Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 77, Issue 1, pp 87–96 | Cite as

Prey or predator: 0+ perch (Perca fluviatilis) in the trade-off between food and shelter

  • Jost Borcherding
Original Paper

Abstract

The 0+ cohort of perch can split into a slow-growing planktivorous and a fast-growing piscivorous cohort during their first months of life. Both cohorts are, however, vulnerable to predation by piscivorous fish. Laboratory experiments were performed to test the behavior of 0+ perch as a predator of cyprinids, and in the trade-off between food and shelter from the threat of predators. In the foraging trials, 0+ perch attacked bream faster than they did carp, and vegetation hampered the aggression against bream. In the second experiment, the habitat selection of two size classes of 0+ perch under the threat of predation was monitored. Overall, vegetation structures were preferred by both size classes of 0+ perch. When small fish were offered to the 0+ perch as food, the open water becomes more attractive. The results of the habitat use trials further show that the two size cohorts of 0+ perch may also differ in their behavior, in that the availability of fish as food becomes more important than the shelter of vegetation structures for the larger perch.

Keywords

Piscivorous 0+ perch Size cohorts Behavioral adaptations Predation risk Structural complexity Predator avoidance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

My thanks are due to Alex Burmann, Rieke Hilverling and Marcel Kathol for their comprehensive help conducting the laboratory experiments. The valuable comments by Peter Beeck are gratefully acknowledged, as well as the help of Philipp Fischer and Markus Weitere with some statistics. The comments by two anonymous reviewers helped to improve the manuscript. I also thank Frederic Bartlett for improving the English text.

References

  1. Bean CW, Winfield IJ (1995) Habitat use and activity patterns of roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.)), rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus (L.)), perch (Perca fluviatilis (L.)) and pike (Esox lucius (L.)) in laboratory: the role of predation threat and structural complexity. Ecol Freshwater Fish 4:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeck P (2003) The early piscivory of European perch (Perca fluviatilis): a neglected phenomenon with notable consequences for the population structure and fish community in lake ecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cologne, 115 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Beeck P, Tauber S, Kiel S, Borcherding J (2002) 0+ perch predation on 0+ bream: a case study on a eutrophic gravel pit lake. Freshwater Biol 47:2359–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borcherding J, Maw SK, Tauber S (2000) Growth of 0+ perch (Perca fluviatilis) predating on 0+ bream (Abramis brama). Ecol Freshwater Fish 9:236–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown GE, Gershaneck DL, Plata DL, Golub JL (2002) Ontogenetic changes in response to heterospecific alarm cues by juvenile largemouth bass are phenotypically plastic. Behaviour 139:913–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buijse AD, Houthuijzen RP (1992) Piscivory, growth, and size-Selective mortality of age 0 pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:894–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byström P, Andersson J, Persson L, De Roos AM (2004) Size-dependent resource limitation and foraging-predation risk trade-offs: growth and habitat use in young arctic char. Oikos 104:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byström P, Persson L, Wahlström E (1998) Competing predators and prey: juvenile bottlenecks in whole-lake experiments. Ecology 79:2153–2167Google Scholar
  9. Byström P, Persson L, Wahlström E, Westman E (2003) Size- and density-dependent habitat use in predators: consequences for habitat shifts in young fish. J Anim Ecol 72:156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen B, Persson L (1993) Species-specific antipredatory behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemens WA, Dymond JR, Bigelow NK (1924) Food studies of Lake Nipigon. Public Ontario Fish Res Lab 25:103–112Google Scholar
  12. Copp GH (1997) Microhabitat use of fish larvae and 0+ juveniles in a highly regulated section of the river Great Ouse. Regul River Res Manage 13:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crook DA, Robertson AI, King AJ, Humphries P (2001) The influence of spatial scale and habitat arrangement on diel patterns of habitat use by two lowland river fishes. Oecologia 129:525–533Google Scholar
  14. Diehl S (1988) Foraging efficiency of three freshwater fishes: effects of structural complexity and light. Oikos 53:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diehl S, Eklöv P (1995) Effects of piscivore-mediated habitat use on resources, diet, and growth of perch. Ecology 76:1712–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehlinger JT (1989) Learning and individual variation in bluegill foraging: habitat-specific techniques. Anim Behav 38:643–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eklöv P (1992) Group foraging versus solitary foraging efficiency in piscivorous predators: the perch, Perca fluviatilis, and pike, Esox lucius, patterns. Anim Behav 44:313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eklöv P (1997) Effects of habitat complexity and prey abundance on the spatial and temporal distributions of perch (Perca fluviatilis) and pike (Esox lucius). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:1520–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eklöv P, Diehl S (1994) Piscivore efficiency and refuging prey: the importance of predator search mode. Oecologia 98:344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eklöv P, Persson L (1995) Species-specific antipredator capacities and prey refuges: interactions between piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis) and juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eklöv P, Persson L (1996) The response of prey to the risk of predation: proximate cues for refuging juvenile fish. Anim Behav 51:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garner P (1996) Microhabitat use and diet of 0+ cyprinid fishes in a lentic, regulated reach of the river Great Ouse, England. J Fish Biol 48:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenberg LA, Paszkowski CA, Tonn WM (1995) Effects of prey species composition and habitat structure on foraging by two functionally distinct piscivores. Oikos 74:522–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hartmann J (1983) Two feeding strategies of young fish. Arch Hydrobiol 96:496–509Google Scholar
  25. Harvey MC, Brown GE (2004) Dine or dash?: ontogenetic shift in the response of yellow perch to conspecific alarm cues. Environ Biol Fish 70:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobsen L, Perrow MR (1998) Predation risk from piscivorous fish influencing the diel use of macrophytes by planktivorous fish in experimental ponds. Ecol Freshwater Fish 7:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lundvall D, Svanbäck R, Persson L, Byström P (1999) Size-dependent predation in piscivores: interactions between predator foraging and prey avoidance abilities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:1285–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matena J (1995) Ichthyoplankton and 0+ pelagic fish in the Rímov Reservoir (Southern Bohemia). Folia Zool 44:31–43Google Scholar
  29. Mathis A, Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1995) Chemical alarm signals – predator deterrents or predator attractants. Am Natural 145:994–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mehner T, Schultz H, Bauer D, Herbst R, Voigt H, Benndorf J (1996) Intraguild predation and cannibalism in age 0 perch (Perca fluviatilis) and age 0 zander (Stizostedion lucioperca): interactions with zooplankton succession, prey fish availability and temperature. Ann Zool Fenn 33:353–361Google Scholar
  31. Milinski M (1997) How to avoid seven deadly sins in the study of behavior. Adv Stud behav 26:159–180Google Scholar
  32. Mirza RS, Fisher SA, Chivers DP (2003) Assessment of predation risk by juvenile yellow perch, Perca flavescens: responses to alarm cues from conspecifics and prey guild members. Environ Biol Fish 66:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mittelbach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mooij WM (1996) Variation in abundance and survival of fish larvae in shallow eutrophic Lake Tjeukemeer. Environ Biol Fish 46:265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mooij WM, Lammens EHRR, Van Densen WLT (1994) Growth rate of 0+ fish in relation of temperature, body size, and food in shallow eutrophic Lake Tjeukemeer. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olson MH (1996) Ontogenetic niche shifts in largemouth bass: variability and consequences for first-year growth. Ecology 77:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paszkowski CA, Penttinen OP, Holopainen IJ, Tonn WM (1996) Predation risk and feeding patterns of crucian carp. J Fish Biol 48:818–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Persson L (1991) Behavioral response to predators reverses the outcome of competition between prey species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Persson L (1993) Predator-mediated competition in prey refuges: the importance of habitat dependent prey resources. Oikos 68:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persson L, Eklöv P (1995) Prey refuges affecting interactions between piscivorous perch and juvenile perch and roach. Ecology 76:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Persson L, Greenberg LA (1990) Interspecific and intraspecific size class competition affecting resource use and growth of perch, Perca fluviatilis. Oikos 59:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Persson L, Andersson J, Wahlström E, Eklöv P (1996) Size-specific interactions in lake systems: predator gape limitation and prey growth rate and mortality. Ecology 77:900–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sachs L (1984) Angewandte Statistik. -6. Aufl. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Smyly WJP (1952) Observations on the food of the fry of perch (Perca fluviatilis) in Windermere. Proc Zool Soc Lond 122:344–352Google Scholar
  45. Snickars M, Sandstrom A, Mattila J (2004) Antipredator behaviour of 0+ year Perca fluviatilis: effect of vegetation density and turbidity. J Fish Biol 65:1604–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Svanbäck R, Eklöv P (2002) Effects of habitat and food resources on morphology and ontogenetic growth trajectories in perch. Oecologia 131:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Svanbäck R, Eklöv P (2003) Morphology dependent foraging efficiency in perch: a trade-off for ecological specialization? Oikos 102:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Urbatzka R (2002) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Piscivorie von 0+ Flussbarschen (Perca fluviatilis) in vier natürlichen Fischteichen – Größenvariation innerhalb einer Jahrgangskohorte und ihre Konsequenzen für Fischartengemeinschaften. Diploma Thesis, University of Cologne, 67 ppGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Densen WLT (1985) Piscivory and the development of bimodality in the size distribution of 0+ pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca L.). J Appl Ichthyol 3:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ware DM (1973) Risk of epibenthic prey to predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J Fish Res Board Can 30:787–797Google Scholar
  51. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittelbach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Winfield IJ (1986) The influence of simulated aquatic macrophytes on the zooplankton consumption rate of juvenile roach, Rutilus rutilus, rudd, Scardinius erythrophthalmus and perch, Perca fluviatilis. J Fish Biol 29:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Ecology & LimnologyZoological Institute of the University of CologneKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations