, Volume 668, Issue 1, pp 125–136 | Cite as

Temporary intermissions in capturing prey (Daphnia) by planktivorous fish (Rutilusrutilus): Are they due to scramble competition or the need for antipredation vigilance?



Capture rates in planktivorous fish may differ in individuals foraging alone or in a group, and this may result either from the altered risk of predation due to vigilance sharing in the group, or from a difference in the intensity of scramble competition for encountered prey items. Changes in capture frequency and the feeding pattern observed in young roach (Rutilus rutilus) feeding alone and in a group of three on a high density prey (Daphnia), in the presence and in the absence of predator odor, were used to determine which of these two alternate explanations is more likely. Earlier studies revealed that a foraging roach captures Daphnia prey in uninterrupted sequences of captures occurring every 1–3 s. Such multiple captures are separated by intermissions of 10–20 s, with their duration being likely to determine the overall capture rate. An experiment was performed to examine whether feeding in a group of three permits higher capture rates (hypothesis 1), and whether the intermittent foraging pattern is due to the need to invest more time for vigilance when foraging alone (hypothesis 2). Video recordings were made of many series of subsequent prey captures by roach feeding on high Daphnia densities, alone or in a group, and in the presence or absence of predator odor. Analysis of these data revealed that the mean duration of intermissions between bursts of feeding activity was significantly greater in the presence of predator odor, which resulted in a significant decrease in the capture rate. Furthermore, when the roach were feeding in a group, these intermissions were reduced to a greater extent in the presence of predator odor than in its absence, implying that the intermission intervals represent an investment for vigilance as an effective antipredation defense that permits increased food intake regardless of whether or not it is enhanced by the resource or the interference competition.


Aggregating Antipredation defenses Capture rate Feeding rate Fish impact Handling time Temporal–spatial distribution Vigilance sharing Zooplankton 


  1. Beauchamp, G., 2003. Group-size effects on vigilance: a search for the mechanisms. Behavioural Processes 63: 111–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bednekoff, P. A., 2003. Testing explanations of the group size effect on vigilance: let’s be direct. Behavioural Processes 63: 135–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bednekoff, P. A. & S. L. Lima, 1998. Randomness, chaos and confusion in the study of antipredator vigilance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 284–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertram, B. C. R., 1980. Vigilance and group size in ostriches. Animal Behaviour 28: 278–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth, D. J., 1995. Juvenile groups in a coral-reef damselfish: density-dependent effects on individual fitness and population demography. Ecology 76: 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, J. L. & S. I. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, C. W. & D. A. Levy, 1988. Diel vertical migrations by juvenile sockeye salmon and the antipredation window. American Naturalist 131: 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodson, S. I., 1989. Predator-induced reaction norms. Bioscience 39: 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elgar, M. A., 1989. Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (London) 64: 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forrester, G. E., 1990. Factors influencing the juvenile demography of a coral reef fish. Ecology 71: 1666–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster, W. A. & J. E. Treherne, 1981. Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature 296: 466–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. George, D. G. & R. W. Edwards, 1973. Daphnia distribution within Langmuir circulations. Limnology and Oceanography 18: 798–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gliwicz, Z. M., 1986. A lunar cycle in zooplankton. Ecology 67: 882–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gliwicz, Z. M., 2003. Between Hazards of Starvation and Risk of Predation: The Ecology of Offshore Animals. International Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe: 379.Google Scholar
  15. Gliwicz, Z. M. & A. Jachner, 1992. Diel migrations of juvenile fish: a ghost of predation past or present? Archive für Hydrobiologie 124: 385–430.Google Scholar
  16. Gliwicz, Z. M. & D. Wrzosek, 2008. Predation-mediated coexistence of large- and small-bodied Daphnia at different food levels. American Naturalist 172: 358–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gliwicz, Z. M., P. Dawidowicz, A. Jachner & W. Lampert, 2001. Roach habitat shifts and foraging modified by alarm substance. 2. Reasons for different responses of fish in field and laboratory. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 150: 377–392.Google Scholar
  18. Gliwicz, Z. M., J. Slon & I. Szynkarczyk, 2006. Trading safety for food: evidence from gut contents in roach and bleak captured at different distances offshore from their daytime littoral refuge. Freshwater Biology 51: 823–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gliwicz, Z. M., E. Szymanska & D. Wrzosek, 2010. Body size distribution in Daphnia populations as an effect of prey selectivity by planktivorous fish. Hydrobiologia 643: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grand, T. C. & L. M. Dill, 1999. The effect of group size on the foraging behavior of juvenile coho salmon: reduction of predation risk or increased competition? Animal Behavior 58: 443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Havel, J. E. & S. I. Dodson, 1984. Chaoborus predation on typical and spine morphs of Daphnia pulex: behavioral observations. Limnology and Oceanography 29: 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isaacson, A. J. & N. J. Westwood, 1971. The significance of gregarious feeding behaviour and adrenal stress in a population of wood-pigeons, Columba palumbus. Journal of Zoology (London) 165: 53–84.Google Scholar
  23. Jachner, A., 1996. Alarm reaction in bleak (Alburnus alburnus (L)) in response to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics. Hydrobiologia 325: 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jachner, A. & T. Janecki, 1999. Feeding and growth response of roach, Rutilus rutilus, to alarm substance. Environmental Biology of Fishes 54: 433–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnsson, J. I., 2003. Group size influences foraging effort independent of predation risk: an experimental study on rainbow trout. Journal of Fish Biology 63: 863–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krebs, J. R., 1974. Colonial nesting and social feeding as strategies for exploiting food resources in the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias). Behaviour 51: 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krebs, J. R. & N. B. Davies, 1993. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology, 3rd ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford: 420.Google Scholar
  28. Krebs, J. R. & N. B. Davies, 1997. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford: 446.Google Scholar
  29. Krebs, J. R., M. H. MacRoberts & J. M. Cullen, 1972. Flocking and feeding in the great tit Parus major: an experimental study. Ibis 114: 507–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krueger, D. A. & S. I. Dodson, 1981. Embryological induction and predation ecology of Daphnia pulex. Limnology and Oceanography 26: 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lampert, W. & C. J. Loose, 1992. Plankton towers: bridging the gap between laboratory and field experiments. Archiv fűr Hydrobiologie 126: 53–66.Google Scholar
  32. Lima, S. L., 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. In Møller, A. P., M. Milinski & P. J. B. Slater (eds), Stress and Behavior. Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol. 27. Academic Press, San Diego: 215–290.Google Scholar
  33. Lima, S. L., P. A. Zollner & P. A. Bednekoff, 1999. Predation, scramble competition, and the vigilance group size effect in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46: 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magurran, A. E., 1989. Acquired recognition of predator odour in the European minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus). Ethology 82: 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magurran, A. E., W. J. Oulton & T. J. Pitcher, 1985. Vigilant behaviour and school size in minnows. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 67: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McNamara, J. M. & A. I. Houston, 1985. Optimal foraging and learning. Journal of Theoretical Biology 117: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McNaught, D. C. & A. D. Hasler, 1961. Surface schooling and feeding behavior in the white bass, Roccus chrysops (Rafinesque), in Lake Mendota. Limnology and Oceanography 6: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milinski, M. & R. Heller, 1978. Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275: 642–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neill, S. R. & J. M. Cullen, 1974. Experiments on whether schooling by their prey affects the hunting behaviour of cephalopods and fish predators. Journal of Zoology (London) 172: 549–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Brien, W. J., 1987. Planktivory by freshwater fish: thrust and parry in the pelagia. In Kerfoot, W. C. & A. Sih (eds), Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. University Press of New England, Hanover and London: 5–16.Google Scholar
  41. O’Brien, W. J., N. A. Slade & G. L. Viniard, 1976. Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57: 1304–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pitcher, T. J., 1986. The function of schooling behaviour in teleosts. In Pitcher, T. J. (ed.), The Behaviour of Teleost Fishes. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland: 294–337.Google Scholar
  43. Pitcher, T. J. & J. K. Parrish, 1993. Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. In Pitcher, T. J. (ed.), Behaviour of Teleost Fishes. Chapman & Hall, London: 363–439.Google Scholar
  44. Pitcher, T. J., A. E. Magurran & T. J. Winfield, 1982. Fish in larger shoals find food faster. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 10: 149–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rygielska-Szymanska, E., 2009. Size distribution and age structure of a Daphnia population as an effect of size-selective predation by planktivorous fishes. PhD Thesis, University of Warsaw (in Polish, English summary).Google Scholar
  46. Smith, P. C. & P. R. Evans, 1973. Studies of shorebirds at Lindisfarne, Northumberland. I. Feeding ecology and behaviour of the bar-tailed godwit. Wildfowl 24: I35–I39.Google Scholar
  47. White, J. W. & R. R. Warner, 2007. Behavioral and energetic costs of group membership in a coral reef fish. Oecologia 154: 423–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winfield, I. J., 1990. Predation pressure from above: observations on the activities of piscivorous birds at a shallow eutrophic lake. Hydrobiologia 191: 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HydrobiologyUniversity of WarsawWarszawaPoland

Personalised recommendations