Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, 614:151 | Cite as

A telemetry study on the diurnal distribution and activity of adult pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.), in a riverine environment

  • Pavel HorkýEmail author
  • Ondřej Slavík
  • Ludĕk Bartoš
Primary research paper

Abstract

The diurnal movements and spatial distribution of adult pikeperch, Sander lucioperca, in the Elbe River, Czech Republic was observed using radio telemetry. The hypothesis that light intensity, within four different intervals (dawn, day, dusk, night), would determine the spatial distribution of pikeperch in a riverine environment were tested across a time span of 12 months. During the day, fish were located in deep water of the main channel, moving towards shallower waters during twilight and residing in the littoral zone, closest to the riverbanks, at night. Movement activity followed the behavioural pattern in a drainage canal with maximum at twilight and minimum at night. This suggests that nocturnal positions of adult pikeperch in the shallows were not associated with hunting but more likely with resting.

Keywords

Predator Behaviour Habitat shift Telemetry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank an anonymous referee and A. Slavíková for valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, AJE (American Journal Experts) for the language assistance and technical staff at the Water Research Institute in Prague for assistance with the fieldwork. The study was financially supported by grant from the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic (SP/2e7/229/07).

References

  1. Ali, M. A., R. A. Ryder & M. Antcil, 1977. Photoreceptors and visual pigments as related to behavioural responses and preferred habitats of perches (Perca spp.) and pikeperches (Stizostedion spp.). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34: 1475–1480.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, O., 1984. Optimal foraging by largemouth bass in structured environments. Ecology 65: 851–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anett, C. A., 1998. Hunting behavior of Florida largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides floridanus, in a channelized river. Environmental Biology of Fishes 53: 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cerri, D. R., 1983. The effect of light intensity on predator and prey behaviour in cyprinid fish: factors that influence prey risk. Animal Behaviour 31: 736–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, B. & L. Persson, 1993. Species-specific anti-predator behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Copp, G. H. & P. Jurajda, 1993. Do small riverine fish move inshore at night? Journal of Fish Biology 43: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copp, G. H. & P. Jurajda, 1999. Size-structured diel use of river banks by fish. Aquatic Sciences 61: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig, J. F., 1987. The Biology of Perch and Related Fish. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  9. Fedorova, G. V. & K. S. Drozzhina, 1982. Daily feeding rhytm of pikeperch Stizostedion lucioperca and perch Perca fluviatilis from Lake Ladoga. Journal of Ichthyology 22: 52–60.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, D. J., E. E. Werner, J. F. Gilliam, G. G. Mittelbach, D. Howard & C. G. Doner, 1979. Diel foraging behaviour and prey selection in the golden shiner (Notemigonus chrysoleucas). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36: 1029–1039.Google Scholar
  11. Helfman, G. S., 1993. Fish behaviour by day, night and twilight. In Pitcher, T. J. (ed.), Behaviour of Teleost Fishes, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London: 479–512.Google Scholar
  12. Hemmings, C. C., 1966. Olfaction and vision in fish schooling. Journal of Experimental Biology 45: 449.Google Scholar
  13. Howick, G. L. & W. J. O’Brien, 1983. Piscivorous feeding-behavior of largamouth bass—an experimental analysis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112: 508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jepsen, N., A. Koed & F. Okland, 1999. The movements of pikeperch in a shallow reservoir. Journal of Fish Biology 54: 1083–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leopold, L. B., 1994. A view of the river. Harvard University Press, Cambridge: 298 pp.Google Scholar
  16. McFarland, W. N. & C. M. Wahl, 1996. Visual constraints on migration behaviour of juvenile French grunts. Environmental Biology of Fishes 46: 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Metcalfe, N. B., N. H. C. Fraser & M. D. Burns, 1999. Food availiblity and the nocturnal vs. diurnal foraging trade-off in juvenile salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olesen, K. W., 1987. Bed topography in shallow river bends. Facuty of Civil Eng., Delft Univ. Tech., Report 87-1.Google Scholar
  19. Pitcher, T. J., 1986. Function of shoaling in teleosts. In Pitcher, T. J. (ed.), The Behaviour of Teleost Fishes. Croom Helm, London: 294–337.Google Scholar
  20. Poulet, N., C. Arzel, S. Messad, S. Lek & Ch. Argillier, 2005. Diel activity of adult pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.) in a drainage canal in the Mediterranean basin during spring. Hydrobiologia 543: 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Power, M. E., 1984. Depth distributions of armoured catfish: predator-induced resource avoidance? Ecology 65: 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Power, M. E., 1987. Predator avoidance by grazing fishes in temperate and tropical streams: importance of stream depth and prey size. In Kerfoot, W. C. & A. Sih (eds), Predation: direct and indirect impacts in aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Dartmouth, New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  23. Sanders, R. E., 1992. Day versus night electrofishing catches from near-shore waters of the Ohio and Muskingum Rivers. Ohio Journal of Science 92: 51–59.Google Scholar
  24. SAS Institute, 2004. SAS/STAT® 9.1 User’s Guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  25. Schlosser, I. J., 1987. The role of predation in age- and size-related habitat use by stream fishes. Ecology 68: 651–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Talmon, A. M., 1992. Bed topography of river bends with suspended sediment transport. Facuty of Civil Eng., Delft Univ. Tech., Report 92-5.Google Scholar
  27. Turesson, H. & C. Brönmark, 2004. Foraging behaviour and capture success in perch, pikeperch and pike and the effects of prey density. Journal of Fish Biology 65: 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. White, G. C. & R. A. Garrott, 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, New York: 383 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Winter, J. D., 1983. Advances in underwater biotelemetry. In Nielsen, L. A. & D. Johnsen (eds), Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD: 371–395.Google Scholar
  30. Winter, J. D., V. B. Kuechle, D. B. Sinff & J. R. Tester, 1978. Equipment and methods for radio tracking freshwater fish. Univ. Minessota: Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Reports 152.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavel Horký
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ondřej Slavík
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ludĕk Bartoš
    • 3
  1. 1.T G M – Water Research InstitutePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Research Institute of Fish Culture and HydrobiologyVodnanyCzech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of Animal Production, Ethology GroupPrague 10 - UhrinevesCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations