Next Article in Journal
Transgenic Rice Plants Expressing Artificial miRNA Targeting the Rice Stripe Virus MP Gene Are Highly Resistant to the Virus
Previous Article in Journal
Cardiac Peptides—Current Physiology, Pathophysiology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Clinical Application
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/biology11020331
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Feeding Habits and the Occurrence of Anthropogenic Debris in the Stomach Content of Marine Fish from Pattani Bay, Gulf of Thailand

by
Kay Khine Soe
1,2,
Sukree Hajisamae
3,
Penjai Sompongchaiyakul
4,
Prawit Towatana
1,5 and
Siriporn Pradit
1,5,*
1
Faculty of Environmental, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
2
Department of Marine Science, Myeik University, Myeik 14051, Myanmar
3
Faculty of Science and Technology, Prince of Songkla University, Pattani 94000, Thailand
4
Department of Marine Science, Chaulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
5
Coastal Oceanography and Climate Change Research Center, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2022, 11(2), 331; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020331
Submission received: 20 January 2022 / Revised: 15 February 2022 / Accepted: 18 February 2022 / Published: 19 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Ecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In this work, the feeding behaviour of fish from a natural bay environment and the ingested anthropogenic fragments in a fish community in relation to their feeding habits and habitats were investigated. The identification of 34 fish species and analysis of their stomach content by visual inspection were carried out. The ingestion of anthropogenic debris by fish differed between season and their feeding features. The planktivorous fish having higher ingestion of anthropogenic debris than other species were found. The study results enhance the understanding of the spatiotemporal variation of feeding habits of fish communities and support future alerts relating to the risk of anthropogenic pollution in marine food webs.

Abstract

This study assessed the feeding habits and ingestion of anthropogenic debris in 34 marine fish species from the southern Gulf of Thailand. A total of 5478 fish samples of 12 families were categorised into seven groups: planktivore, Lucifer feeder, fish feeder, Acetes feeder, shrimp feeder, piscivore, and zoobenthivore fish. A total of 2477 anthropogenic debris items were extracted from 12 fish species by visual inspection. Their ingestion of anthropogenic debris was influenced by season (p < 0.0001), with the highest ingestion during the northeast monsoon season. Furthermore, planktivorous fish displayed more ingested anthropogenic debris than the other investigated species (p = 0.022). Blue-coloured anthropogenic debris was commonly detected in the stomachs of fish and significantly differed between species (p > 0.001). Water depth and season significantly influenced the availability of food types (AF) for fish (p < 0.001). These findings provide evidence of the ingestion of anthropogenic debris by fish inhabiting a natural bay and signal the future anthropogenic pollution of marine fish.

1. Introduction

In the marine ecosystem, fish are major top predators and important for aquaculture and conservation management [1]. Fish stomach content is important primary data to directly study the feeding ecology of fish [1,2] and can be quantitatively or qualitatively presented [3,4]. To determine the feeding habits of fish, the index of relative importance (%IRI) is most frequently used by about 30% of citations examining the stomach content of fish [1]. It can be calculated from the weight or volume of a prey item and the percentages of number and frequency of occurrence [5]. It is important fundamental information to understand the functional role of the fish community in aquatic ecosystems [1,2,6] and useful to understand the interspecific interaction of resource partitioning (e.g., habitat, food) between species [7,8,9]. Fish show a narrow range of feeding adaptation, though there are some overlaps in food selection between niches in tropical estuaries [2] and nontropical estuaries [9,10,11,12,13]. There are some studies of diet overlap, food selection, and resource partitioning of fish in tropical and nontropical regions. Examples include the fish community inhabiting the bay mouth region in Thailand [14], short mackerel (Rastrelliger brachysoma) in a tropical estuarine environment [15], estuarine–reef habitat fish in Brazil [9], demersal fish on the continental shelf of the East/Japan Sea [10] and Southern Tyrrhenian Sea [16], deep-sea fish community in the benthic layer of the Mediterranean Sea [11], deep-sea shark (Galeus melastomus) in the Mediterranean Sea [12] and southern Tyrrhenian Sea [17], and diet overlap between jellyfish and juvenile fish in Alaska [13].
Further, fish diet composition fluctuates by season and spatiality [2], including food availability and reproductive activity [18]. Studying diets to obtain information about the food composition and feeding behaviour of species is critical to examine the ecosystem role and position of species in the ecosystem food web [19]. This information is crucial to support the management of aquatic life, especially fisheries, aquaculture, and the conservation among many species of aquatic ecosystems, in addition to supporting food security. Fish are the most important predators and have a determinant status in the trophic position of aquatic ecosystems. Many fish species play an important role in the economy of many countries around the world. Hence, information on the diet composition and feeding features of fish near Thailand is necessary.
Fish are a useful bio-indicator of contamination of anthropogenic debris (microplastics making up the main content) to assist food security valuations [20]. However, Santana et al. [21] reported there was no evidence of plastic particle persistence in aquatic organism tissue, but consumption of fish with microplastics can lead to human health risk if toxic substances adhere to microplastics [22]. Meanwhile, consumption of microplastics can have negative effects on growth, reproduction, and survival evidence, although most of the effects are sublethal [23,24]. In addition, soft or thin plastic fragments on muddy beaches are found in higher amounts than other debris types that may have a harmful impact on marine organisms [25]. Specifically, plastic debris from anthropogenic activity occurs regardless of the season, area, or ontogenetic phase and may be passed through direct consumption and prey items [26].
Microplastics are defined as any plastic particle smaller than 5 mm [27] and have been widely distributed in the ocean and sediments worldwide in recent years [28], including all water of pelagic and benthic marine organisms [16,17,29,30,31,32]. Microplastics can be found in all living organisms, from tiny animals such as zooplankton [31], mysid larvae [24], and bivalves [33,34] to top predators [16,18,21,30,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The first report of microplastics in plankton tows was reported by Carpenter et al. [43] in North America, which later caused concern for massive water bodies [44]. For instance, microplastics have accumulated in oceans and sediment with concentrations of 3 to 102,000 m−3 and 1 to >1000 m−2, respectively [28]. On the contrary, Md Amin et al. [45] stated that the average abundance of microplastics in surface seawater of the southern South China Sea was 0.003 m−3. Microplastics pose increasing threats to the food web [38] and are transferred from prey to predator [21,31,46]. In particular, low trophic fauna is mostly affected by microplastics through ingestion [28]. For example, plastic shaped similar to algae was mistaken for food by suspension feeders [47]. When comparing the concentration of microplastics in the young and adult stages of mugilids, the early development stage of fish had a greater concentration than the older stage [37], and small-sized shellfish contained more particles than large-sized fish [34]. Therefore, there was a significant effect of prolonged exposure to microplastic harm related to age and size specific to organisms [24].
In the lower part of the Gulf of Thailand, some sciaenid fish show higher ingestion of mesoplastics than micro- and macroplastics [35]. Fishing net fibres were the major types of plastic found in the stomachs of some commercial marine fish, and of those, 80% were microplastics (<5 mm), whereas the rest were mesoplastics (5–25 mm) [36]. In addition, higher ingestion of microplastics was found in some commercial shrimp than in fish, most of the microplastics being fibres from textiles and fishing nets in Thailand [39]. However, the occurrence of ceramic and glass debris is greater than plastic and other debris in beach sediment due to shoreline and recreational activities [25].
Microplastics enter the marine environment by different pathways [42], and the ingestion of microplastics by aquatic organisms is related to their feeding habits and habitats [30]. Information on the diet composition, feeding features, and potential threats of plastic debris in marine creatures in Thailand is necessary. The present study aimed to evaluate the feeding habits of those fish and their potential contamination in environments by determining the following: (1) the occurrence of anthropogenic debris, including microplastic-like debris, in wild fish from the natural bay environment; (2) the anthropogenic debris ingestion of fish dependent upon their feeding features, water depth, and season; and (3) the variety of food types of fish at different depths or in different seasons.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The survey site is situated off Pattani Bay with a surface area of 74 km2, located in the lower part of the Gulf of Thailand at latitude 06°52′5.3″ N and longitude 101°15′0.3″ E (Figure 1). The bay is semienclosed by a 12 km long sand spit on the northeast side. In general, the seasonal pattern of southern Thailand is influenced by the sea on both sides and heavy rains throughout the year. Based on the rainfall level, Pattani province has three seasons: dry season from January to May, moderate rainfall season (southwest monsoon) from May to September, and heavy rainy season (northeast monsoon) from September to December [14,15,48,49]. On average, Pattani province has seven months of rainfall and five months of drought due to the northeast monsoon (November–February) and southwest monsoon (May–September) [48]. The main site of this study comprised the area around the vicinity of the mouth of the bay, called Rusamilae fishing village. This area was selected because it is locally known as a major fishing ground by local fisherfolk [15,49].

2.2. Sample Collection and Storage

Altogether, 13-month fish sampling was conducted from February 2019 to February 2020. Fish were caught at three water depth contours of 2, 4, and 6 m using a set of multiple-mesh-sized mackerel gill nets with 3.0, 4.0, and 4.5 cm stretched mesh-sizes, 3.5 m deep and 540 m long; therefore, each mesh was 180 m long [14,15]. At each sampling station, a set of multiple-mesh-sized nets were hauled and left to drift for around one hour between 18:00 and 19:00. Most fish died immediately after being caught and were preserved in iceboxes as soon as possible before transportation to the laboratory at the Faculty of Science and Technology, Prince of Songkla University. Specimens were sorted and identified immediately. Fifty individual fish per species were randomly collected from each of the three sampling stations and preserved with 10% formalin for four days before being transferred to 70% ethanol for further analyses.

2.3. Diet and Anthropogenic Debris Identification

In the laboratory, a diet analysis of 5478 fish samples was performed. Total length was measured from the tip of the snout of fish to the tip of the caudal fin. Then, the fish stomach was removed from the body cavity and opened with surgical scissors. During processing, stomach content was carefully taken apart, and all identifiable prey from the 3236 nonempty stomachs were counted and specified to the lowest possible taxa with pertinent literature [50,51,52,53]. The feeding functional group was classified according to dietary preference [54]. There were seven main feeding guilds based on their %IRI: (1) planktivorous, which feeds mainly on phytoplankton and copepod zooplankton; (2) Lucifer feeder; (3) fish feeder, which feeds mainly on fish but also feeds on phytoplankton and copepod zooplankton; (4) Acetes feeder; (5) shrimp feeder; (6) piscivorous, which feeds mainly on fish; and (7) zoobenthivorous, which feeds mainly on polychaetes.
The prey types for piscivorous fish, shrimp feeder, and zoobenthivorous fish were examined under a stereomicroscope. For planktivorous fish and Lucifer feeder, the stomach content was put in a 15 mL measuring cylinder filled with water. The 1 mL subsample was later taken and placed on a Sedgwick Rafter chamber. Thereafter, diets were identified and counted under a light microscope. To reduce misidentification between plastic-like debris and the broken cell structure of natural prey items, nonorganic fibre was considered as plastic-like fibre, while nonorganic hard material was considered as fragments [37,42,55]. To distinguish between organic and nonorganic materials, we followed the rules of Hidalgo-Ruz [56]: Rule 1, no cellular or organic structures visible; Rule 2, fibres should be equally thick throughout their entire length; Rule 3, particles should exhibit homogeneous colour throughout the item. The hot needle test [57] was also applied for suspected cases where we were unable to distinguish between plastic and organic matter. In the presence of a hot needle, plastic pieces will melt or curl, while biological and other nonplastic materials will not. Although the aforementioned rules were applied to identify plastic materials, the whole identified fragments were not classified as totally plastic substances until they were verified by FT-IR spectrophotometer. Thus, the so-called plastic-like debris was employed for the identification of anthropogenic debris in this study.
Food types were photographed with a microscope (NIKON Eclipse E200, Nikon instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA) attached to a digital camera (NIKON DS Fi2, Nikon instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA). The anthropogenic debris in this study was grouped according to colour as blue, black, red, green, and white. The observed anthropogenic debris items were regarded as microplastic-like items (<5 mm), mesoplastic-like items (5–25 mm), or macroplastic-like items (>25 mm) with reference to the relevant literature [58].

2.4. Experimental Control

To avoid contamination, only laboratory glassware was used during laboratory work. To prevent sample contamination during laboratory work and visual identification, specific care was applied. To prevent contamination, an 8 cm petri dish with a few millilitres of distilled water (blank) was placed next to the working zone beside the microscope to prevent any atmospheric contamination. The results from the blank control showed no microplastic-like debris contamination.

2.5. Data Analysis

Raw diet data were analysed to determine the feeding features of fish in terms of (i) the average number of food types (AF) and (ii) percentage of index of relative importance (%IRI).
AF refers to the average number of food types observed in each stomach. Prior to estimating the %IRI of the fish, the index of relative importance (IRI) was calculated to determine the food preference of fish by the following formula [5]:
IRIi = %F(%N + %V)
where %V refers to the percentage contribution of all food items in nonempty stomachs that were estimated by visual inspection and calculated based on the area covered by each prey type on a scaled Petri dish by the Hyslop formula [59]. %N and %F represent percentages of number and frequency of occurrence of prey “i”, respectively. Finally, %IRI was determined by the following formula [3]:
%IRI = 100 IRIi/∑IRIi

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for the ingestion of anthropogenic debris related to their feeding features, while the ingestion of debris colour in the stomach content of fish was tested. In addition, the differences of AF in fish collected from different depths and in different seasons were tested. To reduce non-normality, raw data were transformed to log (X + 1) before testing. If statistically significant, Tukey’s HSD post hoc test was then applied for the factors depth, season, feeding features, and debris colour using the R program [60].

3. Results

3.1. Food and Dominant Food Items

For data elaboration, 3236 samples of nonempty stomachs from 5478 samples of 34 fish species consisted of 22 different prey categories, which could be designated into seven main feeding guilds based on their index of relative importance (%IRI): planktivore, Lucifer feeder, fish feeder, Acetes feeder, shrimp feeder, piscivore, and zoobenthivore fishes (Table 1). Out of 34 species, only three polychaete feeders (Nuchequula gerreoides, Johnius belangerii, and J. borneensis) were recognised as zoobenthivorous fish. In this study, fish (24.1%), Lucifer (14.7%), and penaeid shrimp (13.4%) were the most important groups and the largest contributors for fish inhabiting the vicinity of the natural bay environment, followed by Coscinodiscus sp. (8.4%), copepods (8.3%), diatoms (7.6%), Acetes sp. (5.6%), polychaetes (5.1%), and other prey items (<3.0) (Table 2). Among planktivores, Eubleekeria splendens and Photopectoralis bindus mainly feed on diatoms with an average of 60.0% and 48.1% by %IRI, respectively. Examples of the stomach content of fish are shown in Figure 2.
The average number of food types (AF) ranged from 2 (T. lepturus) to 16 (E. splendens) types (Table 1). More than 10 food types were found mostly in planktivores, whereas fewer than 8 types were found in piscivorous fishes. The fish that had high AF were considered opportunist feeders. AF of individual fish was influenced significantly by water depth and season (p < 0.05), especially for most of the planktivorous fish, some Lucifer feeders, and one zoobenthivorous fish (J. borneensis) (Table 1). On the contrary, planktivorous fish such as Anodontostoma chacunda, Planiliza subviridis, some Lucifer feeders (Alepes kleinii and A. vari), Acetes feeders (S. waitei), shrimp feeders (Thryssa hamiltonii, Panna microdon, and E. tetradactylum), zoobenthivorous fish (J. belangerii), and piscivorous fish (H. nehereus, M. cordyla, S. tol, Otolithes ruber, Pennahia anea, and T. lepturus) showed no statistical significance, indicating their feeding was not influenced by the water depth or season.

3.2. Spatial and Temporal Impacts of Depth and Season

The ingestion of anthropogenic debris by fish was influenced only by the season (p < 0.0001) and not by the water depth (p = 0.840). Tukey’s HSD post hoc test showed that high ingestion of debris was observed in the northeast monsoon season. In addition, among the anthropogenic debris ingestion of four feeding features, this was more significant for planktivorous fish (p = 0.022) than for the other studied fishes (Table 3). Among the five debris colours, blue was significantly more common than the others (p < 0.001).
By the analysis of variance, AF of 34 fish species was influenced significantly by water depth and season (p < 0.001) (Table 3). Tukey’s HSD test indicated that AF significantly differed between 2 and 4 m depths. Based on the season, AF significantly differed between the dry and northeast monsoon seasons.

3.3. Ingestion of Anthropogenic Debris in Fish

From the 5478 fish samples of 34 species, 3236 nonempty stomachs were assessed, and anthropogenic debris was observed in the guts of 12 fish species. A total of 2477 debris items were observed in the 67 guts of those 12 fish species, which accounted for 3.4% of a total of 1964 fish samples (Table 4). More debris was ingested by planktivorous fish than by piscivorous fish. Among planktivorous fish, R. brachysoma had the highest ingestion (2.6 ± 16.4 items/fish), whereas Deveximentum insidiator had the lowest (0.4 ± 2.5 items/fish). Compared with planktivores, Acetes feeder fish Thryssa kammalensis and piscivorous fish M. cordyla had low ingestion of debris at 0.02 ± 0.2 items/fish and 0.01 ± 0.1 items/fish, respectively. Examples of anthropogenic debris found in the stomachs of fish are shown in Figure 3.
Including plastic fibres and plastic bags found in the stomach content of fish, the average numbers of anthropogenic debris items are shown in Table 4. The most consumed colour of debris with a length of less than 3 mm in different species was blue, followed by green, red, black, and white, while M. cordyla had 3 cm of degraded plastic bag. Blue-coloured debris was dominant in S. gibbosa, D. insidiator, E. splendens, P. bindus, P. subviridis, and R. brachysoma. The green colour was dominant in A. chacunda and Sardinella fimbriata; red colour, in H. kelee; and black colour, in Leiognathus equula.

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the feeding habits and anthropogenic debris ingestion of fish collected by mackerel gill nets from the natural environment off Pattani Bay, located in the southern region of the Gulf of Thailand. All fish inhabited the vicinity of the natural bay and competed for food resources, as shown by the occurrence of more than one dietary item in their stomach content. In general, most fish are opportunistic feeders and their diets may shift according to their food habitat and environmental conditions [1]. Most fish species are omnivorous in tropical estuarine environments [61], and young individual omnivorous fish of several taxa may serve as food for carnivorous fish [9]. In the nonestuarine habitat, more carnivorous or predatory fish and fewer contributions of herbivorous species were mainly observed in mangrove habitats, whilst omnivorous species dominated along the edge of mangrove and in the seagrass bed [62]. This agreed with the present study, in which most of the fish species were assigned as omnivorous, including planktivorous, Lucifer feeders, and Acetes feeders, but herbivorous fish were not observed. Pattani Bay supports a rich diverse fauna community and is an important fishing ground for local fisherfolk due to the presence of seagrass and seaweed meadows, mangrove forests, and sand–mud beds [63,64,65].
Out of 34 fish species, 19 species exhibited influences of water depth and seasonal factors on their AF by means of spatial and temporal variation of their dietary preference. In comparison within feeding features, both water depth and season were significant influence factors for most planktivorous fish, shrimp feeders, and Lucifer feeders, though some piscivorous fish were not affected by those factors. Particularly, fish inhabiting 2 and 4 m depths had more available prey items. It is postulated that shallow water provides more prey types for small fish, while deeper water supports larger fish (piscivorous fish).
The higher AF detected during the northeast monsoon season may be related to high rainfall and rivers (Pattani and Yamu) carrying a lot of nutrients from the land. The potential reasons for this pattern may include a recognisable seasonal trend of food availability that manifests in prey types. Consequently, this area may support the food chain of various fish feeding features. Therefore, Pattani Bay provides an important feeding ground for fish resources that should be sustained for future recruitment. The highest value of dietary items of fish might be related to the concurrence of the high abundance of prey during a specific period [18,66] during which plenty of food is derived from the land, river, and tidal mixing [61]. Some nemipterid fish showed that the AF of fish was influenced significantly by fish size classes in the lower part of the South China Sea [67].
Greater ingestion of anthropogenic debris was detected in sardines (A. chacunda, H. kelee, S. fimbriata, and S. gibbosa) than in anchovy fish (T. kammalensis). Bakun [68] stated that sardine fish are opportunist feeders whereas anchovy fish are specialists. In addition, the ingestion of anthropogenic debris was related to the filtration apparatus, as debris was ejected into the surrounding waters by the brachial system of adult fish [69]. However, Pennino et al. [70] reported that the highest microplastic ingestion was found in the lower body conditions of anchovies compared to sardines, which was in contrast to our study. In addition, de Moura and Vianna [41] reported that the ingestion of microplastics in the teleost fish was commonly fibres (20.2%) and fragments (22%). In the southern region of Thailand, some studies have been conducted on plastic debris in commercial fish and shrimp species [25,35,36,39,71]. Compared with the present study, there were different results depending on the study focus by species. For instance, there was no presence of anthropogenic debris in some sciaenid fish in this study, in contrast to the report by Azad et al. [35]. Moreover, the ingestion of plastic debris in S. gibbosa (0.3 items/fish), E. splendens (1 item/fish), and R. brachysoma (1 item/fish) from Azad et al. [36] was lower than that in the present study, while the ingestion of plastic debris in M. cordyla (1.6 items/fish) was lower than that in the aforementioned publication. The differences likely depend on feeding habitat, fishing ground, and seasonally available food. Season is a significant factor in this habitat, with especially high ingestion of plastic debris during the northeast monsoon season, but not irrespective of water depth. This may be related to the seasonal river inflow that carries plastic contaminants during the rainy season [20,72]. In addition, Barletta et al. [20] reported that the concentration of microplastic debris was higher in upstream locations during the dry season, while seaward areas had higher concentrations during the rainy season.
Hajisamae et al. [2] concluded that carnivorous fish depend mostly on their visual ability for prey detection. This was in agreement with the present study; the occurrence of anthropogenic debris ingestion was high among planktivorous fish, and R. brachysoma had especially high amounts of ingested anthropogenic debris. Therefore, it may be assumed that the ingestion of plastic debris may depend on the feeding behaviour of an individual species. In addition, Lima et al. [72] reported that planktivorous fish might ingest microplastics along with their food and then transfer them to larger predators. Klangnurak and Chunniyom [73] reported that microplastic accumulation in the gastrointestinal tracts of pelagic and demersal fishes showed no significant differences indicating the potential threats of microplastics throughout the water columns. On the contrary, Jabeen et al. [74] stated that the ingestion of plastic items in fish was closely related to the habitat and the gastrointestinal tract structure (such as intestine and stomach). However, Borges-Ramírez [22] reported that high ingestion of microplastics was detected in demersal fish species compared to pelagic fish. Meanwhile, omnivorous fish showed higher ingestion of MPs compared to herbivorous and carnivorous fish [32]. Therefore, future work on microplastic ingestion by fish should include the entire gastrointestinal tract and digestion process and then be extended to compare surface water with substrata. Among microplastic types including fragment, foam, fibre, film pellet, and others, the first was dominant and accounted for 42% with an average size of 3.72 ± 4.70 mm in the Yellow Sea [75]. In Taiwan, 91% of the microplastics found in common seafood species (shrimp, crab, oyster, and clam) were plastic fragments [31]. For comparison of plastic debris size, Núñez et al. [76] examined the distribution of microplastics across Galápagos Island. It was found that the size range of 0.15–0.5 mm was dominant in 100% of the water samples and marine organisms [76], and this is smaller than our result of mostly 1–3 mm in length with the exception of degraded plastic bag in M. cordyla that was 3 cm size in the stomach content of fish.
Most of the anthropogenic debris found in the present study was blue in colour, and the contributions differed significantly by debris type. According to a report by Pradit et al. [25], there was more blue-coloured debris in the mudflats than at beach sites. This finding corresponds with the bottom characteristics of Pattani Bay (sandy–muddy), which is a semienclosed bay located in the lower Gulf of Thailand, facing the South China Sea. Blue-coloured anthropogenic debris was ingested at the highest rate by R. brachysoma. This could be related to the utilisation of fishing gear and fishery activities where this species is intentionally caught by local fisherfolk in this fishing ground. Moreover, de Sa et al. [77] reported that the presence of microplastics in natural waters moves with water movement; therefore, it seems similar to natural prey, which leads to fish facing food selection difficulties. In addition, the size of plastic particles varied according to their colour, including white, tan, and yellow plastics; in particular, white colour plastic, reduced in size, was similar to prey for some planktivorous fishes [78]. Teleosts and elasmobranch fish mostly ingested blue microplastics [41], which was similar to the findings of the present study of teleost fish.

5. Conclusions

AF varied according to water depth and season; in particular, there were more available prey types at 2 and 4 m depths for fish. Along with food consumption by fish, anthropogenic debris ingestion differed by feeding features, though it was especially high in planktivorous fish. The ingestion of plastic debris by colour also differed by fish species, with especially high ingestion of blue-coloured plastics. Our study provides evidence of plastic pollutant ingestion by fish inhabiting the vicinity of Pattani Bay and alerts for the potential effect of these pollutants on the trophic web. Further studies are urgently needed to verify plastic debris using FT-IR spectrophotometry and investigate the contamination of fish from different water columns and substrates, and the investigation of the stomach content of fish should be extended to pursue a better understanding of the effects of plastic debris contamination on the marine trophic web.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K.S. and S.P.; methodology, K.K.S., S.H. and S.P.; laboratory, K.K.S. and S.H.; investigation, S.H., P.S., P.T. and S.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.S., S.H. and S.P.; writing—review and editing, all authors; funding acquisition, K.K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by Prince of Songkla University and Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Innovation under the Reinventing University Project (Grant number REV64028).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the statistical analysis in this article will be made available by the first author.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate students and staff from the Fishery Technology program, Faculty of Science and Technology, Prince of Songkla University, for their friendly support during fish sampling and laboratory work. We express gratitude to Seppo Karrila, Research and Development Office (RDO/PSU), Prince of Songkla University, for his proofreading of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. Saikia, S.K. Food and feeding of fishes. What do we need to know? Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res. 2015, 17, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Hajisamae, S.; Chou, L.M.; Ibrahim, S. Feeding habits and trophic organization of the fish community in shallow waters of an impacted tropical habitat. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 2003, 58, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cortés, E. A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: Application to elasmobranch fishes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1997, 54, 726–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baker, R.; Buckland, A.; Sheaves, M. 2014 Fish gut content analysis: Robust measure of diet composition. Fish Fish. 2014, 15, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pinkas, L. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito in California waters. Fish. Bull. 1971, 152, 1–105. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blaber, S.J.M. Fish and Fisheries of Tropical Estuaries; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1997; pp. 1–388. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hajisamae, S. Trophic ecology of bottom fishes assemblage along coastal areas of Thailand. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2009, 82, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dantas, D.V.; Barletta, M.; de Assis, A.R.J.; Lima, A.R.A.; da Costa, M.F. Seasonal diet shifts and overlap between two sympatric catfishes in an estuarine nursery. Estuaries Coast 2013, 36, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. de Medeiros, A.P.M.; de Amorim Xavier, J.H.; de Lucena Rosa, I.M. Diet and trophic organization of the fish assemblage from the Mamanguape River Estuary, Brazil. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2017, 45, 879–890. [Google Scholar]
  10. Park, J.M.; Kwak, S.N.; Huh, S.H.; Han, I.S. Diets and niche overlap among nine co-occurring demersal fishes in the southern continental shelf of East/Japan Sea, Korea. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 2017, 143, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carrassón, M.; Cartes, J.E. Trophic relationships in a Mediterranean deep-sea fish community: Partition of food resources, dietary overlap and connections within the benthic boundary layer. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2002, 241, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. D’iglio, C.; Savoca, S.; Rinelli, P.; Spanò, N.; Capillo, G. Diet of the deep-sea shark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810, in the Mediterranean sea: What we know and what we should know. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Purcell, J.E.; Sturdevant, M.V. Prey selection and dietary overlap among zooplanktivorous jellyfish and juvenile fishes in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2001, 210, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Soe, K.K.; Pradit, S.; Hajisamae, S. Feeding habits and seasonal trophic guilds structuring fish community in the bay mouth region of a tropical estuarine habitat. J. Fish. Biol. 2021, 99, 1430–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hajisamae, S.; Soe, K.K.; Pradit, S.; Chaiyvareesajja, J.; Fazrul, H. Feeding habits and microplastic ingestion of short mackerel, Rastrelliger brachysoma, in a tropical estuarine environment. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Capillo, G.; Savoca, S.; Panarello, G.; Mancuso, M.; Branca, C.; Romano, V.; D’Angelo, G.; Bottari, T.; Spanò, N. Quali-quantitative analysis of plastics and synthetic microfibers found in demersal species from Southern Tyrrhenian Sea (Central Mediterranean). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. D’iglio, C.; Albano, M.; Tiralongo, F.; Famulari, S.; Rinelli, P.; Savoca, S.; Spanò, N.; Capillo, G. Biological and ecological aspects of the blackmouth catshark (Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810) in the southern Tyrrhenian sea. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Anastasopoulou, A.; Kapiris, K. Feeding ecology of the shortnose greeneye Chlorophthalmus agassizi Bonaparte, 1840 (Pisces: Chlorophthalmidae) in the Eastern Ionian Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2008, 24, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Allan, J.D.; Castillo, M.M. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, 2nd ed.; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 1–436. [Google Scholar]
  20. Barletta, M.; Lima, A.R.A.; Costa, M.F. Distribution, sources and consequences of nutrients, persistent organic pollutants, metals and microplastics in South American estuaries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 1199–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Santana, M.F.M.; Moreira, F.T.; Turra, A. Trophic transference of microplastics under a low exposure scenario: Insights on the likelihood of particle cascading along marine food-webs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 121, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Borges-Ramírez, M.M.; Mendoza-Franco, E.F.; Escalona-Segura, G.; Osten, J.R. Plastic density as a key factor in the presence of microplastic in the gastrointestinal tract of commercial fishes from Campeche Bay, Mexico. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Foley, C.J.; Feiner, Z.S.; Malinich, T.D.; Höök, T.O. A meta-analysis of the effects of exposure to microplastics on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 631–632, 550–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Lee, D.H.; Lee, S.; Rhee, J.S. Consistent exposure to microplastics induces age-specific physiological and biochemical changes in a marine mysid. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 162, 111850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pradit, S.; Nitiratsuwan, T.; Towatana, P.; Jualaong, S.; Sornplang, K.; Noppradit, P.; Jirajarus, M.; Darakai, Y.; Weerawong, C. Marine Debris Accumulation on the beach in Libong, a small island in Andaman Sea, Thailand. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res. 2020, 18, 5461–5474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ferreira, G.V.B.; Barletta, M.; Lima, A.R.A.; Dantas, D.V.; Justino, A.K.S.; Costa, M.F. Plastic debris contamination in the life cycle of Acoupa weakfish (Cynoscion acoupa) in a tropical estuary. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 73, 2695–2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Arthur, C.; Baker, J.; Bamford, H. (Eds.) The occurrence, effects and fate of small plastic debris in the oceans. In Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris, Tacoma, WA, USA, 9–11 September 2008; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-30. University of Washington Tacoma: Tacoma, WA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wright, S.L.; Thompson, R.C.; Galloway, T.S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bessa, F.; Barría, P.; Neto, J.M.; Frias, J.P.G.L.; Otero, V.; Sobral, P.; Marques, J.C. Occurrence of Microplastics in Commercial Fish from a Natural Estuarine Environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 128, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kibria, G.; Nugegoda, D.; Haroon, A.K.Y. Microplastic pollution and contamination of seafood (including fish, sharks, mussels, oysters, shrimps and seaweeds): A Global overview. In Microplastic Pollution Emerging Contaminants and Associated Treatment Technologies; Hashmi, M.Z., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 277–322. [Google Scholar]
  31. Botterell, Z.L.R.; Beaumont, N.; Dorrington, T.; Steinke, M.; Thompson, R.C.; Lindeque, P.K. Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine zooplankton. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 245, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mizraji, R.; Ahrendt, C.; Perez-Venegas, D.; Vargas, J.; Pulgar, J.; Aldana, M.; Ojeda, F.P.; Duarte, C.; Galbán-Malagón, C. Is the feeding type related with the content of microplastics in intertidal fish gut? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 116, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, C.Y.; Lu, T.H.; Yang, Y.F.; Liao, C.M. Marine mussel-based biomarkers as risk indicators to assess oceanic region-specific microplastics impact potential. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chinfak, N.; Sompongchaiyakul, P.; Charoenpong, C.; Shi, H.; Yeemin, T.; Zhang, J. Abundance, composition, and fate of microplastics in water, sediment, and shell fish in the Tapi-Phumduang River system and Bandon. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 781, 146700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Azad, S.M.O.; Towatana, P.; Pradit, S.; Patricia, B.G. Ingestion of microplastics by some commercial fishes in the lower Gulf of Thailand: A preliminary approach to ocean conservation. Int. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2018, 14, 1017–1032. [Google Scholar]
  36. Azad, S.M.O.; Towatana, P.; Pradit, S.; Patricia, B.G.; Hue, H.T.T.; Jualaong, S. First evidence of existence of microplastics in stomach of some commercial fishes in the lower Gulf of Thailand. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 7345–7360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McGregor, S.; Strydom, N.A. Feeding ecology and microplastic ingestion in Chelon richardsonii (Mugilidae) associated with surf diatom Anaulus australis accumulations in a warm temperate South African surf zone. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 158, 111430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pedà, C.; Caccamo, L.; Fossi, M.C.; Gai, F.; Andaloro, F.; Genovese, L.; Perdichizzi, A.; Romeo, T.; Maricchiolo, G. Intestinal alterations in European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758) exposed to microplastics: Preliminary results. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 212, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pradit, S.; Noppradit, P.; Goh, B.P.; Sornplang, K.; Ong, M.C.; Towatana, P. Occurrence of microplastics and trace metals in fish and shrimp from Songkhla Lake, Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 19, 1085–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ramos, J.A.A.; Barletta, M.; Costa, M.F. Ingestion of nylon threads by Gerreidae while using a tropical estuary as foraging grounds. Aquat. Biol. 2012, 17, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. de Moura, M.S.; Vianna, M. A new threat: Assessing the main interactions between marine fish and plastic debris from a scientometric perspective. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2020, 30, 623–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lusher, A.; Hollman, P.; Mandoza-Hill, J. Microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture: Status of knowledge on their occurrence and implications for aquatic organisms and food safety. FAO Fish. Aquac. Tech. Pap. 2017, 615, 1–147. [Google Scholar]
  43. Carpenter, E.J.; Anderson, S.J.; Harvey, G.R.; Miklas, H.P.; Peck, B.B. Polystyrene spherules in coastal water. Science 1972, 178, 749–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Masura, J.; Baker, J.; Foster, G.; Arthur, C. Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Recommendations for Quantifying Snythetic Particles in Waters and Sediment; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-48; NOAA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Md Amin, R.; Sohaimi, E.S.; Anuar, S.T.; Bachok, Z. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton in Terengganu coastal waters, southern South China Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, J.Y.S.; Lee, Y.C.; Walther, B.A. Microplastic contamination of three commonly consumed seafood species from Taiwan: A pilot study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brilliant, M.G.S.; MacDonald, B.A. Postingestive selection in the sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin): The role of particle size and density. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2000, 253, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chaiwanawut, C.; Hattha, K.; Duangmala, P. Patterns of rainfall in Pattani Province from 1982 to 2001. Songklanakarin. J. Sci. Technol. 2005, 27, 116–176. [Google Scholar]
  49. Soe, K.K.; Pradit, S.; Jaafar, Z.; Hajisamae, S. Effects of mesh size, fishing depth and season on the catch and discards of short mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma gillnet fishery at the mouth of Pattani Bay, Thailand. Fish. Sci. 2021, 88, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Santhanam, R.; Srinivasan, A. A Manual of Marine Zooplankton; Oxford & IBH Publishing: New Delhi, India, 1994; pp. 1–172. [Google Scholar]
  51. Steidinger, K.A.; Tangen, K. Dinoflagellates. In Identifying Marine Phytoplankton; Tomas, C.R., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1997; pp. 387–584. [Google Scholar]
  52. Brusca, R.C.; Brusca, G.J. Invertebrates, 2nd ed.; Sinauer Associates, Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 1–903. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruppert, E.E.; Fox, R.S.; Barnes, R.D. Invertebrate Zoology, a Functional Evolutionary Approach, 7th ed.; Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learn: Belmont, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 11–126. [Google Scholar]
  54. Elliott, M.; Whitfield, A.K.; Potter, I.C.; Blaber, S.J.M.; Cyrus, D.P.; Nordlie, F.G.; Harrison, T.D. The guild approach to categorizing estuarine fish assemblages: A global review. Fish. Fish. 2007, 8, 241–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ferreira, G.V.B.; Barletta, M.; Lima, A.R.A.; Morley, S.A.; Justino, A.K.S.; Costa, M.F. High intake rates of microplastics in a Western Atlantic predatory fish, and insights of a direct fishery effect. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 706–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R.C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. de Witte, B.; Devriese, L.; Bekaert, K.; Hoffman, S.; Vandermeersch, G.; Cooreman, K.; Robbens, K. Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): Comparison between commercial and wild types. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 85, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hyslop, E.J. Stomach contents analysis—A review of methods and their application. J. Fish Biol. 1980, 1741, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; Version 3.6.2.; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 15 July 2020).
  61. Blaber, S.J.M. Tropical Estuarine Fishes: Ecology, Exploitation and Conservation; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 1–372. [Google Scholar]
  62. Unsworth, R.K.F.; Garrard, S.L.; de León, P.S.; Cullen, L.C.; Smith, D.J.; Sloman, K.A.; James, J.; Bell, J.J. Structuring of Indo-Pacific fish assemblages along the mangrove-seagrass continuum. Aquat. Biol. 2009, 5, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Hajisamae, S.; Ibrahim, S. Seasonal and spatial variations of fish trophic guilds in a shallow, semi-enclosed tropical estuarine bay. Environ. Biol Fishes 2008, 82, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hajisamae, S.; Yeesin, P. Do habitat, month and environmental parameters affect shrimp assemblage in a shallow semi-enclosed tropical bay, Thailand? Raffles Bull. Zool. 2014, 62, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hisam, F.; Hajisamae, S.; Ikhwanuddin, M.; Pradit, S. Distribution pattern and habitat shifts during ontogeny of the blue swimming crab, Portunus pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Brachyura, Portunidae). Crustaceana 2020, 93, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pusey, B.J.; Bradshaw, S.D. Diet and dietary overlap in fishes of temporary waters of southwestern Australia. Ecol. Freshw. Fish. 1996, 5, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Paul, M.; Hajisamae, S.; Pradit, S.; Perngmark, P.; Islam, R. Trophic ecology of eight sympatric nemipterid fishes (Nemipteridae) in the lower part of the South China Sea. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sc. 2017, 18, 277–287. [Google Scholar]
  68. Bakun, A. Active opportunist species as potential diagnostic markers for comparative tracking of complex marine ecosystem responses to global trends. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2014, 71, 2281–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Collard, F.; Gilbert, B.; Eppe, G.; Roos, L.; Compère, P.; Das, K.; Parmentier, E. Morphology of the filtration apparatus of three planktivorous fishes and relation with ingested anthropogenic particles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 116, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pennino, M.G.; Bachiller, E.; Lloret-lloret, E.; Albo, M.; Esteban, A.; Jadaud, A.; Bellido, J.M.; Coll, M. Ingestion of microplastics and occurrence of parasite association in Mediterranean anchovy and sardine. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 158, 111399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pradit, S.; Towatana, P.; Nitiratsuwan, T.; Jualaong, S. Occurrence of microplastics on beach sediment at Libong, a Pristine Island in Andaman Sea, Thailand. Sci. Asia 2020, 46, 336–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lima, A.R.A.; Costa, M.F.; Barletta, M. Distribution patterns of microplastics within the plankton of a tropical estuary. Environ. Res. 2014, 132, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Klangnurak, W.; Chunniyom, S. Screening for microplastics in marine fish of Thailand: The accumulation of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of different foraging preferences. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 781, 146700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Jabeen, K.; Su, L.; Li, J.; Yang, D.; Tong, C.; Mu, J.; Shi, H. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 221, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sun, X.; Liang, J.; Zhu, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, B. Microplastics in seawater and zooplankton from the Yellow Sea. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 585–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Núñez, A.A.; Astorga, D.; Farías, L.C.; Bastidas, L. Microplastic pollution in seawater and marine organisms across the Tropical Eastern Pacific and Galápagos. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. de Sá, L.C.; Luís, L.G.; Guilhermino, L. Effects of microplastics on juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus microps): Confusion with prey, reduction of the predatory performance and efficiency, and possible influence of developmental conditions. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 196, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Shaw, D.G.; Day, R.H. Colour- and form-dependent loss of plastic micro-debris from the North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1994, 28, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 11 00331 g001 550
Figure 1. Fish sampling sites off the mouth of Pattani Bay in the lower Gulf of Thailand. The red circles represent the fish sampling sites between the water depth contours of 2, 4, and 6 m.
Figure 1. Fish sampling sites off the mouth of Pattani Bay in the lower Gulf of Thailand. The red circles represent the fish sampling sites between the water depth contours of 2, 4, and 6 m.
Biology 11 00331 g001
Biology 11 00331 g002 550
Figure 2. Examples of fish stomach content: (a) fish, (b) penaeid shrimp, (c) Acetes sp., (d) Lucifer sp., (e) squid, (f) hermit crab, (g) nematode, and (h) anthropogenic debris.
Figure 2. Examples of fish stomach content: (a) fish, (b) penaeid shrimp, (c) Acetes sp., (d) Lucifer sp., (e) squid, (f) hermit crab, (g) nematode, and (h) anthropogenic debris.
Biology 11 00331 g002
Biology 11 00331 g003 550
Figure 3. Examples of anthropogenic debris observed in the stomachs of fish. Scale bar 1 mm.
Figure 3. Examples of anthropogenic debris observed in the stomachs of fish. Scale bar 1 mm.
Biology 11 00331 g003
Table
Table 1. Feeding habit and occurrence of anthropogenic debris by fish species off Pattani Bay, in the lower Gulf of Thailand (AF = number of food types; bold indicating statistically significant p value). Parentheses enclose the average number of fish sampled (N) per month. * Statistical analysis applied with month factor when seasonal factor was not available; ** anthropogenic debris present.
Table 1. Feeding habit and occurrence of anthropogenic debris by fish species off Pattani Bay, in the lower Gulf of Thailand (AF = number of food types; bold indicating statistically significant p value). Parentheses enclose the average number of fish sampled (N) per month. * Statistical analysis applied with month factor when seasonal factor was not available; ** anthropogenic debris present.
FamilySpeciesSample (N)Nonempty StomachTotal Length
(Mean ± SD)		AF
(Mean ± SD)		DepthSeasonFeeding Features
p Value
ClupeidaeAnodontostoma chacunda625 (48.1)19312.9 ± 1.313 (1.7 ± 1.3)0.7790.611Planktivore **
Hilsa kelee136 (22.7)11015.3 ± 1.713 (3.3 ± 1.3)0.0001<0.0001Planktivore **
Sardinella fimbriata211 (30.1)18113.7 ± 0.814 (2.3 ± 1.2)0.0360.071Planktivore **
S. gibbosa231 (30.4)21813.5 ± 1.613 (1.7 ± 1.5)0.007<0.0001Lucifer feeder **
EngraulidaeSetipinna taty185 (20.6)4913.9 ± 1.510 (1 ± 0.8)0.00080.032Lucifer feeder
Stolephorus commersonnii *18 (4.5)89.6 ± 1.95 (0.9 ± 0.4)<0.00010.588Fish feeder
S. waitei19 (4.8)68.5 ± 2.07 (1.5 ± 1.9)0.5860.358Acetes feeder
Thryssa hamiltonii325 (25)16817.9 ± 1.89 (1.0 ± 0.4)0.7910.075Shrimp feeder
T. kammalensis148 (21.1)439.9 ± 0.910 (0.9 ± 0.7)0.0360.059Acetes feeder **
T. setirostris59 (14.7)1014.6 ± 0.94 (0.9 ± 0.3)<0.0001<0.0001Shrimp feeder
ChirocentridaeChirocentrus nudus29 (5.8)2729.9 ± 4.26 (1.0 ± 0.3)0.0190.0001Piscivore
PristigasteridaeOpisthopterus tardoore293 (22.5)10014.8 ± 1.68 (0.8 ± 0.4)0.0020.046Lucifer feeder
SynodontidaeHarpadon nehereus *116 (38.7)2221.1 ± 1.63 (0.9 ± 0.4)0.7550.763Piscivore
CarangidaeAlepes kleinii243 (20.3)12112.0 ± 1.98 (0.7 ± 0.5)0.2950.239Lucifer feeder
A. vari14 (2.3)1013.1 ± 1.63 (0.8 ± 0.4)0.0721.000Lucifer feeder
Megalaspis cordyla184 (15.3)15915.6 ± 2.37 (0.9 ± 0.5)0.5590.113Piscivore **
Scomberoides tol23 (3.8)1815.4 ± 2.45 (0.9 ± 0.4)0.6640.891Piscivore
LeiognathidaeDeveximentum insidiator102 (7.8)719.8 ± 2.510 (1.0 ± 1.2)0.312<0.001Lucifer feeder **
Eubleekeria jonesi *40 (20)347.3 ± 0.89 (1.0 ± 1.7)<0.001<0.001Planktivore
E. splendens272 (20.9)1467.5 ± 1.016 (1.7 ± 1.4)0.0030.023Planktivore **
Leiognathus equula76 (5.8)619.2 ± 0.811 (0.6 ± 1.0)0.0020.098Planktivore **
Nuchequula gerreoides41 (20.5)318.9 ± 1.26 (0.7 ± 0.9)0.0020.098Zoobenthivore
Photopectoralis bindus319 (26.6)1919.4 ± 1.112 (0.5 ± 0.9)0.1000.009Planktivore **
