Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 433–437

Feeding and Growth Response of Roach, Rutilus rutilus, to Alarm Substance

  • Anna Jachner
  • Tomasz Janecki


Feeding and growth responses of roach from three size classes to alarm substance (Schreckstoff) were quantified in laboratory experiments. Larger fish (60.0–80.0 mm in length) reacted stronger to treatment than two smaller sized groups (35.0–45.0 and 46.0–55.0 mm) lowering feeding rate by 80 and 40 and 50%, respectively. The reduction in feeding rate of larger fish caused decrease in growth rate in length and weight, while the lowered consumption of smaller fish caused only reduction in growth rate in weight. Condition factor of exposed to alarm substance small sized roach was lower than that of the control individuals and roach from other two size classes, both, treated and untreated. The difference in growth response to a danger of predation has its roots probably in different metabolism and growth rates of small and large fish. Small fish have higher metabolic rate and less lipid reserves than larger ones, therefore they are probably forced to feed to be able to grow. Also, small sized roach is more vulnerable to predation than large sized fish, thus growing fast seem to be crucial for survival in a risky environment. Study shows that small roach trade off their safety against food, feeding in risky environment to sustain fast growth. This ability of fast outgrowing of a dangerous, vulnerable to predators, size increases survival of juveniles in dangerous environment.

Shreckstoff food intake growth rate condition factor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Blaxter, J.H.S. & G. Hempel. 1963. The influence of egg size on herring larvae (Clupea harengus L.). J. Conseil Perm. Intern. Exploration Mer 28: 211–240.Google Scholar
  2. Fuiman, L.A. & A.E. Magurran. 1994. Development of predator defences in fishes. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 4: 145–183.Google Scholar
  3. Holopainen, I.J., J.A.M. Vornanen & H. Huuskonen. 1997. Phenotypic plasticity and predator effects on morphology and physiology of crucian carp in nature and in the laboratory. J. Fish Biol. 50: 781–798.Google Scholar
  4. Irving, P.W. & A.E. Magurran. 1996. Context-dependent fright reaction in captive European minnows — the importance of naturalness in laboratory experiments. Anim. Behav. 53: 1193–1201.Google Scholar
  5. Jobling, M. 1994. Fish bioeneregtics. Chapman & Hall, London. 455 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Jachner, A. 1988. Growth of fry of three fish species from pelagial of mezotrophic lake. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 36: 359–371.Google Scholar
  7. Jachner, A. 1995. Changes in feeding behaviour of bleak (Alburnus alburnus L.) in response to visual and chemical stimuli from predators. Arch. Hydrobiol. 133: 305–314.Google Scholar
  8. Jachner, A. 1996. Alarm reaction in bleak (Alburnus alburnus L. Cyprinidae) in response to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics. Hydrobiologia 325: 151–155.Google Scholar
  9. Jachner, A. 1997. The response of bleak to predator odour of unfed and recently fed pike. J. Fish Biol. 50: 878–886.Google Scholar
  10. Pettersson, L.B. & C. Brönmark. 1993. Trading off safety against food: state dependent habitat choice in crucian carp. Oecologia 95: 353–357.Google Scholar
  11. Russell-Hunter, W.D. 1970. Aquatic productivity: an introduction to some basic aspects of biological oceanography and limnology. Collier-Macmillan Ltd., London. 306 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Savino, J.F. & R.A. Stein. 1989. Behaviour of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Env. Biol. Fish. 24: 287–293.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, R.J.F. 1992. Alarm signals. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2: 33–63.Google Scholar
  14. Werner, E.E. & J.F. Giliam. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393–425.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Jachner
    • 1
  • Tomasz Janecki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Hydrobiology, Institute of ZoologyUniversity of WarsawWarsaw, Banacha 2Poland (e-mail address
  2. 2.Department of Antarctic BiologyPolish Academy of SciencesWarsaw, Ustrzycka 10Poland

Personalised recommendations