Oecologia

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 356–359 | Cite as

The relationship between foraging and shoal position in a mixed shoal of roach (Rutilus rutilus) and chub (Leuciscus cephalus): a field study

  • Jens Krause
Original Papers

Abstract

Feeding rates of mixed shoals of juvenile roach and chub were observed in a shallow stream near Cambridge (UK). Roach at the front of the shoal had significantly higher feeding rates than roach at the back and than chub in either front or back positions. Position in the shoal also had a significant effect on the kind of food consumed, with front roach feeding more on plankton and back roach more on bottom food. Altogether 36 fish from the stream were caught and marked. Half of these were deprived of food and the other half well-fed for 3 days in captivity. After release 36% of them joined their old shoal again. Individuals from the starved group occupied front positions significantly more often than well-fed fish, but after 2 days this difference disappeared.

Key words

Foraging in fish shoals Position preferences Nutritional state Juvenile roach Mixed shoaling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. De Jonge J, Videler JJ (1989) Differences between the reproductive biologies of Tripterygion tripteronotus and T. delaisi (Pisces, Perciformes, Tripterygiidae): the adaptive significance of an alternative mating strategy and a red instead of a yellow nuptial colour. Mar Biol 100: 431–437Google Scholar
  2. Eggers DM (1976) Theoretical effects of schooling by planktivorous fish predators on prey consumption. J Fish Res Board Can 33: 1964–1971Google Scholar
  3. Fields PA (1991) Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus) show increased locomotory efficiency when swum in groups. Abstract, mechanics and physiology of animal swimming, Polytechnic South West, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  4. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31: 295–311Google Scholar
  5. Krause J Bumann D, Todt D (1992) Relationship between the position preference and nutritional state of individuals in schools of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30: 177–180Google Scholar
  6. Krause J (in press) The effect of ‘Schreckstoff’ on the shoaling behaviour of the minnow — a test of Hamilton's selfish herd theory. Anim BehavGoogle Scholar
  7. Lazzaro X (1987) A review of planktivorous fishes: Their evolution, feeding behaviours, selectivities, and impacts. Hydrobiology 146: 97–167Google Scholar
  8. McKaye KR, Oliver MK (1980) Geometry of a selfish school: defence of cichlid young by a bagrid catfish in Lake Malawi Africa. Anim Behav 28: 1278–1290Google Scholar
  9. Niederholzer R, Hofer R (1980) The feeding of roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) and rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus L.) I. Studies on natural populations. Ekol Pol 28: 45–59Google Scholar
  10. O'Connell CP (1972) The interrelationship of biting and filter feeding activity of the northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax). J Fish Res Board Can 29: 285–293Google Scholar
  11. Okamura B (1986) Group living and the effects of spatial position in aggregations of Mytilus edulis. Oecologia 69: 341–347Google Scholar
  12. Parrish JK (1989) Re-examining the selfish herd: are central fish safer? Anim Behav 38: 1048–1053Google Scholar
  13. Parrish JK, Strand SW, Lott JL (1989) Predation on a school of flat iron herring, Harengula thrissina. Copeia 4: 1089–1091Google Scholar
  14. Partridge BL, Pitcher TJ (1979) Evidence against a hydrodynamic function for fish schools. Nature 279: 418–419Google Scholar
  15. Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1990) Trade-offs in foraging success and predation risk with spatial position in colonial spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27: 77–85Google Scholar
  16. Weihs D (1973) Hydromechanics of fish schooling. Nature 241: 290–291Google Scholar
  17. Wieser W (1971) Limitations of energy acquisition and energy use in small poikilotherms: evolutionary implications. Funct Ecol 5: 243–240Google Scholar
  18. Wieser W, Forstner H, Medgyesy N, Hinterleitner S (1988) To switch or not to switch: partitioning of energy between growth and activity in larval cyprinids (Cyprinidae: Teleostei). Funct Ecol 2: 499–507Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Krause
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations