Oecologia

, Volume 153, Issue 2, pp 281–290

Predator–prey encounter rates in freshwater piscivores: effects of prey density and water transparency

Population Ecology

Abstract

One of the most fundamental components of predator–prey models is encounter rate, modelled as the product of prey density and search efficiency. Encounter rates have, however, rarely been measured in empirical studies. In this study, we used a video system approach to estimate how encounter rates between piscivorous fish that use a sit-and-wait foraging strategy and their prey depend on prey density and environmental factors such as turbidity. We first manipulated prey density in a controlled pool and field enclosure experiments where environmental factors were held constant. In a correlative study of 15 freshwater lakes we then estimated encounter rates in natural habitats and related the results to both prey fish density and environmental factors. We found the expected positive dependence of individual encounter rates on prey density in our pool and enclosure experiments, whereas the relation between school encounter rate and prey density was less clear. In the field survey, encounter rates did not correlate with prey density but instead correlated positively with water transparency. Water transparency decreases with increasing prey density along the productivity gradient and will reduce prey detection distance and thus predator search efficiency. Therefore, visual predator–prey encounter rates do not increase, and may even decrease, with increasing productivity despite increasing prey densities.

Keywords

Encounter rate Piscivore Ambush forager Turbidity Water colour 

References

  1. Anderson O (1984) Optimal foraging by largemouth bass in structured environments. Ecology 65:851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelberg M (2000) Swedish standard methods for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh gillnets. Fiskeriverket Inf 1:1–32Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp DA, Baldwin CM, Vogel JL, Gubala CP (1999) Estimating diel, depth-specific foraging opportunities with a visual encounter rate model for pelagic piscivores. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonabeau E, Dagorn L (1995) Possible universality in the size distribution of fish schools. Phys Rev 51:5220–5223Google Scholar
  5. Brabrand Å, Faafeng B (1993) Habitat shift in roach (Rutilus rutilus) induced by pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) introduction: predation risk versus pelagic behaviour. Oecologia 95:38–46Google Scholar
  6. Breck JE (1993) Foraging theory and piscivorous fish: are forage fish just big zooplankton? Trans Am Fish Soc 122:902–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brönmark C, Weisner SEB (1996) Decoupling of cascading trophic interactions in a freshwater, benthic food chain. Oecologia 108:534–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brönmark C, Dahl J, Greenberg L (1997) Complex trophic interactions in benthic food chains. In: Streit B, Städler T, Lively CM (eds) Ecology and evolution of freshwater animals. Birkhäuser Publishers, Basel Boston Berlin, pp 55–88Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1993) The trophic cascade in lakes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig JF, Babaluk JA (1989) Relationship of condition of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) and northern pike (Esox lucius) to water clarity, with special reference to Dauphin Lake, Manitoba. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1581–1586Google Scholar
  11. Dobler E (1977) Correlation between the feeding time of the pike (Esox lucius) and the dispersal of a school of Leucaspius delineatus. Oecologia 27:93–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eby LA, Rudstam LG, Kitchell JF (1995) Predator responses to prey population dynamics: an empirical analysis based on lake trout growth rates. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1564–1571Google Scholar
  13. Fryxell JM, Lundberg P (1997) Individual behaviour and community dynamics. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerritsen J, Strickler JR (1977) Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: a mathematical model. J Fish Res Bd Can 34:73–82Google Scholar
  15. Gregory RS, Levings CD (1996) The effects of turbidity and vegetation on the risk of juvenile salmonids, Oncorhyncus spp., to predation by adult cutthroat trout, O. clarkii. Environ Biol Fish 47:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hambright KD, Drenner RW, McComas SR, Hairston NG Jr (1991) Gape-limited piscivores: planktivore size refuges, and the trophic cascade hypotheses. Arch Hydrobiol 121:389–404Google Scholar
  17. Howick GL, O’Brien JW (1983) Piscivorous feeding behaviour of largemouth bass: an experimental analysis. Trans Am Fish Soc 112:508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeppesen E, Søndergaard Ma, Søndergaard Mo, Christoffersen K (eds) (1998) The structuring role of submerged macrophytes in lakes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeppesen E, Jensen JP, Søndergaard M, Lauridsen T, Landkildehus F (2000) Trophic structure, species richness and biodiversity in Danish lakes: changes along a phosphorus gradient. Freshwater Biol 45:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krause J, Godin J-GJ (1995) Preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim Behav 50:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krause J, Ruxton GR (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Krause J, Ruxton GJ, Rubenstein D (1998) Is there always an influence of shoal size on predator hunting success? J Fish Biol 52:494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krause J, Hoare DJ, Croft D, Lawrence J, Ward A, Ruxton GD, Godin J-GJ, James R (2000) Fish shoal composition: mechanisms and constraints. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2011–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landeau L, Terborgh J (1986) Oddity and confusion effect in predation. Anim Behav 34:1372–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lima SL (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator–prey interactions. Bioscience 48:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Margenau TL, Rasmussen PW, Jeffrey MK (1998) Factors affecting growth of northern pike in small northern Wisconsin lakes. N Am J Fish Manage 18:625–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazur MM, Beauchamp DA (2003) A comparison of visual prey detection among species of piscivorous salmonids: effects of light and low turbidities. Environ Biol Fish 67:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miner J, Stein RA (1996) Detection of predators and habitat choice by small bluegills: effect of turbidity and alternative prey. Trans Am Fish Soc 125:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miyazaki T, Shiozawa S, Kogane T, Masuda R, Maruyama K, Tsukamoto K (2000) Developmental changes of the light intensity threshold for school formation in the striped jack Pseudocaranx dentex. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 192:267–275Google Scholar
  30. New JG, Fewkes LA, Khan AN (2001) Strike feeding behavior in the muskellunge, Esox masquinongy: contributions of the lateral line and visual sensory systems. J Exp Biol 204:1207–1221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Olin M, Rask M, Ruuhijärvi J, Kurkilahti M, Ala-Opas P, Ylönen O (2002) Fish community structure in mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes of southern Finland: the relative abundances of percids and cyprinids along a trophic gradient. J Fish Biol 60:593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Persson L, Diehl S, Johansson L, Andersson G, Hamrin SF (1991) Shifts in communities along the productivity gradient of temperate lakes—patterns and the importance of size-structured interactions. J Fish Biol 38:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Persson L, Diehl S, Eklöv P, Christensen B (1997) Flexibility in fish behaviour: consequences at the population and community levels. In: Godin J-GJ (ed) Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 316–343Google Scholar
  34. Pitcher TJ, Turner JR (1986) Danger at dawn: experimental support for the twilight hypotheses in shoaling minnows. J Fish Biol 29(Suppl A):59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pohlmann K, Grasso FW, Breithaupt T (2001) Tracking wakes: the nocturnal predatory strategy of piscivorous catfish. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:7371–7374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryer CH, Olla BL (1998) Effect of light on juvenile walleye pollock shoaling and their interaction with predators. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 167:215–226Google Scholar
  37. Savino JF, Stein RA (1989) Behavior of fish predators and their habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Environ Biol Fish 24:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheffer M, Van den Berg M, Breukelaar AW, Breukers C, Coops H, Doef RW, Meijer M–L (1994) Vegetated areas with clear water in turbid shallow lakes. Aquat Bot 49:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seehausen OJ, van Alphen JM, Witte F (2003) Implications of eutrophication for fish vision, behavioral ecology, and species coexistence. In: Crisman TL, Chapman LJ, Chapman CA, Kaufman LS (eds) Conservation, ecology, and management of African fresh waters. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.Google Scholar
  40. Seghers BH (1981) Facultative schooling in the spot-tail shiner (Notropis hudsonius): possible costs and benefits. Environ Biol Fish 6:21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Svärdson G (1976) Interspecific population dominance in fish communities of Scandinavian lakes. Rep Inst Freshwater Res Drot 55:144–171Google Scholar
  42. Skov C, Berg S, Jacobsen L, Jepsen N (2002) Habitat use and foraging success of 0+ pike (Esox lucius L.) in experimental ponds related to prey fish, water transparency and light intensity. Ecol Freshwater Fish 11:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turesson H, Brönmark C (2004) Hunting behaviour and capture success dependent on prey school size in perch (Perca fluviatilis), pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) and northern pike (Esox lucius). J Fish Biol 65:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Utne-Palm AC (2002) Visual feeding of fish in a turbid environment: physical and behavioural aspects. Mar Freshwater Behav Physiol 35:111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vogel JL, Beauchamp DA (1999) Effects of light, prey size, and turbidity on reaction distances of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to salmonid prey. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:1293–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, LimnologyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations