Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Ecosystem, spatial and trophic dimensions of niche partitioning among freshwater fish predators

M. Říha, L. Vejřík, R. Rabaneda-Bueno, I. Jarić, M. Prchalová, I. Vejříková, M. Šmejkal, P. Blabolil, M. Čech, V. Draštík, M. Holubová, T. Jůza, KØ. Gjelland, Z. Sajdlová, L. Kočvara, M. Tušer, J. Peterka

. 2025 ; 13 (1) : 36. [pub] 20250527

Status not-indexed Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

Grant support
No 101157886 HORIZON EUROPE European Innovation Council
No 101157886 HORIZON EUROPE European Innovation Council
LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 European Commission
LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 European Commission
LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 European Commission
LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 European Commission
LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 European Commission
RP21 Akademie Věd České Republiky
RP21 Akademie Věd České Republiky

BACKGROUND: Niche partitioning allows species to diversify resource utilisation and space allocation and reduce interspecific competition. Variations in abiotic and biotic conditions in different ecosystems may further influence resource availability and habitat utilisation, potentially reducing competition. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of environmental variation on spatial and trophic niche overlap between two freshwater apex predators, the northern pike (Esox lucius) and the European catfish (Silurus glanis), in three different water bodies. METHODS: We used fine-scale acoustic telemetry to assess the spatial niche overlap of pike and catfish, analyzing their spatial and habitat use in relation to the thermocline and their presence in benthic versus open-water habitats. Stable isotope analysis (SIA) was used to quantify trophic niche overlap and dietary differences between the species. We compared the habitat use, spatial niche width and overlap, and trophic differentiation among waterbodies to determine how environmental conditions influence predator interactions. RESULTS: During summer, pike and catfish primarily occupied benthic habitats above the thermocline across all waterbodies and diel periods. However, catfish more frequently used open water above the thermocline, while pike were more often present in both open water and benthic habitats below it. While this general pattern of habitat use was consistent, its extent varied among lakes, suggesting that local environmental conditions shape species-specific habitat selection. Despite these variations, the species exhibited substantial spatial overlap, though its magnitude fluctuated across waterbodies and diel periods. Catfish occupied a broader spatial niche in two waterbodies, while pike had a broader niche in one. Across all lakes, catfish consistently maintained a broader trophic niche than pike. However, pike exhibited higher trophic overlap with catfish than vice versa, with nearly complete overlap in one lake and substantial but incomplete overlap in others. This suggests that pike relies more heavily on shared prey resources, while catfish exploits a broader range of food sources beyond those used by pike.These patterns were primarily driven by the position of the thermocline, prey availability, structural complexity and the greater foraging plasticity of catfish, highlighting the environmental dependence of niche partitioning in these predators. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that spatial and trophic niche overlaps between pike and catfish are highly context-dependent, shaped by abiotic conditions, prey availability, and species-specific foraging strategies. This study highlights the importance of integrating spatial and trophic analyses to understand predator interactions in aquatic ecosystems.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25014298
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250905141417.0
007      
ta
008      
250701s2025 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s40462-025-00559-0 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)40426197
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Říha, Milan $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. milan.riha@hbu.cas.cz $1 https://orcid.org/000000023930420X
245    10
$a Ecosystem, spatial and trophic dimensions of niche partitioning among freshwater fish predators / $c M. Říha, L. Vejřík, R. Rabaneda-Bueno, I. Jarić, M. Prchalová, I. Vejříková, M. Šmejkal, P. Blabolil, M. Čech, V. Draštík, M. Holubová, T. Jůza, KØ. Gjelland, Z. Sajdlová, L. Kočvara, M. Tušer, J. Peterka
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Niche partitioning allows species to diversify resource utilisation and space allocation and reduce interspecific competition. Variations in abiotic and biotic conditions in different ecosystems may further influence resource availability and habitat utilisation, potentially reducing competition. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of environmental variation on spatial and trophic niche overlap between two freshwater apex predators, the northern pike (Esox lucius) and the European catfish (Silurus glanis), in three different water bodies. METHODS: We used fine-scale acoustic telemetry to assess the spatial niche overlap of pike and catfish, analyzing their spatial and habitat use in relation to the thermocline and their presence in benthic versus open-water habitats. Stable isotope analysis (SIA) was used to quantify trophic niche overlap and dietary differences between the species. We compared the habitat use, spatial niche width and overlap, and trophic differentiation among waterbodies to determine how environmental conditions influence predator interactions. RESULTS: During summer, pike and catfish primarily occupied benthic habitats above the thermocline across all waterbodies and diel periods. However, catfish more frequently used open water above the thermocline, while pike were more often present in both open water and benthic habitats below it. While this general pattern of habitat use was consistent, its extent varied among lakes, suggesting that local environmental conditions shape species-specific habitat selection. Despite these variations, the species exhibited substantial spatial overlap, though its magnitude fluctuated across waterbodies and diel periods. Catfish occupied a broader spatial niche in two waterbodies, while pike had a broader niche in one. Across all lakes, catfish consistently maintained a broader trophic niche than pike. However, pike exhibited higher trophic overlap with catfish than vice versa, with nearly complete overlap in one lake and substantial but incomplete overlap in others. This suggests that pike relies more heavily on shared prey resources, while catfish exploits a broader range of food sources beyond those used by pike.These patterns were primarily driven by the position of the thermocline, prey availability, structural complexity and the greater foraging plasticity of catfish, highlighting the environmental dependence of niche partitioning in these predators. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that spatial and trophic niche overlaps between pike and catfish are highly context-dependent, shaped by abiotic conditions, prey availability, and species-specific foraging strategies. This study highlights the importance of integrating spatial and trophic analyses to understand predator interactions in aquatic ecosystems.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Vejřík, Lukáš $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Rabaneda-Bueno, Rubén $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jarić, Ivan $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic $u Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Gif- sur-Yvette, France
700    1_
$a Prchalová, Marie $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vejříková, Ivana $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Šmejkal, Marek $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Blabolil, Petr $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic $u Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Čech, Martin $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Draštík, Vladislav $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Holubová, Michaela $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jůza, Tomáš $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Gjelland, Karl Ø $u Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Tromsø, Norway
700    1_
$a Sajdlová, Zuzana $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kočvara, Luboš $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tušer, Michal $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Peterka, Jiří $u Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00203336 $t Movement ecology $x 2051-3933 $g Roč. 13, č. 1 (2025), s. 36
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40426197 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250701 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250905141405 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2388036 $s 1251418
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 13 $c 1 $d 36 $e 20250527 $i 2051-3933 $m Movement ecology $n Mov Ecol $x MED00203336
GRA    __
$a No 101157886 $p HORIZON EUROPE European Innovation Council
GRA    __
$a No 101157886 $p HORIZON EUROPE European Innovation Council
GRA    __
$a LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 $p European Commission
GRA    __
$a LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 $p European Commission
GRA    __
$a LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 $p European Commission
GRA    __
$a LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 $p European Commission
GRA    __
$a LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458 $p European Commission
GRA    __
$a RP21 $p Akademie Věd České Republiky
GRA    __
$a RP21 $p Akademie Věd České Republiky
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250701

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...