Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 65–71 | Cite as

Risk of predation and the feeding behavior of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

  • Lawrence M. Dill
  • Alex H. G. Fraser
Article

Summary

During their first 1–2 years of life, juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are stream-dwelling, and feed upon drifting invertebrates. They move upstream from a holding position to intercept individual prey items; the distance moved (attack distance) is an increasing, but decelerating, function of prey size. Since the fish are presumably more visible to predators during such feeding excursions, prey size and risk are associated variables.

The effect on attack distance of the presentation of a model predator (a photograph of a rainbow trout) was examined in the laboratory. Attack distances are shortened following presentation of a predator; this is particularly true when the prey are large (Fig. 1). The extent of the reduction of attack distance is directly related to predator presentation frequency, although there appears to be a minimum level to which it will decline (Fig. 2). Hungry fish and fish in the presence of a competitor (simulated by a mirror) are less responsive to the predator, suggesting a trade-off of energetic requirements and risk (Fig. 3 and Table 3). The effect of predation risk should be to reduce the relative proportion of large prey in a juvenile coho's diet, and its net rate of energy intake.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caraco T, Martindale S, Pulliam HR (1980) Avian flocking in the presence of a predator. Nature 285:400–401Google Scholar
  2. Carl GC, Clemens WA, Lindsey CC (1959) The freshwater fishes of British Columbia, 3rd edn. BC Provincial Museum Handbook no 5, Victoria, BC, 192 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Cerri RD, Fraser DF (1983) Predation and risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicting demands. Am Nat 121:552–561Google Scholar
  4. Dill LM, Ydenberg RC, Fraser AHG (1981) Food abundance and territory size in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can J Zool 59:1801–1809Google Scholar
  5. Donnelly WA, Dill DM (1984) Evidence for crypsis in coho salmon parr (Oncorhynchus kisutch): substrate colour preference and achromatic reflectance. J Fish Biol 25:183–195Google Scholar
  6. Dunbrack RL, Dill LM (1983) A model of size dependent surface feeding in a stream dwelling salmonid. Environ Biol Fish 8:203–216Google Scholar
  7. Edwards J (1983) Diet shifts in moose due to predator avoidance. Oecologia (Berl) 60:185–189Google Scholar
  8. Freed LA (1981) Breeding biology of house wrens: new views of avian life history phenomena. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilliam JF (1982) Habitat use and competitive bottlenecks in size-structured fish populations. PhD dissertation, Michigan State University, East LansingGoogle Scholar
  10. Grubb TC Jr, Greenwald L (1982) Sparrows and a brushpile: foraging responses to different combinations of predation risk and energy cost. Anim Behav 30:637–640Google Scholar
  11. Iwasa Y, Suzuki Y, Matsuda H (1984) Theory of oviposition strategy of parasitoids. I. Effect of mortality and limited egg number. Theor Popul Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Krebs JR (1980) Optimal foraging, predation risk and territory defense. Ardea 68:83–90Google Scholar
  13. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1984) Foraging efficiency-predation risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Maiorana VC (1976) Predation, submergent behavior, and tropical diversity. Evol Theory 1:157–177Google Scholar
  15. Martindale S (1982) Nest defense and central place foraging: a model and experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:85–89Google Scholar
  16. Mason JC (1976) Response of underyearling coho salmon to supplemental feeding in a natural stream. J Wildl Manage 40:775–788Google Scholar
  17. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  18. Mittelbach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386Google Scholar
  19. Power ME (1984) Depth distributions of armored catfish: predator-induced resource avoidance? Ecology 65:523–528Google Scholar
  20. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
  21. Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect, Notonecta hoffmanni. Ecology 63:786–796Google Scholar
  22. Thompson DBA (1983) Prey assessment by plovers (Charadriidae): net rate of energy intake and vulnerability to kleptoparasites. Anim Behav 31:1226–1236Google Scholar
  23. Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittelbach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence M. Dill
    • 1
  • Alex H. G. Fraser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations