Skip to main content
Log in

Apparent size choice of zooplankton by planktivorous sunfish: exceptions to the rule

  • Full paper
  • Published:
Environmental Biology of Fishes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Synopsis

Choice of the apparently largest prey has been implicated as an important component of the size choice behavior of several planktivorous fish species. In this study we describe the effect of several aspects of prey placement, apparent and absolute size, and motion on the choice behavior of bluegill or white crappie. In binary choice experiments, bluegill usually choose Daphnia prey on the basis of apparent size. However, when both prey were close to the fish and the absolutely larger prey was apparently smaller, the fish commonly chose the absolutely larger. The horizontal placement of two prey also altered choice such that the more forward directed prey was chosen even when apparently smaller. White crappie, when offered a choice between a diaptomid copepod or daphnid prey, chose the daphnid most of the time. Bluegill sunfish offered moving versus non-moving heat-killed daphnids commonly chose the one in motion. Apparent size choice is still a good overall describer of bluegill and white crappie prey choice, but it is not the only mechanism involved in prey choice behavior of these fish.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References cited

  • Boulet, P.C. 1958. Contibution a l'etude experimentale de la perception visuelle du mouvement chez la perche et la seiche. Mem. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., Paris, Ser. A. Zool. 17. 131 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confer, J.L. & P.I. Blades. 1975. Omnivorous zooplankton and planktivorous fish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20: 571–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, D.M. 1977. The nature of prey selection by planktivorous fish. Ecology 58: 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, D.M. 1982. Planktivore preference by prey size. Ecology 63: 381–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R.M. 1980. Optimal prey-size selection by three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus): a test of the apparentsize hypothesis. Z. Tierpsychol. 52: 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hairston, N.G., Jr., K.T. Li & S.S. Easter, Jr. 1982. Fish vision and the detection of planktonic prey. Science 218: 1240–1242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, A. 1978. Feeding interrelations between age-groups of pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) and comparisons with bluegill (L. macrochirus). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35: 12–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerfoot, W.C. 1982. A question of taste: crypsis and warning coloration in freshwater zooplankton communities. Ecology 63: 538–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kislalioglu, M. & R.N. Gibson. 1976. Some factors governing prey selection by the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia Spinachia (L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 25: 159–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellors, W.K. 1975. Selective predation of ephippial Daphnia and the resistance of ephippial eggs to digestion. Ecology 56: 974–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, W.J., N.A. Slade & G.L. Vinyard. 1976. Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57: 1304–1310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York. 312 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinyard, G.L. 1980. Differential prey vulnerability and predator selectivity: effects of evasive prey on bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus) predation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 2294–2299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinyard, G.L. & W.J. O'Brien. 1976. Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2845–2849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware, D.M. 1973. Risk of epibenthic prey to predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30: 787–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, E.E. & D.J. Hall. 1974. Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55: 1042–1052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetterer, J.K. & C.J. Bishop. 1984. Planktivore prey selection: the reactive field volume model versus the apparent size model. Ecology (in print).

  • Wright, D.I. 1981. The planktivorous feeding behavior of white crappie (Pomoxis annularis): field testing a mechanistic model. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence. 116 pp.

  • Wright, D.I. & W.J. O'Brien. 1982. Differential location of Chaoborus larvae and Daphnia by fish: the importance of motion and visible size. Amer. Midl. Nat. 108: 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D.I. & W.J. O'Brien. 1984. The development and field test of a tactical model of the planktivorous feeding of white crappie (Pomoxis annularis). Ecol. Monogr. 54: 65–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, T.M. 1972. Predator-prey interaction in a tropical lacustrine ecosystem. Ecology 53: 248–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, T.M. 1980. The effect of prey motion on planktivore choice. pp. 594–603. In: W.C. Kerfoot (ed.) Evolution and Ecology of Zooplankton Communities, University Press of New England, Hanover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, T.M. 1981. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven. 187 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaret, T.M. & W.C. Kerfoot. 1975. Fish predation on Bosmina longirostris: body-size selection versus visibility selection. Ecology 56: 232–237.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

John O'Brien, W.J.O., Evans, B. & Luecke, C. Apparent size choice of zooplankton by planktivorous sunfish: exceptions to the rule. Environ Biol Fish 13, 225–233 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00000934

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00000934

Keywords

Navigation