SciaenidaeDendrophysa russelii65 (6.5)3212.3 ± 1.68 (0.7 ± 0.6)0.0480.371Shrimp feeder
Johnius belangerii68 (13.6)3514.7 ± 1.16 (0.7 ± 0.6)0.3350.076Zoobenthivore
J. borneensis167 (18.6)8915.1 ± 1.39 (0.7 ± 0.6)0.0110.001Zoobenthivore
Otolithes ruber131 (13.1)3618.3 ± 2.16 (0.9 ± 0.5)0.0640.284Piscivore
Panna microdon62 (8.9)3920.6 ± 3.35 (0.8 ± 0.5)0.9260.299Shrimp feeder
Pennahia anea76 (15.2)1214.0 ± 1.63 (0.9 ± 0.5)0.6110.426Piscivore
PolynemidaeEleutheronema tetradactylum72 (6)5321.9 ± 2.65 (1.1 ± 0.4)0.9970.433Shrimp feeder
MugilidaePlaniliza subviridis132 (14.7)3917.7 ± 2.010 (0.8 ± 1.2)0.5420.096Planktivore **
TrichiuridaeTrichiurus lepturus62 (8.9)2844.1 ± 5.32 (1.0 ± 0.0)0.4270.431Piscivore
ScombridaeRastrelliger brachysoma554 (42.6)55216.4 ± 1.915 (3.8 ± 1.2)0.0310.003Planktivore **
Scomberomorus commerson380 (29.2)34421.1 ± 4.37 (1.0 ± 0.2)0.0330.799Piscivore
Table
Table 2. Index of relative importance (%IRI) contribution of anthropogenic debris and other dietary types of fishes inhabiting the natural bay environment (Deb = anthropogenic debris; Fish = fish; Luc = Lucifer sp.; Shri = shrimp; Ace = Acetes sp.; Cop = copepods; other = other zooplankton; Poly = polychaetes; Cosc = Coscinodiscus sp.; Diat = other diatoms, Dino = dinoflagellates; Stom = stomatopods; Squid = squid; Cru = other crustaceans excluding copepods; Crab = crabs; Sagi = Sagitta sp.; Brit = brittle stars; Sea = sea urchins; Moll = molluscs; Amp = amphipods; Nem = nematodes; Mis = miscellaneous). In bold: main food contribution.
Table 2. Index of relative importance (%IRI) contribution of anthropogenic debris and other dietary types of fishes inhabiting the natural bay environment (Deb = anthropogenic debris; Fish = fish; Luc = Lucifer sp.; Shri = shrimp; Ace = Acetes sp.; Cop = copepods; other = other zooplankton; Poly = polychaetes; Cosc = Coscinodiscus sp.; Diat = other diatoms, Dino = dinoflagellates; Stom = stomatopods; Squid = squid; Cru = other crustaceans excluding copepods; Crab = crabs; Sagi = Sagitta sp.; Brit = brittle stars; Sea = sea urchins; Moll = molluscs; Amp = amphipods; Nem = nematodes; Mis = miscellaneous). In bold: main food contribution.
SpeciesDebFishLucShriAcetCopotherPolyNemCoscDiatDinoStomSquidCrusCrabSagiBriSeaMollAmpMis
A. chacunda1.70.00.00.00.08.338.01.27.525.511.93.40.00.00.40.00.00.00.01.40.00.6
H. kelee0.10.00.01.00.022.72.10.30.137.023.312.60.00.00.30.00.00.00.00.40.00.1
S. fimbriata2.50.011.62.40.045.50.11.40.716.815.81.10.00.00.00.50.00.00.01.40.00.1
S. gibbosa0.00.035.50.30.016.81.13.40.023.315.23.40.00.00.10.20.00.00.00.60.00.1
S. taty0.00.061.421.97.10.00.03.60.01.70.00.00.00.03.40.00.00.00.00.90.00.0
S. commersonnii0.057.114.30.00.014.30.00.00.014.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
S. waitei0.00.017.50.036.820.20.00.00.018.47.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
T. hamiltonii0.033.22.033.518.10.08.60.70.00.00.00.02.80.00.00.00.00.00.01.20.00.0
T. kammalensis3.80.00.030.850.00.00.00.00.03.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.011.50.0
T. setirostris0.00.022.244.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.033.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
C. nudus0.079.40.0151.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.03.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
O. tardoore0.02.847.225.522.40.20.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.70.00.00.0
H. nehereus0.089.50.010.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
A. kleinii0.00.087.00.86.80.00.02.30.00.00.00.00.00.01.70.00.00.01.40.00.00.0
A. vari0.00.0100.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
M. cordyla1.280.91.50.810.30.04.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.40.00.00.00.00.40.00.0
S. tol0.057.720.02.320.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
D. insidiator3.00.053.00.02.812.60.02.80.07.413.71.40.00.00.03.50.00.00.00.00.00.0
E. jonesi0.00.03.50.00.036.14.60.02.636.94.70.00.00.01.30.00.00.00.010.30.00.0
E. splendens2.60.01.60.00.011.27.21.30.78.360.02.70.00.00.10.21.00.00.80.40.01.8
L. equula7.90.011.40.00.022.51.816.40.34.924.14.30.00.01.30.00.00.00.00.00.05.2
N. gerreoides0.00.00.00.00.02.62.833.80.028.40.00.00.00.00.80.00.00.00.09.921.50.0
P. bindus10.10.08.50.00.010.80.97.40.31.948.10.60.00.00.30.01.70.60.00.40.87.7
D. russelii0.020.30.050.35.90.00.05.90.60.00.00.00.05.90.08.20.00.00.00.00.02.9
J. belangerii0.07.10.030.20.00.00.037.70.00.00.00.00.00.017.97.10.00.00.00.00.00.0
J. borneensis0.015.70.015.00.00.00.050.81.40.00.00.00.00.03.57.90.00.50.03.90.01.4
O. ruber0.050.00.032.15.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.03.63.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.05.4
P. microdon0.013.50.063.60.00.00.02.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.02.10.00.00.00.00.018.6
P. anea0.087.30.012.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
E. tetradactylum0.025.30.071.61.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
P. subviridis5.00.00.00.00.010.613.81.81.235.516.24.90.00.00.50.00.00.00.01.50.08.9
T. lepturus0.0100.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
R. brachysoma0.40.01.30.10.047.30.90.30.120.917.08.00.00.00.30.20.00.00.02.90.00.3
S. commerson0.099.40.00.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Average1.124.114.713.45.68.32.55.10.58.47.61.21.20.41.00.90.10.030.11.01.01.6
Table
Table 3. Results of analysis of variance on the number of food types and ingestion of anthropogenic debris in 34 fish species by depth and season in addition to feeding features (df = degrees of freedom, MS = mean sum of squares).
Table 3. Results of analysis of variance on the number of food types and ingestion of anthropogenic debris in 34 fish species by depth and season in addition to feeding features (df = degrees of freedom, MS = mean sum of squares).
FactordfMSF Valuep Value
Ingestion of anthropogenic debris in fishDepth (d)20.020.170.840
Season (s)21.2512.97<0.0001
d × s40.171.760.135
Ingestion of anthropogenic debris in four feeding featuresFeeder (f)31.213.23<0.022
Colour of anthropogenic debris in fish stomachDebris colour (c)44.055.38<0.001
Food items (AF)Depth (d)21.133.980.019
Season (m)210.9938.67<0.0001
d × s41.495.23<0.001
Table
Table 4. Abundance of ingested anthropogenic debris by number and colour in the 12 marine fish species of non-empty-stomach fish. Parentheses enclose the number of fish with ingested debris.
Table 4. Abundance of ingested anthropogenic debris by number and colour in the 12 marine fish species of non-empty-stomach fish. Parentheses enclose the number of fish with ingested debris.
SpeciesExamined Fish% of Debris in FishNo. of ItemsItems/FishLength of Debris (mm)BlueGreenRedBlackWhite
A. chacunda193 (9)4.71951.00 ± 4.91–301702500
H. kelee110 (3)2.7600.50 ± 3.5<1.010203000
S. fimbriata181 (4)2.21200.70 ± 5.91–30120000
S. gibbosa218 (4)1.81350.60 ± 5.61–37506000
T. kammalensis43 (1)2.310.02 ± 0.21–210000
M. cordyla159 (1)0.610.01 ± 0.13 cm00001
D. insidiator71 (2)2.8300.40 ± 2.51–22010000
E. splendens146 (12)8.22101.40 ± 5.1<1.0–2.0803525700
L. equula61 (3)4.9450.70 ± 3.31–210015200
P. bindus191 (9)4.71800.90 ± 4.5<1.0–2.012006000
P. subviridis39 (2)5.1451.20 ± 5.3<1.0450000
R. brachysoma552 (17)3.114552.60 ± 16.40.5–395526024000
Total1964 (67)3.424771.30 ± 9.5-1316615455901
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Soe, K.K.; Hajisamae, S.; Sompongchaiyakul, P.; Towatana, P.; Pradit, S. Feeding Habits and the Occurrence of Anthropogenic Debris in the Stomach Content of Marine Fish from Pattani Bay, Gulf of Thailand. Biology 2022, 11, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020331

AMA Style

Soe KK, Hajisamae S, Sompongchaiyakul P, Towatana P, Pradit S. Feeding Habits and the Occurrence of Anthropogenic Debris in the Stomach Content of Marine Fish from Pattani Bay, Gulf of Thailand. Biology. 2022; 11(2):331. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020331

Chicago/Turabian Style

Soe, Kay Khine, Sukree Hajisamae, Penjai Sompongchaiyakul, Prawit Towatana, and Siriporn Pradit. 2022. "Feeding Habits and the Occurrence of Anthropogenic Debris in the Stomach Content of Marine Fish from Pattani Bay, Gulf of Thailand" Biology 11, no. 2: 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020331

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop