Species
Actinopterygii
IUCN
NCBI
EOL Text
Actinopterygian fossils first appeared in deposits from the late Silurian (425 to 405 Ma) or early Devonian (405 to 345 Ma) period. While there is a need for more research to understand the evolutionary relationships among the earliest actinopterygians, ichthyologists have found that actinopterygians did not begin to dominate the fish fauna until the beginning of the Carboniferous period, 360 million years ago (Ma). The most derived forms (i.e. teleosts) were uncommon until the late Cretaceous (144 to 65 Mz) period. It was at this time that major diversification began and has continued to this day, as actinopterygians dominate the world’s fish fauna.
The earliest actinopterygians are grouped in the subclass Chondrostei, of which only sturgeons , bichirs and paddlefishes survive today. The rest of the actinopterygians, which includes the vast majority of species, are in the subclass Neopterygii, meaning ‘new fins’. Further, the large majority of neopterygians are placed in the group Teleostei (infraclass). The bowfin is the only surviving species of the halecomorphs, the largest group outside of the teleosts and gars (order Lepisosteiformes – also known as Semionotiformes), with seven species, are the only other surviving non-teleosts.
Ray-finned fishes have significant aesthetic, cultural, scientific and transformative value to humans. To many native people, especially in the United States, fish are symbols of cultural tradition and the subject of works of art. Snorkeling, scuba diving, and sport fishing are increasingly popular around the world and, of course, ray-finned fishes have significant scientific and educational value.
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | ©1995-2013, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors |
Source | http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Actinopterygii/ |
Actinopterygians, or ‘ray-finned fishes,’ are the largest and most successful group of fishes and make up half of all living vertebrates. While actinopterygians appeared in the fossil record during the Devonian period, between 400-350 million years ago (Ma), it was not until the Carboniferous period (360 Ma) that they had become dominant in freshwaters and started to invade the seas. At present, approximately 42 orders, 431 families, and nearly 24,000 species are recognized within this class but there are bound to be taxonomic revisions as research progresses. Teleosts comprise approximately 23,000 of the 24,000 species within the actinopterygians, and 96 percent of all living fish species (see Systematic/Taxonomic History). The latter estimates, however, will probably never be accurate because actinopterygian species are becoming extinct faster than they can be discovered in some areas, such as the Amazon and Congo Basins. Unfortunately, habitat destruction, pollution and international trade, among other human impacts, have contributed to the endangerment of many actinopterygians (see Conservation Status).
Clearly, given the enormous diversity of this class, entire books could be (and are) written for each of the categories below, so this account does not attempt an exhaustive summary of the diversity of habitats, body forms, behaviors, reproductive habits, etc. of actinopterygians. Instead, each section introduces important ichthyological concepts and terminology, as well as numerous examples from a diverse range of ray-finned fish families. A section of particular interest is Systematic/Taxonomic History because salient features of the evolutionary history of actinopterygians are discussed. The phylogenetic trends within early actinopterygians provide a basis for understanding why this group has been so successful, as more derived forms (i.e. neopterygians and teleosts), which make up nearly all existing ray-finned fishes, have repeated and extended early trends. Many of the sections, such as Physical Description, Reproduction, Behavior and Ecosystem Roles merely scratch the surface, but there are numerous links to family-level ray-finned fish accounts. (‘Fishes’ is used interchangeably with ‘ray-finned fishes’ and 'actinopterygians' from this point forward).
- Wheeler, A. 1985. The world encyclopedia of fishes. London: Macdonald.
- Nelson, J. 1994. Fishes of the World – third edition. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
- Helfman, G., B. Collete, D. Facey. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Science.
- Moyle, P., J. Cech. 2004. Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology - fifth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc..
- Grande, L. 1998. Fishes Through the Ages. Pp. 27-31 in J Paxton, W Eschmeyer, eds. Encyclopedia of Fishes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
- Liem, K. 1998. Introducing Fishes. Pp. 14-19 in J Paxton, W Eschmeyer, eds. Encyclopedia of Fishes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | ©1995-2013, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors |
Source | http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Actinopterygii/ |
Based on feeding habits, researchers broadly classify ray-finned fishes as herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, zooplanktivores and detrivores. There is considerable nuance within each of these categories because many fish are opportunistic feeders – they tend to consume whatever is around, especially when food is scarce. However, primary feeding habits are often associated with body form, mouth type and digestive apparatus, as well as teeth. For instance, gars , pike-characids , pike , needlefish , pike killifish and barracuda represent a diverse range of taxa, yet they all have elongate (long and narrow) bodies, long snouts, and sharp teeth with the fins placed toward the back of the body; this is the design of a fast-start predator, which often lurks motionless in the water column, slightly camouflaged and ready to lunge quickly at unsuspecting prey. These fishes are not made for sustained speed and maneuverability, whereas tunas and billfishes (suborder Scombroidei), with their rounded and highly tapered bodies, are streamlined pelagic chasers capable of very high speeds over long periods. These two fishes are termed ram feeders. Other predators avoid the extra energy expenditure of chasing prey, and instead wait passively, depending largely on good vision, explosive thrust and large mouths capable of forming strong vacuums and effectively inhaling prey (the latter method is termed suction feeding). These sit-in-wait predators are often completely hidden with elaborate camouflage or by burying themselves beneath sediment with only the eyes exposed. Fishes of this type include many scorpionfishes , flatheads , hawkfishes , sea basses , stonefishes , stargazers, flatfishes , frogfishes, and lizardfishes.
Herbivorous fishes posses specialized organs, such as extended guts, pharyngeal mills and gizzards, that allow them to exploit various reef plants and algae. Some of the most successful freshwater families (e.g. minnows , catfishes , cichlids), and most abundant coral reef families (e.g. halfbeaks , parrotfishes , blennies , surgeonfishes , rabbitfishes), include many species of herbivorous fishes. Several groups of herbivorous coral reef species defend territories or form feeding shoals (freshwater cichlids have many of the same behaviors). Some parrotfishes and surgeonfishes utilize shoals to overwhelm the defenses of territorial species, thus gaining access to areas with higher concentrations of plant material.
Zooplanktivores, which feed on small crustaceans like water fleas and copepods floating in the water column (termed zooplankton), abound in oceans throughout the world. Groups such as silversides , herrings and anchovies often congregate in feeding shoals numbering in the millions. Smaller shoals of zooplanktivores, such as rabbitfishes and the juvenile forms of many other reef species, are also found hovering above and around coral reefs. The characteristic features of zooplanktivorous fishes are small size, streamlined and compressed bodies, forked tails, few teeth, and a protrusible mouth that forms a circle when open. When patches of zooplankton are particularly high, many pelagic zooplanktivores keep their mouths agape, and when patches are low they pick animals out individually (the latter are also termed suction feeders).
As discussed in Communication, several groups of ray-finned fishes have quite peculiar methods of capturing prey. Deepsea anglerfishes , among many others in the Stomiiformes and Lophiiformes orders, have developed a luminous bait to attract prey in the deep, dark waters they inhabit. Turbid habitats are home to many fishes that utilize electroreception to find prey, and some predators (e.g. knifefishes and the electric eel) use intense electrical shocks of as much as 350 volts to stun prey before consuming them. Archerfishes exploit a food source that is unavailable to most other fishes: terrestrial insects in overlying vegetation. By shooting jets or bullets of water, and correcting for light refraction, archerfishes knock insects down to the water surface and quickly consume them. Finally, some boxfishes and triggerfishes use an equally novel technique for capturing prey. Both groups expel jets of water from their mouths to uncover buried animals, while triggerfishes use jets and their snouts to flip over and consume otherwise inedible prey, such as spiny sea urchins.
Foraging Behavior: stores or caches food ; filter-feeding
Primary Diet: carnivore (Eats terrestrial vertebrates, Piscivore , Eats eggs, Sanguivore , Eats body fluids, Insectivore , Eats non-insect arthropods, Molluscivore , Scavenger ); herbivore (Frugivore , Granivore ); omnivore ; planktivore ; detritivore
- Ferraris, C. 1998. Catfishes and Knifefishes. Pp. 106-112 in J Paxton, W Eschmeyer, eds. Encyclopedia of Fishes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | ©1995-2013, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors |
Source | http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Actinopterygii/ |
Ray-finned fishes are essential components of most ecosystems in which they occur. While many ray-finned fishes prey on each other, they can also have significant impacts on nearly all other animals in their habitats. Zooplanktivorous fishes, for instance, select for specific types and sizes of zooplankton when they feed, thus influencing the type and quantity of zooplankton, and, by extension, phytoplankton present in surface waters (zooplankton consume algae; together they are simply termed plankton). When non-native species invade new habitats (usually through human intervention), the fragility of this balance is dramatically illustrated. For instance, when alewives (family Clupeidae) invaded Lake Michigan, they decimated two larger species of zooplankton and dramatically reduced two midsize species, resulting in the increase of ten smaller species and higher algal content. Later, Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) were introduced into the lake and dramatically reduced alewife populations and the larger zooplankton species recovered. Because the larger species grazed on algae more efficiently, phytoplankton density decreased dramatically and the lake cleared. This is an example of a trophic cascade, and although the ecosystem achieved relative balance in this example, this is not always the case. For instance, the introduction of Nile perch , a voracious predator, into Lake Victoria (Africa) caused a precipitous decline of many small, planktivorous cichlids. These cichlid species exerted considerable predation pressure on zooplankton, and after they were eliminated the zooplankton community changed drastically, to the point that a new and very large cladoceran species appeared in the lake, Daphnia magna. Unfortunately, this introduction resulted in one of the largest mass extinctions of endemic species in modern times, and the repercussions did not stop with the perch introduction. Many local people consumed the smaller cichlid species and hung them in the sun to dry and preserve them. When Nile perch began to impact local cichlid fisheries, locals started to consume Nile perch, but this fish required firewood for drying and preservation because it is much larger. Consequently, deforestation started to occur around Lake Victoria, leading to increased runoff and siltation during rainy periods, and consequently, decreasing water quality. Decreasing water quality further endangered endemic cichlids, resulting in even more extinctions. The latter example illustrates the complexity of ecological interactions and the fact that ecological interactions are not confined to aquatic organisms. Because ray-finned fishes are often important food source to terrestrial organisms (see below), including humans (see Economic Importance and Conservation), changes in ray-finned fish communities can have significant ecological implications.
A variety of terrestrial vertebrates, such as mammals , amphibians , reptiles , and many marine and freshwater birds depend on ray-finned fishes as a primary source of food. Piscivorous ray-finned fishes compete with many of the organisms above and in some cases are involved in symbiotic relationships with them. A simultaneous competitive and commensal (one benefits and the other is unaffected) relationship is found between bluefish and common terns. These two species interact at a critical period of the terns’ feeding cycle, just after mating when there are chicks to feed. At this time, bluefish migrate to feed on anchovies, concentrating and driving them up in the water column, where terns can catch sight of the anchovies (commensalism). However, bluefish reduce anchovies’ populations considerably, and terns that breed after the bluefish migration are usually unsuccessful (competition). There are numerous other examples of symbiosis, mutualism, commensalism and parasitism between ray-finned fishes and other groups. For example, gobies share burrows with several shrimp-like crustaceans (mutualism) or live among sponges and corals (commensalism). Cardinalfishes and pearlfishes live inside large gastropods and mollusks , respectively (inquilism-sheltering inside living invertebrates). Recently, researchers have begun to appreciate the importance of fish in linking terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This is especially true of anadromous species, which grow primarily in the sea but return to aquatic areas before they, spreading nutrients from the ocean up and down rivers. During rainy periods in tropical watersheds, ray-finned fish forage in flooded areas, consuming seeds and dispersing them throughout the floodplain.
Several groups of invertebrates (mostly marine), such as cone shells , crabs , anemones , squids and siphonophores (colonies of organisms, e.g. man-o-war), also regularly consume various ray-finned fish. There is even some unlikely predators like dinoflagellates , that can cause large fish kills, known as “red tides”. Some dinoflagellates consume the scales of the dead fish as they sink. Ray-finned fishes also have significant impacts on a variety of plant species. The trophic cascade example (above) illustrated an indirect connection between microscopic plants (phytoplankton) and fish, but fish also excrete soluble nutrients into the water, such as phosphorus. Phosphorus is essential for phytoplankton growth, and fish secretions may provide significant amounts of nutrients in some lakes. A more direct connection is simply the consumption of numerous plant species (see Food Habits). Finally, fish may significantly alter the geological dynamics of their habitats. Many ray-finned fish build nests or burrows (e.g. several minnows , trout and salmon and tilefishes), while others break down substrates, such as dead coral, into sand (e.g. parrotfishes , wrasses , surgeonfishes , triggerfishes and pufferfishes).
Ecosystem Impact: disperses seeds; creates habitat; biodegradation ; keystone species ; parasite
Species Used as Host:
- humans
- invertebrates
Mutualist Species:
- shrimp
Commensal/Parasitic Species:
- other fish
- Jonna, R., J. Lehman. 2002. The Invasion of Lake Victoria by the Large Bodied Herbivorous Cladoceran Daphnia magna . Pp. 321-333 in E Odada, D Olago, eds. The East African Great Lakes: Limnology, Paleolimnology and Biodiversity. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | ©1995-2013, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors |
Source | http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Actinopterygii/ |
Genomic DNA is available from 258 specimens with morphological vouchers housed at British Antarctic Survey and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | Text can be freely copied and altered, as long as original author and source are properly acknowledged. |
Source | http://www.oglf.org/catalog/details.php?id=T00396 |
Ray-finned fishes generally avoid predators in two ways, through behavioral adaptation and physical structures, such as spines, camouflage and scents. Usually, several behavioral and structural tactics are integrated because it is advantageous for fishes to break the predation cycle (1-4) in as many places as possible, and the earlier the better. For instance, (1) the primary goal of most fish is to avoid detection, or avoid being exposed during certain times of the day. If detected, (2) a fish might try to hide very quickly, blend in with the surroundings, or school; (3) if the fish is about to be attacked then it must try to deflect the attack, and if attack is unavoidable (4) the fish will try to avoid being handled and possibly escape. Therefore, many fishes avoid even the chance of attack through particular cycles of activity, shading (or lighting, see below) and camouflage, mimicking, and warning coloration.
For example, fishes usually avoid dusk because predators often take advantage of quickly changing light conditions that make it difficult for prey to see predators. (Species that feed at dusk are termed crepuscular and include jacks snappers , tarpon , cornetfishes and groupers). Most ray-finned fishes feed during daylight hours (diurnal), when they can see predators. Zooplanktivores, cleaner fishes, and many herbivores are abundant and conspicuous by day but hide within the reef at night. Several wrasses and parrotfishes even secrete a foul-smelling mucous tent or bury themselves in the sediment for protection. Shoaling, which is common among many groups (found in sticklebacks , bluegills , gobies and many others), provides many benefits as a daytime defense. Some predators actually mistake shoals for large fish and avoid attacking. Also, when shoals detect predators they form a tight, polarized group, or school, that is able make synchronous motions. Attacking predators may find it difficult to isolate individuals as the school morphs around them, and some groups (snappers , goatfishes , butterflyfishes , damselfishes , etc.) even mob the predator, nipping and displaying, to thwart an attack.
Because many larger species of zooplankton and other invertebrates come out at night, several groups have developed nighttime feeding patterns (nocturnal) and associated defense mechanisms. Many of these groups, including flashlight fishes , ponyfishes , pineapple fishes and some cardinalfishes , have luminescent organs. While luminescence is likely used for communication (shoaling and mating) and catching prey (via luminescent eyes, which can be turned on and off (!), and baits), several species use luminescence for defense. Rows of lights along the bottom of the body make these fishes indistinguishable to benthic (living at the bottom) predators because they match the intensity of moonlight or dim sunlight shining down. This peculiar method of invisibility is similar to countershading, which is common in several other pelagic ray-finned fishes (as well as sharks and rays). Countershaded fishes are graded in color from dark on top to light on bottom, rendering them invisible from nearly any angle because their coloring is opposite that of downwelling light; the light reflected is equivalent to the background (as above). Two other methods by which pelagic fishes remain invisible are by having a shiny coating (mirror-sided), as in anchovies , minnows , smelts , herrings and silversides ; or by having transparent bodies, like glassfishes , African glass catfishes and Asian glass catfishes.
Benthic ray-finned fishes also utilize numerous methods of camouflage (for both hunting and predator avoidance). A common and elaborate method in tropical seas is mimicking the background of the habitat (protective resemblance), which involves variable color patterns as well as peculiar growths of the skin that may resemble pieces of dead vegetation, corals , and a variety of bottom types (e.g. flatfishes). There are numerous examples of this type of crypticity, from sargassumfishes and leafy seadragons that mimic the seaweed among which they hover, to clingfishes , shrimp fishes and cardinalfishes that have black stripes resembling the sea urchins they use for cover. Another method of camouflage is to look and behave like something inedible, but remain conspicuous. Juvenile sweetlips and batfishes mimic certain types of flatworms and nudibranchs that have toxins in their skin and associated bright coloration, making possible predators wary.
Bold or bright coloration in ray-finned fishes (termed aposematic) usually means that the species posses a structural or chemical defense, such as poisonous spines, or toxic chemicals in the skin and internal organs. Surgeonfishes and lionfishes , for instance, have bold coloration to match scalpel-like and poisonous spines, respectively. Aposematic fishes also advertise their inedibility by moving slowly, instead of darting away when predators are present. However, displays of aggression back up this behavior. When disturbed, weevers erect a dark-colored and highly venomous dorsal spine, while pufferfishes , also poisonous, puff up into a ball of spikes.
Known Predators:
- fish (Actinopterygii)
- sharks Chondrichthyes
- aquatic invertebrates
- birds (Aves)
- mammals (Mammalia)
- reptiles (Lepidosauria)
- amphibians (Amphibia)
Anti-predator Adaptations: mimic; aposematic ; cryptic
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | ©1995-2013, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors |
Source | http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Actinopterygii/ |
The threat to aquatic habitats has grown steadily over the course of the twentieth century and continues today for a variety of reasons, most of which involve human intervention via overexploitation, introduced species, habitat alterations, pollution, and international trade. However, until recently, researchers did not fathom the scope of the problem among marine species because they assumed that broad distributions, the method of reproduction (pelagic dispersal), and the vastness of the marine environment might create a buffer to threats such as overexploitation and ecological decline. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs, such as collapses in many of the world’s fisheries and drastic declines in many large, mobile species (e.g. tunas). Additionally, researchers are finding that some species live quite long and have low reproduction and growth rates, meaning that removal of larger individuals can have significant impacts on populations. Another trade-related threat is excessive removal of exotic reef species using harsh chemicals, such as cyanide, for the aquarium trade.
Freshwater groups, however, account for the vast majority of actual extinctions in ray-finned fishes. The most significant threats are to families with restricted distribution (i.e. endemic) because localized threats can easily eliminate all individuals of a species. Introduced species, such as Nile perch and mosquitofish (genus Gambusia), combined with pollution and habitat alteration have proven particularly disastrous for groups of endemic ray-finned fishes (i.e. cichlids and many cyprinids). At this point, approximately 90 species of ray-finned fishes are known to be extinct or only survive in aquaria, 279 are critically endangered or endangered, and another 506 are listed as vulnerable or near threatened. Families of particular concern (in descending order) are cyprinids , cichlids , silversides , pupfishes , and especially sturgeons and paddlefishes since every member in the latter two families are threatened.
- IUCN, 2003. "2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" (On-line). Accessed August 16, 2004 at http://www.redlist.org.
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | ©1995-2013, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors |
Source | http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Actinopterygii/ |
Actinopterygii is prey of:
Actinopterygii
Homo sapiens
Ardeidae
Anguilliformes
Laridae
Fregata
Sula
Leptonychotes weddellii
Hydrurga leptonyx
Cephalopoda
Spheniscidae
Phocidae
Cetacea
Aves
Mirounga leonina
Clarias gariepinus
Barbus rhoadesii
Haplochromis dimidiatus
Haplochromis rostratus
Haplochromis
Rhamphochromis
Thunninae
Alepisaurus
Istiophoridae
invertebrates
Cyprinidae
Vertebrata
Phoca
Enhydra lutris
Hirudinea
Mammalia
Salmonidae
Carangidae
Sciaenops ocellatus
Chondrichthyes
Tursiops truncatus
Crocodilia
Perca fluviatilis
Testudines
Serpentes
Gavialis gangeticus
Alcedinidae
Anas
Nematoda
Gambusia
Heterandria formosa
Decapoda
Floridichthys carpio
Lophogobius cyprinoides
high carnivores
Copepoda
Callinectes sapidus
Sphyraena
Carcharhinus leucas
Megalops atlanticus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Alligator mississippiensis
Lutra lutra
Merluccius
Scombridae
Argyrosomus hololepoditus
Seriola
Atractoscion aequidens
Hemiramphidae
phytoplankton
organic stuff
Epinephelinae
Octopus
Stomatopoda
Anomura
Isopoda
Amphipoda
Pycnogonidae
Tanaidae
Brevoortia tyrannus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Morone americana
Arius felis
Pomatomus saltatrix
Lepomis gibbosus
Salvelinus fontinalis
Ambloplites rupestris
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Umbra
Notemigonus crysoleucus
Perca flavescens
Anthopleura elegantissima
Huso huso
Lepisosteus osseus
Lepisosteus platostomus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Salvelinus confluentus
Hepsetus odoe
Lates niloticus
Lepomis megalotis
Caretta caretta
Thamnophis sirtalis
Thamnophis butleri
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Gavia immer
Gavia stellata
Podilymbus podiceps
Diomedea epomophora
Sula dactylatra
Butorides virescens
Egretta thula
Egretta tricolor
Mycteria americana
Eudocimus ruber
Anas fulvigula
Anas strepera
Pandion haliaetus
Herpetotheres cachinnans
Grus japonensis
Gallinula chloropus
Actitis macularia
Larus californicus
Larus canus
Fratercula cirrhata
Strix varia
Corvus caurinus
Lagenorhynchus australis
Lagenorhynchus cruciger
Feresa attenuata
Phocoenoides dalli
Delphinapterus leucas
Monodon monoceros
Mesoplodon europaeus
Mesoplodon carlhubbsi
Mesoplodon layardii
Ursus maritimus
Ursus arctos
Lontra canadensis
Mustela vison
Panthera onca
Zalophus californianus
Neophoca cinerea
Callorhinus ursinus
Arctocephalus australis
Arctocephalus philippii
Arctocephalus townsendi
Phoca largha
Monachus tropicalis
Mirounga angustirostris
Panthera pardus
Cerdocyon thous
Paleosuchus trigonatus
Puma concolor
Oncifelis geoffroyi
Prionailurus viverrinus
Mesoplodon peruvianus
Ardea alba
Ictinia mississippiensis
Otus kennicottii
Hydromys chrysogaster
Ambystoma mexicanum
Chelus fimbriatus
Ailuropoda melanoleuca
Galidia elegans
Herpestes edwardsii
Amblonyx cinereus
Lontra provocax
Lutrogale perspicillata
Martes melampus
Martes zibellina
Osbornictis piscivora
Potamogale velox
Nectogale elegans
Megaderma lyra
Prionailurus iriomotensis
Calloplesiops altivelis
Nimbochromis linni
Canis lupus familiaris
Based on studies in:
India, Cochin (Brackish water)
USA: California (Marine)
USA: Rhode Island (Marine)
Polynesia (Reef)
Antarctic (Estuarine)
Southern Ocean (Marine, Tropical)
Canada: Manitoba (Forest)
Malawi, Lake Nyasa (Lake or pond)
unknown (epipelagic zone, Tropical)
Mexico: Guerrero (Coastal)
USA: Texas (Lake or pond)
USA: Alaska, Aleutian Islands (Coastal)
USA: Iowa, Mississippi River (River)
USA: Florida (Estuarine)
Russia (Lake or pond)
Ethiopia, Lake Abaya (Lake or pond)
Uganda (Lake or pond)
Finland (Lake or pond, Littoral)
Malaysia (Swamp)
Uganda, Lake George (Lake or pond)
Netherlands: Wadden Sea, Ems estuary (Estuarine)
USA: Florida, Everglades (Estuarine)
UK: Yorkshire, Aire, Nidd & Wharfe Rivers (River)
South Africa, Southwest coast (Marine)
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands shelf (Reef)
USA: Maryland, Chesapeake Bay (Estuarine)
USA: New York, Bridge Brook (Lake or pond)
Malawi (River)
Africa, Crocodile Creek, Lake Nyasa (Lake or pond)
USA: Wisconsin, Little Rock Lake (Lake or pond)
This list may not be complete but is based on published studies.
- S. Z. Qazim, Some problems related to the food chain in a tropical estuary. In: Marine Food Chains, J. H. Steele, Ed. (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1970), pp. 45-51, from p. 50.
- S. W. Nixon and C. A. Oviatt, Ecology of a New England salt marsh, Ecol. Monogr. 43:463-498, from p. 491 (1973).
- G. A. Knox, Antarctic marine ecosystems. In: Antarctic Ecology, M. W. Holdgate, Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1970) 1:69-96, from p. 87.
- B. C. Patten and J. T. Finn, Systems approach to continental shelf ecosystems. In: Theoretical Systems Ecology, E. Halfon, Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1979) pp. 183-212 from p. 202.
- G. Fryer, The trophic interrelationships and ecology of some littoral communities of Lake Nyasa, Proc. London Zool. Soc. 132:153-229, from p. 219 (1959).
- G. Fryer, The trophic interrelationships and ecology of some littoral communities of Lake Nyasa, Proc. London Zool. Soc. 132:153-281, from p. 218 (1959).
- A. Yanez-Arancibia, Taxonomia, ecologia y estructura de las comunidades de peces en lagunas costeras con bocas efimeras del Pacifico de Mexico.
- C. A. Simenstad, J. A. Estes, K. W. Kenyon, Aleuts, sea otters, and alternate stable-state communities, Science 200:403-411, from p. 404 (1978).
- A. Yanez-Arancibia, Taxonomia, ecologia y estructura de las comunidades de peces en lagunas costeras con bocas efimeras del Pacifico de Mexico. Cent. Cienc. del Mar y Limnol. Univ. Nal. Auton. Mex. Publ. Espec. 2:1-306 (1978).
- C. A. Carlson, Summer bottom fauna of the Mississippi River, above Dam 19, Keokuk, Iowa, Ecology 49(1):162-168, from p. 167 (1968).
- W. M. Kemp, W. H. B. Smith, H. N. McKellar, M. E. Lehman, M. Homer, D. L. Young and H. T. Odum, Energy cost-benefit analysis applied to power plants near Crystal River, Florida. In: Ecosystem Modeling in Theory and Practice: An Introduction with Case His
- M. J. Burgis, I. G. Dunn, G. G. Ganf, L. M. McGowan and A. B. Viner, Lake George, Uganda: Studies on a tropical freshwater ecosystem. In: Productivity Problems of Freshwaters, Z. Kajak and A. Hillbricht-Ilkowska, Eds. (Polish Scientific, Warsaw, 1972), p
- K. Aulio, K. Jumppanen, H. Molsa, J. Nevalainen, M. Rajasilta, I. Vuorinen, Litoraalin merkitys Pyhajarven kalatuotannolle, Sakylan Pyhajarven Tila Ja Biologinen Tuotanto (Lounais-Suomen Vesiensuojeluyhdistys R. Y., Turku, Finland, 1981) 47:173-176.
- T. Mizuno and J. I. Furtado, Food chain. In: Tasek Bera, J. I. Furtado and S. Mori, Eds. (Junk, The Hague, Netherlands, 1982), pp. 357-359, from p. 358.
- D. J. W. Moriarty, J. P. E. C. Darlington, I. G. Dunn, C. M. Moriarty and M. P. Tevlin, Feeding and grazing in Lake George, Uganda, Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 184:299-319 (1973).
- F. B. van Es, A preliminary carbon budget for a part of the Ems estuary: The Dollard, Helgolander wiss. Meeresunters. 30:283-294, from p. 292 (1977).
- W. E. Odum and E. J. Heald, The detritus-based food web of an estuarine mangrove community, In Estuarine Research, Vol. 1, Chemistry, Biology and the Estuarine System, Academic Press, New York, pp. 265-286, from p. 281 (1975).
- G. Fryer, 1957. The trophic interrelationships and ecology of some littoral communities of Lake Nyasa with special reference to the fishes, and a discussion of the evolution of a group of rock-frequenting Cichlidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 132:153-281, f
- E. Percival and H. Whitehead, 1929. A quantitative study of the fauna of some types of stream-bed. J. Ecol. 17:282-314, from p. 311 & overleaf.
- N. V. Parin, Ichthyofauna of the Epipelagic Zone (Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1970; U.S. Department of Commerce Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, VA 22151), from p. 154.
- Y. I. Sorokin, Biological productivity of the Rybinsk reservoir. In: Productivity Problems of Freshwaters, Z. Kajak and A. Hillbricht-Ilkowska, Eds. (Polish Scientific, Warsaw, 1972), pp. 493-503, from p. 497.
- W. A. Niering, Terrestrial ecology of Kapingamarangi Atoll, Caroline Islands, Ecol. Monogr. 33(2):131-160, from p. 157 (1963).
- B. C. Patten and 40 co-authors, Total ecosystem model for a cove in Lake Texoma. In: Systems Analysis and Simulation in Ecology, B. C. Patten, Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1975), 3:205-421, from pp. 236, 258, 268.
- R. F. Johnston, Predation by short-eared owls on a Salicornia salt marsh, Wilson Bull. 68(2):91-102, from p. 99 (1956).
- R. D. Bird, Biotic communities of the Aspen Parkland of central Canada, Ecology, 11:356-442, from p. 410 (1930).
- N. A. Mackintosh, A survey of antarctic biology up to 1945. In: Biologie antarctique, R. Carrick, M. Holdgate, J. Prevost, Eds. (Hermann, Paris, 1964), pp. 3-38.
- D. Riedel, Der Margheritensee (Sudabessinien) - Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Abessinischen Graben-Seen, Arch. Hydrobiol. 58(4):435-466, from p. 457 (1962).
- Opitz S (1996) Trophic interactions in Caribbean coral reefs. ICLARM Tech Rep 43, Manila, Philippines
- Havens K (1992) Scale and structure in natural food webs. Science 257:11071109
- Martinez ND (1991) Artifacts or attributes? Effects of resolution on the Little Rock Lake food web. Ecol Monogr 61:367392
- Myers, P., R. Espinosa, C. S. Parr, T. Jones, G. S. Hammond, and T. A. Dewey. 2006. The Animal Diversity Web (online). Accessed February 16, 2011 at http://animaldiversity.org. http://www.animaldiversity.org
- Yodzis P (2000) Diffuse effects in food webs. Ecology 81:261266
- Baird D, Ulanowicz RE (1989) The seasonal dynamics of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 59:329364
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | Cynthia Sims Parr, Joel Sachs, SPIRE |
Source | http://spire.umbc.edu/fwc/ |
There was no specific information found on negative impacts to humans. However, many fish are poisonous and venomous, and when disturbed, like many other animals, they can inflict serious wounds and death in some cases. This is also true of predatory fishes that are attracted to shiny objects. Humans willingly eat poisonous species considered delicacy, such as pufferfishes. In some cases, people die from consuming poisonous fish. In the great majority of cases, however, fishes have positive or negligible impacts on humans.
Negative Impacts: injures humans (bites or stings, causes disease in humans , poisonous , venomous )
License | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
Rights holder/Author | ©1995-2013, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors |
Source | http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Actinopterygii/ |