Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 169–178 | Cite as

Species-specific antipredator capacities and prey refuges: interactions between piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis) and juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus)

  • Peter Eklöv
  • Lennart Persson


The outcome of predator-prey interactions depends on the characteristics of predators and prey as well as the structure of the environment. In a replicated field enclosure experiment, we tested the effects of quantity and quality of different prey refuges (no structure, structure forming a partial refuge, and structure forming a complete refuge) on the interaction between piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis) and juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus). We quantified the behaviour of the predators and the prey and predator-induced prey mortality. The piscivores stayed in or close to the prey refuge and were more dispersed in the presence than in the absence of prey refuges. Survival of juvenile perch and roach decreased in the presence of predators and was higher for juvenile roach than for juvenile perch. In addition, juvenile perch survival increased with refuge efficiency Roach formed schools which were denser in the presence of predators, had a higher swimming speed (both in the open water and in the refuge) and used a larger area than juvenile perch. Both prey species decreased their distance to the prey refuge and increased the proportion of their time spent in the refuge in the presence of predators. The number of switches between the open-water habitat and the prey refuge was higher for juvenile roach than for juvenile perch. Juvenile perch used different parts of the prey refuge in a flexible way depending both on presence of predators and refuge type whereas juvenile roach used the different parts of the prey refuge in fixed proportions over all refuge treatments. Our results suggest that juvenile roach had a overall higher capacity to avoid predation than juvenile perch. However, in the presence of qualitatively different prey refuges juvenile perch responded to predators with more flexible refuge use than juvenile roach. The differences in antipredator capacities of juvenile perch and roach when subjected to piscivorous perch predation may depend on differences in life history patterns of the two species.

Key words

Antipredator capacity Predator-prey Prey refuge use Spatial distribution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beyerle GB, Williams JE (1968) Some observations of food selectivity by northern pike in aquaria. Trans Am Fish. Soc. 97: 28–31Google Scholar
  2. Christensen B, Persson L (1993) Species-specific antipredatory behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:1–9Google Scholar
  3. Ebenman B (1992) Evolution in organisms that change their niches during the life cycle. Am Nat 139: 990–1021Google Scholar
  4. Ebenman B, Persson L (1988) Dynamics in size-structured populations — an overview. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations — ecology and evolution, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  5. EkLöv P (1992) Group foraging versus solitary foraging in piscivorous predators: the perch, Perca fluviatilis, and pike, Esox lucius, patterns. Anim Behav 44:313–326Google Scholar
  6. Eklöv P, Diehl S (1994) Piscivore efficiency and refuging prey: the importance of predator search mode. Oecologia 98: 344–353Google Scholar
  7. EkLöv P, Hamrin SF (1989) Predatory efficiency and prey selection: interactions between pike Esox lucius, perch Perca fluviatilis and rudd Scardinus erythrophthalmus. Oikos 56:149–156Google Scholar
  8. Ford RG, Krumme DW (1979) The analysis of space use patterns. J Theor Biol 76:125–155Google Scholar
  9. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (1988) Resource depletion and habitat segregation by competitors under predation hazard. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations — ecology and evolution. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 173–184Google Scholar
  10. Hellman GS (1986) Behavioral responses of prey fishes during predator-prey interactions. In: Lauder GV, Feder ME (eds) Predator-prey relationships in lower vertebrates: ecology, behavior, physiology; and morphology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 135–156Google Scholar
  11. Hileman KS, Brodie Jr ED (1994) Survival strategies of the salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus: interaction of predator-avoidance and anti-predator mechanisms. Anim Behav 47:1–6Google Scholar
  12. Ives AR, Dobson AP (1987) Antipredator behaviour and the population dynamics of simple predator-prey systems. Am Nat 130: 431–447Google Scholar
  13. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hasson O (1991) Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 72: 2249–2260Google Scholar
  14. Landeau L, Terborgh J (1986) Oddity and the “confusion effect” in predation. Anim Behav 34: 1372–1380Google Scholar
  15. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68: 619–640Google Scholar
  16. Magurran AE (1990) The adaptive significance of schooling as an anti-predator defence in fish. Ann Zool Fenn 27:51–66Google Scholar
  17. Magurran AE, Higham A (1988) Information transfer across fish shoals under predation threat. Ethology 78:153–158Google Scholar
  18. Magurran AE, Pitcher TJ (1987) Provenance, shoal size and the sociobiology of predator evasion behaviour in minnow shoals. Proc R Soc Lond B 229:439–465Google Scholar
  19. Magurran AE, Oulton WJ, Pitcher TJ (1985) Vigilant behaviour and shoal size in minnows. Z Tierpsychol 67:167–178Google Scholar
  20. Mangel M, Roitberg BD (1992) Behavioral stabilization of host-parasite population dynamics. Theor Popul Biol 42:308–320Google Scholar
  21. McNair JN (1986) The effects of refuges on predator-prey interactions: a reconsideration. Theor Popul Biol 29:38–63Google Scholar
  22. Meyer A (1987) Phenotypic plasticity and heterochrony in Cichlasoma managuense (Pices, Cichlidae) and their implications for speciation in cichlid fishes. Evolution 41:1357–1369Google Scholar
  23. Mittelbach GG (1988) Competition among refuging sunfishes and effects of fish density on littoral zone invertebrates. Ecology 69: 614–623Google Scholar
  24. Moody RC, Hellard JM, Stein RA (1983) Escape tactics used by bluegills and fathead minnows to avoid predation by tiger muskellunge. Environ Biol Fish 1:61–65Google Scholar
  25. Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and stability. Adv Ecol Res 9:1–131Google Scholar
  26. Neill StJ Sr, Cullen JM (1974) Experiments on whether schooling by their prey affects the hunting behaviour of cephalopods and fish predators. J Zool Lond 172:549–569Google Scholar
  27. Persson L (1986) Temperature-induced shift in foraging ability in two fish species, roach (Rutilus rutilus) and perch (Perca fluviatilis): implications for coexistence between poikilotherms. J Anim Ecol 55:829–839Google Scholar
  28. Persson L (1988) Asymmetries in competitive and predatory interactions in fish populations. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured Populations — ecology and evolution. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 203–218Google Scholar
  29. Persson L, Diehl S, Johansson L, Andersson G, Hamrin SF (1991) Shifts in fish communities along the productivity gradient of temperate lakes — patterns and the importance of size-structured interactions. J Fish Biol 38:281–293Google Scholar
  30. Persson L, EkLöv P (1995) Prey refuges affecting interactions between piscivorous perch and juvenile perch and roach. Ecology 76: 70–81Google Scholar
  31. Persson L, Johansson L, Andersson G, Diehl S, Hamrin SF (1993) Density dependent interactions in lake ecosystems: whole lake perturbation experiments. Oikos 66:193–208Google Scholar
  32. Pitcher TJ (1986) Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, London, pp 294–337Google Scholar
  33. Reist JD (1980) Selective predation upon pelvic phenotypes of brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans, by northern pike, Esox lucius. Can J Zool 1245–1252Google Scholar
  34. Savino JF, Stein RA (1982) Predator-prey interactions between largemouth- bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated submersed vegetation. Trans Am Fish Soc 111:255–266Google Scholar
  35. Savino JF, Stein RA (1989a) Behavioural interactions between fish predators and their prey: effects of plant density. Anim Behav 37:311–321Google Scholar
  36. Savino JF, Stein RA (1989b) Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Environ Biol Fish 24:287–293Google Scholar
  37. Schramm HL Jr, Zale AV (1985) Effects of cover and prey size on preferences of juvenile largemouth bass for blue tilapas and bluegills in tanks. Trans Am Fish Soc 114:725–731Google Scholar
  38. Sih A (1987a) Prey refuges and predator-prey stability. Theor Popul Biol 31:1–12Google Scholar
  39. Sih A (1987b) Predators and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A (eds) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 203–225Google Scholar
  40. Sih A, Petranka JW, Kats LB (1988) The dynamics of prey refuge use: a model and tests with sunfish and salamander larvae. Am Nat 132:463–483Google Scholar
  41. Stein RA, Magnusson JJ (1976) Behavioral response of crayfish to a fish predator. Ecology 57:751–761Google Scholar
  42. Svärdsson G (1976) Interspecific population dominance in fish communities of Scandinavian lakes. Rep Inst Freshwater Res Drottningholm 56:144–171Google Scholar
  43. Turner AM, Mittelbach GG (1990) Predator avoidance and community structure: interactions among piscivores, planktivores and plankton. Ecology 71:2241–2254Google Scholar
  44. Webb PW (1984) Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. Am Zool 24:107–120Google Scholar
  45. Webb PW, Buffrénil V de (1990) Locomotion in the biology of large aquatic vertebrates. Trans Am Fish Soc 119:629–641Google Scholar
  46. Werner EE (1977) Species packing and niche complementary in three sunfishes. Am Nat 111: 553–578Google Scholar
  47. Werner EE (1988) Size, scaling, and the evolution of complex life cycles. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations —ecology and evolution. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 60–81Google Scholar
  48. Werner EE (1992) Individual behaviour and higher-order species interactions. Am Nat 140:5–32Google Scholar
  49. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–426Google Scholar
  50. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1988) Ontogenetic habitat shifts in the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): The foraging rate-predation risk tradeoff. Ecology 69:1352–1366Google Scholar
  51. Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall D, Mittelbach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548Google Scholar
  52. Wimberger PH (1991) Causes of morphological plasticity in cichlid fishes. Ph D thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Eklöv
    • 1
  • Lennart Persson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations