

Refining the trophic diversity, network structure, and bottom‐up importance of prey groups for temperate reef fishes

Rick D. Stuart‐Smith, Thomas H. Holmes, Easton R. White, S. Zarco‐Perello, Scott Bennett, Jordan S. Goetze
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Marine fish communities are highly diverse and contribute significantly to ecosystem processes. However, understanding their specific functional roles and the importance of different prey groups for sustaining fish communities has been limited by the historical classification of fishes into a few coarse trophic guilds. Using diet information to perform a high‐resolution trophic classification of 298 temperate reef fish species distributed across south‐western Australia, we built metacommunity and subregional trophic networks to evaluate the most important trophic relationships and energy pathways in temperate reefs. We identified 26 specialized trophic guilds within the groups of herbivores, zoobenthivores, zooplanktivores, piscivores, and cleaners. Zoobenthivorous fishes had the highest species richness and trophic diversity with 191 species in nine guilds. Consumers of crustaceans showed greater species redundancy at the metacommunity level. In contrast, a low redundancy of echinodermivores could represent a risk to local capacity for top‐down control of sea urchins across the region. Finer scale analysis of prey at the family level showed that piscivorous guilds may influence different trophic pathways, with some guilds consuming other piscivorous fishes, while others consume lower trophic levels, particularly crustaceavores. Evidence of predation on herbivorous guilds was only found for turf grazers, suggesting that fish herbivory might not function as a major direct link between primary producers and higher trophic levels. Among the prey consumed by fishes, micro‐crustaceans and decapods accounted for 33% of all diet proportions. The importance of macrophytes to the fish community likely resides indirectly through the trophic pathway of herbivorous and detritivorous invertebrates, particularly crustaceans, which are more consumed by fishes than macrophytes themselves. Comparison of trophic networks in the region showed that warmer locations had higher species redundancy per node and higher strength in trophic interactions. Yet, all networks had structural properties consistent with the meta‐network regarding the importance of prey groups and modularity. Considering high‐resolution predator–prey interactions enhances our understanding of the blue‐print of ecosystem functions in shallow marine systems. Identifying the specific trophic significance of different consumers and prey groups is important for ecological forecasting and the prioritization of conservation and resource management regulations in our current fast‐changing world.

EcosphereVol. 16(2)
University of Tasmania (AU), University of New Hampshire (US), Murdoch University (AU), The University of Western Australia (AU), Curtin University (AU), Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (AU)
Kinghorn Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
1.72
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.