, Volume 717, Issue 1, pp 203–211 | Cite as

The role of floods in the lives of fish-eating birds: predator loss or benefit?

  • Martin Čech
  • Pavel Čech
Primary Research Paper


Floods accompanied by high flow and high water turbidity are usually believed to cause problems to fish-eating birds and mammals searching visually for their prey. In the present study the diets of breeding kingfishers were studied during the normal river situation and during a long-lasting flood event with respect to diet composition, size of fish prey and food diversity index. During the normal situation (flow 1.75 m3 s−1, Secchi disc depth 0.5–1 m), the diet of a kingfisher was dominated by benthic fish species (52.9% by numbers, 63.9% by weight), the average size of fish taken was 6.5 cm L T and 3.0 g and the food diversity index reached its lowest value (1.57). In contrast, during the long-lasting flood event (flow 5–28 m3 s−1, Secchi disc depth 0.03–0.4 m) the diet of the kingfisher was dominated by sub-surface fish species (72.4% by numbers, 76.1% by weight) and both the average size of fish taken (7.4 cm L T and 3.7 g) and the food diversity index (1.83) increased significantly. The birds provided their nestlings with lower numbers of fish of larger sizes, which resulted in very similar weights of the young birds prior to fledging when the flood and normal situations were compared. This study provides evidence that in different foraging conditions the kingfishers adopt different foraging strategies to maintain their high breeding success.


Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Diagnostic bones Sub-surface species Benthic species Gudgeon Gobio gobio European chub Squalius cephalus 



The authors thank M. Burgis for carefully reading and correcting the English and the Vltava River Authority, which kindly provided the river flow data. The study was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (Project No. 206/09/P266), the Czech Union for Nature Conservation (Biodiversity Conservation Project) and UNCE (institutional resources of Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic for the support of science and research).


  1. Abrahams, M. & M. Kattenfeld, 1997. The role of turbidity as a constraint on predator–prey interactions in aquatic environments. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 40: 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bunzel, M. & J. Drüke, 1989. Kingfisher. In Newton, I. (ed.), Lifetime Reproduction in Birds. Academic Press Ltd, London: 107–116.Google Scholar
  3. Campos, F., A. Fernández, F. Gutiérrez-Corchero, F. Martin-Santos & P. Santos, 2000. Diet of the Eurasian kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) in northern Spain. Folia Zoologica 49: 115–121.Google Scholar
  4. Čech, P., 2007. Creation of new nesting opportunities for kingfisher. In Čech P. (ed.), Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), Its Conservation and Research. Methodology of the Czech Union for Nature Conservation No. 34. Vlašim: 02/19 ZO ČSOP Alcedo: 58-64 (in Czech with summary in English).Google Scholar
  5. Čech, M. & P. Čech, 2011. Diet of the common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) in relation to habitat type: a summary of results from the Czech Republic. Sylvia 47: 33–47. (in Czech with abstract and extended summary in English).Google Scholar
  6. Čech, M. & L. Vejřík, 2011. Winter diet of great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) on the River Vltava: estimate of size and species composition and potential for fish stock losses. Folia Zoologica 60: 129–142.Google Scholar
  7. Čech, M., J. Kubečka, J. Frouzová, V. Draštík, M. Kratochvíl & J. Jarošík, 2007. Impact of flood on distribution of bathypelagic perch fry layer along the longitudinal profile of large canyon-shaped reservoir. Journal of Fish Biology 70: 1109–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Čech, M., P. Čech, J. Kubečka, M. Prchalová & V. Draštík, 2008. Size selectivity in summer and winter diets of great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo): does it reflect a season-dependent difference in foraging efficiency? Waterbirds 31: 438–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramp, J. S., 1990. The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Grémillet, D., T. Nazirides, H. Nikolaou & A. J. Crivelli, 2012. Fish are not safe from great cormorants in turbid water. Aquatic Biology 15: 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grosholz, E. & E. Gallo, 2006. The influence of flood cycle and fish predation on invertebrate production on a restored California floodplain. Hydrobiologia 568: 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guthrie, D. M. & W. R. A. Muntz, 1993. Role of vision in fish behaviour. In Pitcher, T. J. (ed.), Behaviour of Teleost Fishes. Chapman & Hall, London: 89–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hallet, C., 1977. Contribution a l’étude du régime alimentaire du Martin-Pêcheur (Alcedo atthis) dans la vallée de la Lesse. Aves 14: 128–144.Google Scholar
  14. Hallet, C., 1982. Etude du comportement de predation du Martin-Pêcheur Alcedo atthis (L.): taille preferentielle de capture du chabot Cottus gobio L. et de la truite Salmo trutta L. Revue d’ Ecologie (La Terre et la Vie) 36: 211–222.Google Scholar
  15. Lugeri, N., Z. W. Kundzewicz, E. Genovese, S. Hochrainer & M. Radziejewski, 2010. River flood risk and adaptation in Europe – assessment of the present status. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15(7): 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luz-Agostinho, K. D. G., A. A. Agostinho, L. C. Gomes & H. F. Julio, 2008. Influence of flood pulses on diet composition and trophic relationships among piscivorous fish in the upper Parana River floodplain. Hydrobiologia 607: 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pecqueur, D., F. Vidussi, E. Fouilland, E. Le Floc’h, S. Mas, C. Roques, C. Salles, M. G. Tournoud & B. Mostajir, 2011. Dynamics of microbial planktonic food web components during a river flash flood in a Mediterranean coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia 673: 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prigioni, C., A. Balestrieri, L. Remonti, A. Gargaro & G. Priore, 2006. Diet of the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) in relation to freshwater habitats and alien species in southern Italy. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 18(4): 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raven, P., 1986. The size of minnow prey in the diet of young kingfisher Alcedo atthis. Bird Study 33: 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reynolds, S. J. & M. D. C. Hinge, 1996. Food brought to the nest by breeding kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) in the New Forest of southern England. Bird Study 43: 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Romanescu, G. & I. Nistor, 2011. The effects of the July 2005 catastrophic inundations in the Siret River’s lower watershed, Romania. Natural Hazards 57(2): 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Eerden, M. R. & B. Voslamber, 1995. Mass fishing by cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis at Lake Ijsselmeer, The Netherlands: a recent and successful adaptation to a turbid environment. Ardea 83: 199–212.Google Scholar
  23. Vaníčková, I., J. Seďa, J. Macháček & A. Petrusek, 2011. Effects of extreme floods on the Daphnia ephippial egg bank in a long narrow reservoir. Journal of Limnology 70(2): 369–377.Google Scholar
  24. Vilches, A., R. Miranda & J. Arizaga, 2012. Fish prey selection of the common kingfisher Alcedo atthis in Northern Iberia. Acta Ornithologica 47(2): 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wootton, R. J., 1998. Ecology of Teleost Fishes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Czech Union for Nature ConservationVlašimCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations