Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 183, Issue 2, pp 133–140 | Cite as

Effects of crayfish size, orientation, and movement on the reactive distance of largemouth bass foraging in clear and turbid water

  • Todd A. Crowl
Article

Abstract

Laboratory experiments were performed in clear and turbid water to determine the effects of prey size, orientation, and movement on the reactive distance of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) when feeding on crayfish (Procambarus acutus). In clear water, the reactive distance increased linearly with an increase in prey size, and prey movement resulted in a significant increase in the reactive distance. Prey orientation (head-on versus perpendicular) did not change the reactive distances. In moderately turbid water, the reactive distance did not increase with increased prey size, and prey movement did not result in any changes in the reactive distance. The absence of any effects of prey orientation in clear water or prey movement in turbid water is inconsistent with results from studies using different species (primarily planktivorous fish). I propose that largemouth bass change their foraging tactics as prey visibility changes. When prey are highly visible (low turbidity), predators attack (react) only after prey recognition, which is based on multiple cues such as prey size (length, width) and movement. When prey are less visible (high turbidity), predators attack immediately upon initial prey sighting, which does not depend on prey size or movement.

Key words

predation largemouth bass crayfish reactive distance turbidity prey size 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Confer, J. L. & P. I. Blades, 1975. Omnivorous zooplankton and planktivorous fish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20: 571–579.Google Scholar
  2. Confer, J. L., G. L. Howick, M. H. Corzette, S. L. Kramer, S. Fitzgibbon & R. Landesberg, 1978. Visual predation by planktivores. Oikos 31: 27–37.Google Scholar
  3. Eggers, D. M., 1977. The nature of prey selection by planktivorous fish. Ecology 58: 46–59.Google Scholar
  4. Gerritsen, J. & J. R. Strickler, 1977. Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: A mathematical model. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34: 73–82.Google Scholar
  5. Holling, C. S., 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Entomol. 91: 293–320.Google Scholar
  6. Holmes, R. S. & R. N. Gibson, 1986. Visual cues determining prey selection by the turbot, Scophthalmus maximum L. J. Fish Biol. (Suppl. A) 29: 48–58.Google Scholar
  7. Howick, G. L., 1981. Tactical feeding ecology of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Doctoral dissertation. University of kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  8. Howick, G. L. & W. J. O'Brien, 1983. Piscivorous feeding behavior of largemouth bass: An experimental analysis. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112: 508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ingle, D., 1971. Vision: The experimental analysis of visual behavior, p. 59–77. In W. S. Hoar and D. J. Randall (eds.), Fish Physiology, Vol. V. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Kettle, D. & W. J. O'Brien, 1978. Vulnerability of arctic zooplankton species to predation by small lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35: 1495–1500.Google Scholar
  11. Moore, J. W. & I. A. Moore, 1976. The basis of food selection in flounders, Platichthys flesus (L.), in the Severn Estuary. J. Fish. Biol. 9: 139–156.Google Scholar
  12. O'Brien, W. J., 1987. Planktivory by freshwater fish: thrust and parry in the pelagia. In: Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities (Kerfoot & Sih, ed.) pp. 3–16. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  13. O'Brien, W. J. & G. L. Vinyard, 1978. Polypmorphism and predation: The effect of invertebrate predation on the distribution of two varieties of Daphnia carinata in South India ponds. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23: 452–460.Google Scholar
  14. SAS Institute Inc., 1982. SAS User's Guide: Basics, 1982 Edition. Sas Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina. 923 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Thouless, R. H., 1972. Perceptual constancy or perceptual compromise. Austral. J. Psychol. 24: 133–140.Google Scholar
  16. Tucker, R. P. & S. P. Woolpy, 1984. The effect of parthenogenic eggs in Daphnia magna on prey location by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Hydrobiologia 109: 215–219.Google Scholar
  17. Vinyard, G. L. & W. J. O'Brien, 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33: 2845–2849.Google Scholar
  18. Ware, D. M., 1971. The predatory behavior of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  19. Ware, D. M., 1972. Predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri): The influence of hunger, prey density, and prey size. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 29: 1193–1201.Google Scholar
  20. Ware, D. M., 1973. Risk of epibenthic prey to predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30: 787–797.Google Scholar
  21. Werner, E. E. & D. J. Hall, 1974. Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55: 1042–1052.Google Scholar
  22. Wright, D. I. & W. J. O'Brien, 1982. Differential location of Chaoborus larvae and Daphnia by fish: The importance of motion and visible size. Am. Midl. Nat. 108: 68–73.Google Scholar
  23. Zaret, T. M., 1975. Strategies for existence of zooplankton prey in homogeneous environments. Verh. int. Ver. Limnol. 19: 1484–1489.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd A. Crowl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Oklahoma Biological SurveyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations