Larvae of the invasive species Limnoperna fortunei (Bivalvia) in the diet of fish larvae in the Paraná River, Argentina

Abstract

To assess the trophic impact of the planktonic larvae of the invasive Asian bivalve Limnoperna fortunei, introduced in South America around 1990, we investigated the gut contents of fish larvae collected at monthly intervals between October 2000 and March 2001 at three locations along a 600 km stretch of the Parana River, and during November 2004 in two areas of marginal lagoons connected to the river near the city of San Nicolas, Argentina. Zooplankton was also collected in the lagoons in 2004. In total, 11,956 fish larvae were retrieved, of which 1,511 were used for detailed analyses. Of the 15 fish taxa collected, 11 had veligers of L. fortunei in their gut. Fish larvae with empty guts represented 60% (San Nicolas) to 72% (Parana River) of the total number of fish. Proportions of feeding fish larvae with L. fortunei veligers in their guts varied between 20% (San Nicolas) and 56% (Parana River); in 15% of the guts analyzed, L. fortunei was the only food item recorded. For those specimens that had consumed L. fortunei larvae and any other food item, L. fortunei was the most important item in 55% (Parana River) to 71% (San Nicolas) of the animals in terms of biomass. No major temporal or spatial changes in the diet were observed along the Parana River, but the relative biomass contribution of L. fortunei larvae differed strongly in fishes of different developmental stage. In protolarvae and mesolarvae, veligers accounted for 30–35% of the gut contents. In metalarvae, veligers accounted for only 3%, indicating enhanced food supply for the earliest fish life stages. Comparison of the relative proportions of the three main zooplankton types (L. fortunei veligers, cladocerans, and copepods) in the water and in larval fish guts indicates that L. fortunei is always selected positively over the other two prey types. While our results strongly suggest that the expansion of L. fortunei results in an enhanced food supply for local fish populations, they do not necessarily imply that the overall effect on the ecosystem in general, and on the fish fauna in particular is beneficial.