Hydrobiologia

, Volume 124, Issue 1, pp 73–79 | Cite as

Selective zooplankton predation by pre-adult roach (Rutilus rutilus): The size-selective hypothesis versus the visibility-selective hypothesis

  • Dag O. Hessen
Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Prey selection mechanisms of juveniles of the particulate feeding roach (Rutilus rutilus) were tested in bag experiments in lake Gjersjøn.

Cladocerans and large developmental stages (cop. IV-ad.) of copepods were consumed in large numbers both in the bags added fish and in lake, while rotifers increased in numbers in bags added fish.

The effect of fish predation on the small cladoceran Bosmina longirostris was tested by comparing morphological structures in fish-free bags and bags added fish.

The results strongly support the visibility selective hypothesis, as eye-diameter became significantly smaller in bags added fish (P < 0.05, T-test), while body-size, length of antennae and mucro, frequency and number of eggs were slightly or unsignificantly correlated with presence or absence of fish.

Further, while roach was found to consume large numbers of Bosmina longirostris, the far greater but nearly unpigmented Asplanchna priodonta was never consumed. Additionally, other data further supporting the visibility-selective hypothesis are discussed.

Keywords

fish-predation roach Bosmina body-size eye-size 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blakar, I. A.. 1978. A simple water and plankton sampler. Freshwat Biol. 8: 533–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brabrand, A., B. Faafeng & J. P. Nilssen, 1979. Biologisk kontroll av algeoppblomstringer. Internal Publ. NIVA (Norwegian council for water research) OF-80600, 74 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, J. L. & S. J. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size and composition of zooplankton. Science 150: 28–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesson, J., 1978. Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecology 59: 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Confer, J. L. & P. I. Blades, 1975. Omnivorous zooplankton and planktivorous fish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20: 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Confer, J. L., G. Applegate & C. E. Evanik, 1980. Selective predation by zooplankton, and the response of cladoceran eyes to light. In W. C. Kerfoot (ed.) Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover: 604–608.Google Scholar
  7. Drenner, R. W., J. R. Strickler & W. J. O'Brien, 1978. Capture probability: the role of zooplankter escape in the selective feeding of planktivorous fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35: 1370–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durbin, A. G., 1979. In M. Clepper ed., Predation-prey systems in fisheries management. International Symposium on Predator-Prey Systems in Fish Communities and their role in Fisheries management. Atlanta, Georgia, July 24–27, 1978. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D. 1., IV: 203–218.Google Scholar
  9. Elgmork, K., 1959. Seasonal occurrence of Cyclops strenuus strenuus. Folia Limnol. Scand. 11: 1–196.Google Scholar
  10. Faafeng, B. & J. P. Nilssen, 1981. A twenty year study of eutrophication in a deep, soft water lake. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. Verh. 21: 380–382.Google Scholar
  11. Hrbácek, J., 1962. Species composition and the amount of the zooplankton in relation to fish stock. Rozpr. Césk. Akad. Ved. 72: 1–116.Google Scholar
  12. Hrbácek, J., M. Dvorakova, V. Korinek & L. Procházkóva, 1961. Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. Verh. 14: 192–195.Google Scholar
  13. Janssen, J., 1976. Feeding modes and prey size selection of the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). J. Fish. res. Bd Can. 33: 1972–1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kerfoot, W. C., 1980. Commentary: Transparency, body size, and prey conspicuousness. In W. C. Kerfoot (ed.), Evolution and ecology of zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover: 609–617.Google Scholar
  15. Lunder, K. & J. Enerud, 1978. Fiskeribiologiske undersøkelser i Gjersjøen, Oppegård kommune, Akershus fylke. Director Freshwat. Fish. E.-Norway, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Lynch, M., 1979. Predation, competition and zooplankton community structure: An experimental study. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O'Brien, W. J., 1979. The predator-prey interaction of planktivorous fish and zooplankton. Am. Scientist 67: 572–581.Google Scholar
  18. O'Brien, W. J., N. A. Slade & G. I. Vinyard, 1976. Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57: 1304–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosén, R. A. & C. D. Hales, 1981. Feeding of the paddlefish Polyodon spathula. Copeia: 441–455.Google Scholar
  20. Vanderploeg, H. A. & D. Scavia, 1979. Two electivity indices for feeding with special reference to zooplankton grazing. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 36: 362–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wright, D. I., W. J. O'Brien & C. Luecke, 1983. A new estimate of zooplankton retention by gill rakers and its ecological significance. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 112: 638–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zaret, T. M., 1972. Predators, invisible prey, and the nature of polymorphism in the Cladocera (Class Crustacea). Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zaret, T. M., 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven, 187 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Zaret, T. M. & W. C. Kerfoot, 1975. Fish predation on Bosmina longirostris, body-size selection versus visibility selection. Ecology 56: 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dag O. Hessen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Division of ZoologyUniversity of OsloOslo 3Norway

Personalised recommendations