Oecologia

, Volume 161, Issue 4, pp 837–847 | Cite as

Coexistence of behavioural types in an aquatic top predator: a response to resource limitation?

  • Alexander Kobler
  • Thomas Klefoth
  • Thomas Mehner
  • Robert Arlinghaus
Behavioral Ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Intra-population variation in behaviour unrelated to sex, size or age exists in a variety of species. The mechanisms behind behavioural diversification have only been partly understood, but density-dependent resource availability may play a crucial role. To explore the potential coexistence of different behavioural types within a natural fish population, we conducted a radio telemetry study, measuring habitat use and swimming activity patterns of pike (Esox lucius), a sit-and-wait predatory fish. Three behavioural types co-occurred in the study lake. While two types of fish only selected vegetated littoral habitats, the third type opportunistically used all habitats and increased its pelagic occurrence in response to decreasing resource biomasses. There were no differences in size, age or lifetime growth between the three behavioural types. However, habitat-opportunistic pike were substantially more active than the other two behavioural types, which is energetically costly. The identical growth rates exhibited by all behavioural types indicate that these higher activity costs of opportunistic behaviour were compensated for by increased prey consumption in the less favourable pelagic habitat resulting in approximately equal fitness of all pike groups. We conclude that behavioural diversification in habitat use and activity reduces intraspecific competition in preferred littoral habitats. This may facilitate the emergence of an ideal free distribution of pike along resource gradients.

Keywords

Behavioural diversification Esox lucius Foraging strategy Habitat specialization Ideal free distribution 

Supplementary material

442_2009_1415_MOESM1_ESM.doc (80 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 97 kb)

References

  1. Andersen M, Jacobsen L, Gronkjaer P, Skov C (2008) Turbidity increases behavioural diversity in northern pike, Esox lucius L., during early summer. Fish Manage Ecol 15:377–383Google Scholar
  2. Bell AM (2007) Future directions in behavioural syndromes research. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boisclair D, Sirois P (1993) Testing assumptions of fish bioenergetics models by direct estimation of growth, consumption, and activity rates. Trans Am Fish Soc 122:784–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolnick DI (2001) Intraspecific competition favours niche width expansion in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 410:463–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolnick DI, Svanbäck R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Husley CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JS (1996) Coevolution and community organization in three habitats. Oikos 75:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casselman JM (1974) External sex determination of northern pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus. Trans Am Fish Soc 103:343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies NB (1977) Prey selection and search strategy of spotted flycatcher (Muscicapa striata): a field study on optimal foraging. Anim Behav 25:1016–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Kerckhove D, McLaughlin RL, Noakes DLG (2006) Ecological mechanisms favouring behavioural diversification in the absence of morphological diversification: a theoretical examination using brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis). J Anim Ecol 75:506–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehlinger TJ, Wilson DS (1988) Complex foraging polymorphism in bluegill sunfish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:1878–1882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eklöv P, Diehl S (1994) Piscivore efficiency and refuging prey: the importance of predator search mode. Oecologia 98:344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Francis RICC (1990) Back calculation of fish length: a critical review. J Fish Biol 36:883–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fredrich F, Ohmann S, Curio B, Kirschbaum F (2003) Spawning migrations of the chub in the river Spree, Germany. J Fish Biol 63:710–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallucci VF, Quinn TJ (1979) Reparameterizing, fitting, and testing a simple growth model. Trans Am Fish Soc 108:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimm MP, Klinge M (1996) Pike and some aspects of its dependence on vegetation. In: Craig JF (ed) Pike biology and exploitation. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 125–156Google Scholar
  17. Hanson PC, Johnson TB, Schindler DE, Kitchell JF (1997) Fish bioenergetics 3.0 for Windows. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  18. Harper DG, Blake RW (1991) Prey capture and the fast-start performance of northern pike Esox lucius. J Exp Biol 155:175–192Google Scholar
  19. Haugen TO, Winfield IJ, Vollestad LA, Fletcher JM, James JB, Stenseth NC (2006) The ideal free pike: 50 years of fitness-maximizing dispersal in Windermere. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273:2917–2924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helfman GS (1993) Fish behaviour by day, night and twilight. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 479–512Google Scholar
  21. Hölker F, Breckling B (2002) Influence of activity in a heterogeneous environment on the dynamics of fish growth: an individual-based model of roach. J Fish Biol 60:1170–1189Google Scholar
  22. Hölker F, Mehner T (2005) Simulation of trait-mediated and density-mediated indirect effects of piscivorous predators on a lake food web. Basic Appl Ecol 6:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hölker F, Dörner H, Schulze T, Haertel-Borer SS, Peacor S, Mehner T (2007) Species-specific responses of planktivorous fish to the introduction of a new piscivore: implications for prey fitness. Freshwater Biol 52:1793–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inoue T, Matsura T (1983) Foraging strategy of a mantid, Paratenodera angustipennis S.: mechanisms of switching tactics between ambush and active search. Oecologia 56:264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jepsen N, Beck S, Skov C, Koed A (2001) Behavior of pike (Esox lucius L.) >50 cm in a turbid reservoir and in a clearwater lake. Ecol Freshwater Fish 10:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jepsen N, Koed A, Thorstad EB, Baras E (2002) Surgical implantation of telemetry transmitters in fish: how much have we learned? Hydrobiologia 483:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klefoth T (2007) Behaviour of pike (Esox lucius L.) in response to angler-induced disturbance in a catch-and-release fishery in Lake Kleiner Döllnsee. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture. http://www.adaptfish.rem.sfu.ca/Thesis_MSc_Klefoth.pdf
  28. Klefoth T, Kobler A, Arlinghaus R (2008) The impact of catch-and-release angling on short-term behaviour and habitat choice of northern pike (Esox lucius L.). Hydrobiologia 601:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knight CM, Gozlan RE, Lucas MC (2008) Can seasonal home-range size in pike Esox lucius predict excursion distance? J Fish Biol 73:1058–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kobler A (2007) Habitatwahl und Aktivität des Hechtes (Esox lucius L.) im Kleinen Döllnsee: Eine radiotelemetrische Untersuchung. Universität Hohenheim, Fakultät für Agrarbiologie. http://www.adaptfish.rem.sfu.ca/Thesis_Diplomarbeit_Kobler.pdf
  31. Kobler A, Klefoth T, Arlinghaus R (2008a) Site fidelity and seasonal changes in activity centre size of female pike Esox lucius in a small lake. J Fish Biol 73:584–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kobler A, Klefoth T, Wolter C, Fredrich F, Arlinghaus R (2008b) Contrasting pike (Esox lucius L.) movement and habitat choice between summer and winter in a small lake. Hydrobiologia 601:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis KP (2006) Statistical power, sample sizes, and the software to calculate them easily. Bioscience 56:607–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lucas MC, Johnstone ADF, Priede IG (1993) Use of physiological telemetry as a method of estimating metabolism of fish in the natural environment. Trans Am Fish Soc 122:822–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacArthur RH, Levins R (1964) Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 51:1207–1210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Masters JEG, Hodder KH, Beaumont WRC, Gozlan RE, Pinder AC, Kenward RE, Welton JS (2005) Spatial behaviour of pike Esox lucius L. in the River Frome, UK. In: Spedicato MT, Lembo G, Marmulla G (eds) Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held in Europe, Ustica, Italy, 9–13 June 2003. FAO/COISPA, Rome, pp 179–190Google Scholar
  37. McCune B, Mefford MM (1999) PC-ORD—multivariate analysis of ecological data. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  38. Morbey YE, Addison P, Shuter BJ, Vascotto K (2006) Within-population heterogeneity of habitat use by lake trout Salvelinus namaycush. J Fish Biol 69:1675–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris DW (1996) Coexistence of specialist and generalist rodents via habitat selection. Ecology 77:2352–2364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morris DW (2003) Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nilsson PA (2006) Avoid your neighbours: size-determined spatial distribution patterns among northern pike individuals. Oikos 113:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nilsson PA, Brönmark C (1999) Foraging among cannibals and kleptoparasites: effects of prey size on pike behavior. Behav Ecol 10:557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nilsson PA, Brönmark C (2000) Prey vulnerability to a gape-size limited predator: behavioural and morphological impacts on northern pike piscivory. Oikos 88:539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Norberg RA (1977) Ecological theory on foraging time and energetics and choice of optimal food-searching method. J Anim Ecol 46:511–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Okun N, Mehner T (2005) Distribution and feeding of juvenile fish on invertebrates in littoral reed (Phragmites) stands. Ecol Freshwater Fish 14:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pàlsson OK, Thorsteinsson V (2003) Migration patterns, ambient temperature, and growth of Icelandic cod (Gadus morhua): evidence from storage tag data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1409–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Persson L, Bertolo A, de Roos AM (2006) Temporal stability in size distributions and growth rates of three Esox lucius L. populations. A result of cannibalism? J Fish Biol 69:461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raat AJP (1988) Synopsis of biological data on the northern pike Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  49. Réale D, Reader SM, Sol D, McDougall PT, Dingemanse NJ (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev 82:291–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rogers KB (1998) Habitat use by largemouth bass and northern pike on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado. Colorado State University, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  51. Rogers KB (2002) FishTel: telemetry analysis package, version 1.4. Colorado Division of Wildlife, DenverGoogle Scholar
  52. Rogers KB, White GC (2007) Analysis of movement and habitat use from telemetry data. In: Guy CS, Brown ML (eds) Analysis and interpretation of freshwater fisheries data. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenzweig ML (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism. Am Nat 137:S5–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schreckenbach K, Knösche R, Ebert K (2001) Nutrient and energy content of freshwater fishes. J Appl Ichthyol 17:142–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioural syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Svanbäck R, Bolnick DI (2007) Intraspecific competition drives increased resource use diversity within a natural population. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274:839–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Svanbäck R, Persson L (2004) Individual diet specialization, niche width and population dynamics: implications for trophic polymorphisms. J Anim Ecol 73:973–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Svanbäck R, Eklöv P, Fransson R, Holmgren K (2008) Intraspecific competition drives multiple species resource polymorphism in fish communities. Oikos 117:114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swanson BO, Gibb AC, Marks JC, Hendrickson DA (2003) Trophic polymorphism and behavioral differences decrease intraspecific competition in a cichlid, Herichthys minckleyi. Ecology 84:1441–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turesson H, Brönmark C (2007) Predator–prey encounter rates in freshwater piscivores: effects of prey density and water transparency. Oecologia 153:281–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Vehanen T, Hyvärinen P, Johansson K, Laaksonen T (2006) Patterns of movement of adult northern pike (Esox lucius L.) in a regulated river. Ecol Freshwater Fish 15:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vøllestad LA, Skurdal J, Qvenild T (1986) Habitat use, growth, and feeding of pike (Esox lucius L.) in 4 Norwegian lakes. Arch Hydrobiol 108:107–117Google Scholar
  63. von Bertalanffy L (1938) A quantitative theory of organic growth. Hum Biol 10:181–213Google Scholar
  64. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1976) Niche shifts in sunfishes: experimental evidence and significance. Science 191:404–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Winberg GG (1956) Rate of metabolism and food requirements of fishes. Belorussian University, MinskGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolf M, van Doorn GS, Weissing FJ (2008) Evolutionary emergence of responsive and unresponsive personalities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 14:15825–15830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wysujack K, Mehner T (2002) Comparison of losses of planktivorous fish by predation and seine-fishing in a lake undergoing long-term biomanipulation. Freshwater Biol 47:2425–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Kobler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Klefoth
    • 1
  • Thomas Mehner
    • 1
  • Robert Arlinghaus
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biology and Ecology of FishesLeibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biology, EthologyUniversity of AntwerpWilrijk (Antwerpen)Belgium
  3. 3.Inland Fisheries Management Laboratory, Institute of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and HorticultureHumboldt-University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations