Oecologia

, Volume 98, Issue 3–4, pp 344–353

Piscivore efficiency and refuging prey: the importance of predator search mode

  • Peter Eklöv
  • Sebastian Diehl
Original Paper

Abstract

In predator-prey interactions, the efficiency of the predator is dependent on characteristics of both the predator and the prey, as well as the structure of the environment. In a field enclosure experiment, we tested the effects of a prey refuge on predator search mode, predator efficiency and prey behaviour. Replicated enclosures containing young of the year (0+) and 1-year-old (1+) perch were stocked with 3 differentially sized individuals of either of 2 piscivorous species, perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike (Esox lucius) or no piscivorous predators. Each enclosure contained an open predator area with three small vegetation patches, and a vegetated absolute refuge for the prey. We quantified the behaviour of the predators and the prey simultaneously, and at the end of the experiment the growth of the predators and the mortality and habitat use of the prey were estimated. The activity mode of both predator species was stationary. Perch stayed in pairs in the vegetation patches whereas pike remained solitary and occupied the corners of the enclosure. The largest pike individuals stayed closest to the prey refuge whereas the smallest individuals stayed farthest away from the prey refuge, indicating size-dependent interference among pike. Both size classes of prey showed stronger behavioural responses to pike than to perch with respect to refuge use, distance from refuge and distance to the nearest predator. Prey mortality was higher in the presence of pike than in the presence of perch. Predators decreased in body mass in all treatments, and perch showed a relatively stronger decrease in body mass than pike during the experiment. Growth differences of perch and pike, and mortality differences of prey caused by predation, can be explained by predator morphology, predator attack efficiency and social versus interference behaviour of the predators. These considerations suggest that pike are more efficient piscivores around prey refuges such as the littoral zones of lakes, whereas perch have previously been observed to be more efficient in open areas, such as in the pelagic zones of lakes.

Key words

Piscivore-prev interactions Prey refuge Predator search mode Size-specific prey vulnerability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267Google Scholar
  2. Anderson O (1984) Optimal foraging by largemouth bass in structured environments Ecology 65:851–861Google Scholar
  3. Bell WJ (1990) Searching behaviour. The behavioural ecology of finding resources. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brett JR, Groves TDD (1979) Physiological energetics. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ, Brett JR (eds) Fish physiology. Academic Press, New York, pp 280–352Google Scholar
  5. Caraco T, Gillspie RG (1986) Risk-sensitivity: foraging mode in an ambush predator. Ecology 67:1180–1185Google Scholar
  6. Cerri RD, Fraser DF (1983) Predation and risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicing demands. Am Nat 121:552–561Google Scholar
  7. Christensen B, Persson L (1993) Species-specific antipredatory behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:1–9Google Scholar
  8. Craig JF (1987) The biology of perch and related fish. Croom Helm, Beckenham, KentGoogle Scholar
  9. Craig JF, Kipling C (1983) Reproduction efforts versus the environment; case histories of Windermere perch, Perca fluviatilis L., and pike, Esox lucius L. J Fish Biol 22:713–727Google Scholar
  10. Diana JS, Mackay WC, Ehrman M (1977) Movements and habitat preference of northern pike Esox lucius in Lac Ste. Anne, Alberta. Trans Am Fish Soc 106:560–565Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Formanowicz DR Jr, Bradely PJ (1987) Fluctuations in prey density: effects on the foraging tactics of scolopendrid centipedes. Anim Behav 35:453–461Google Scholar
  14. Fraser DF, Gilliam JF (1992) Nonlethal impacts of predator invasion: facultative suppression of growth and reproduction. Ecology 73:959–970Google Scholar
  15. Gendron RP, Staddon JER (1983) Searching for cryptic prey: the effect of search rate. Am Nat 121:172–186Google Scholar
  16. Gerritsen J, Strickler JR (1977) Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: a mathematical model. J Fish Res Bd Can 34:73–82Google Scholar
  17. Gilliam JF (1990) Hunting by the hunted: optimal prey selection by foragers under predation hazard. In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioural mechanisms of food selection NATO ASI series, vol 20, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 797–819Google Scholar
  18. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard: test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68:1856–1862Google Scholar
  19. Grant JWA, Noakes DLG (1987) Movers and stayers: foraging tactics of the young of the year brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis. J Anim Ecol 56:1001–1013Google Scholar
  20. Grimm MP (1981) The composition of northern pike Esox lucius L. populations in four shallow waters in the Nertherlands with the special reference to factors influencing 0+ pike biomass. Fish Manage 12:61–76Google Scholar
  21. Hambright KD, Drenner RW, McComas SR, Hariston NG (1991) Gape-limited piscivores, planktivore size refuges, and the trophic cascade hypothesis. Arch Hydrobiol 121:389–404Google Scholar
  22. Hart PJB, Connellan B (1984) Cost of prey capture, growth rate and ration size in pike, Esox lucius L., as functions of prey weight. J Fish Biol 25:279–292Google Scholar
  23. Hart PJB, Hamrin SF (1990) The role of behaviour and morphology in the selection of prey by pike. In: Hughes RN (ed), Behavioural mechanisms of food selection. NATO ASI series vol 20, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 235–254Google Scholar
  24. Hart PJB, Pitcher TJ, (1969) Field trials of fish marking using a Jet Inoculator. J Fish Biol 1:383–385Google Scholar
  25. Huang C, Sih A (1990) Experimental studies on behaviorally mediated, indirect interactions through a shared predator. Ecology 71:1515–1522Google Scholar
  26. Huey RB, Pianka ER (1981) Ecological consequences of foraging mode. Ecology 62:991–999Google Scholar
  27. Isaacs RP (1975) Differential games. Kreger Pull, Huntington, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. McLaughlin RL (1989) Search modes of birds and lizards: evidence for alternative movement patterns. Am Nat 133: 654–670Google Scholar
  29. Mittelbach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62: 1370–1386Google Scholar
  30. Norberg RÅ (1977) An ecological theory on the foraging time and energetics and choice of optimal food searching method. J Anim Ecol 46:511–529Google Scholar
  31. Nursall JR (1973) Some behavioural interactions of spottail shiners Notropis hudsonius, yellow perch Perca flavescens, and northern pike Esox lucius. J Fish Res Bd Can 30:1161–1178Google Scholar
  32. O'Brien WJ, Browman HI, Evans BI (1990) Search strategies in foraging animals. Am Sci 78:152–160Google Scholar
  33. Osenberg CW, Mittelbach GG (1989) Effects of body size on the predator-prey interaction between pumpkinseed sunfish and gastropods. Ecol Monogr 59:405–432Google Scholar
  34. Persson L, Diehl S (1990) Mechanistic individual-based approaches in the population/community ecology of fish Ann Zool Fenn 27:165–182Google Scholar
  35. Persson L, Eklöv P (1994) Prey refuges affecting interactions between piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis) and juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus). Ecology (in press)Google Scholar
  36. Persson L, Greenberg LA (1990) Juvenile competitive bottlenecks: the perch Perca fluviatilis-roach Rutilus rutilus interaction. Ecology 71:44–56Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Rahel FJ, Stein RA (1988) Complex predator-prey interactions and predator intimidation among crayfish, piscivorous fish, and small benthic fish. Oecologia 75:94–98Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Savino JF, Stein RA (1989) Behavioural interactions between fish predators and their prey: effects of plant density. Anim Behav 37:311–321Google Scholar
  41. Schaller GB (1972) The Serengeti lion. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Sih A (1980) Optimal behaviour: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  43. Sih A (1984) Optimal behavior and density-dependent predation. Am Nat 123:314–326Google Scholar
  44. Sih A, Moore RD (1990) Interacting effects of predator and prey behavior in determining diets. In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioural mechanisms of food selection. NATO ASI series Vol 20, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 771–796Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Smith C, Reay P (1991) Cannibalism in teleost fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish 1:41–64Google Scholar
  47. Speakman JR (1986) The optimum search speed of terrestrial predators when feeding on sedentary prey: a predicitive model. J Theor Biol 122:401–407Google Scholar
  48. Stein RA, Magnusson JJ (1976) Behavioral response of crayfish to a fish predator. Ecology 57:751–761Google Scholar
  49. Svärdson G (1976) Interspecific population dominance in fish communities of Scandinavian lakes. Rep Inst Freshwat Res Drottningholm 56:144–171Google Scholar
  50. Turner AM, Mittelbach GG (1990) Predator avoidance and community structure: interactions among piscivoures, planktivores and plankton. Ecology 71:2241–2254Google Scholar
  51. Webb PW (1984a) Body and fin form and strike tactics of four teleost predators attacking fathead minnows Pimephales promelas prey. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41:157–165Google Scholar
  52. Webb PW (1984b) Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates Am Zool 24:107–120Google Scholar
  53. Webb PW (1986) Locomotion and predator-prey relationships. In: Feder ME, Lauder GV (eds) Predator-prey relationships. Perspectives and approaches from the study of lower vertebrates. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 2441Google Scholar
  54. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425Google Scholar
  55. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1977) Competition and habitat shift in two sunfishes (Centrarchidae). Ecology 58:869–876Google Scholar
  56. Werner EE, Mittelbach GG, Hall DJ, Gilliam JF (1983) Experimental tests of optimal habitat use in fish: the role of relative havitat profitability. Ecology 64:1525–1539Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Eklöv
    • 1
  • Sebastian Diehl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologyUniversity of UmeåUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations