, Volume 443, Issue 1–3, pp 147–157 | Cite as

Effects of satiation on feeding and swimming behaviour of planktivores

  • Takashi Asaeda
  • Tilak Priyadarshana
  • Jagath Manatunge


Hunger affects the feeding and swimming behaviour in fish. After 36 h of food deprivation, the feeding and swimming behaviour of Pseudorasbora parva (Cyprinidae) was studied under different prey densities (0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 25 of Daphnia pulex per liter). The initial feeding rates showed marked variations in relation to prey availability. Under high prey densities, the initial feeding rate of fish was higher and subsequently decreased faster, when compared to those feeding under low prey densities. At higher prey densities, two factors were involved: that of higher prey encounter rates and also the attainment of food satiation at a faster rate. Across all prey densities, the feeding rates of fish reached a plateau after satiation. The swimming speed of fish was found to be negatively related to the prey density and a significant change in swimming speed was noted as being directly related to the level of satiation. It was found that the increasing satiation level greatly influenced the handling time and reactive volume of predator, which finally caused reduced feeding rates.

Daphnia encounter rate handling time Pseudorasbora parva reactive volume 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, N. G., 1998. The effect of meal size on gastric evacuation in whiting. J. Fish Biol. 52: 743–755.Google Scholar
  2. Beamish, F. W. H., 1978. Swimming Capacity. In Hoar, W. S. & D. J. Randall (eds), Fish Physiology. Vol. 7. Academic Press, New York: 101–187.Google Scholar
  3. Beukema, J. J., 1968. Predation by the three spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.): the influence of hunger and experience. Behaviour 31: 1–126.Google Scholar
  4. Brett, J. R., 1971. Satiation time, appetite and maximum food intake of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Fish Res. Bd Can. 28: 409–415.Google Scholar
  5. Brett, J. R., 1979. Environmental factors and growth. In Hoar, W. S., D. J. Randall & D. J. Brett (eds), Fish Physiology. Vol. 8. Academic Press, New York: 599–675.Google Scholar
  6. Colgan, P. W., 1973. Motivational analysis of fish feeding. Behaviour 45: 38–66.Google Scholar
  7. Confer, J. L., G. L. Howick, M. H. Corzette, S. L. Kramer, S. Fitzgibbon & R. Landesberg, 1978. Visual predation by planktivores. Oikos 31: 27–37.Google Scholar
  8. Confer, J. L. & P. I. Blades, 1975. Omnivorous zooplankton and planktivorous fish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20(4): 571–579.Google Scholar
  9. Crowder, L. B., 1985. Optimal foraging mode shifts in fishes. Envir. Biol. Fishes12: 57–62.Google Scholar
  10. Croy, M. I. & R. N. Hughes, 1991a. The influence of hunger on feeding bahaviour and on the acquisition of learned foraging skills by the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia L. Anim. Behav. 41: 161–170.Google Scholar
  11. Croy, M. I. & R. N. Hughes, 1991b. The role of learning and memory in the feeding behaviour of the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia L. Anim. Behav. 41: 149–159.Google Scholar
  12. Croy, M. I. & R. N. Hughes, 1991c. Effects of food supply, hunger danger and competition on choice of foraging location by the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia L. Anim. Behav. 42: 131–139.Google Scholar
  13. Ernsting, G., 1977. Effects of food deprivation and type of prey on Predation by Notiophilus biguttatus F (Carabidae) on spring tails (Collembola). Oecologia 31: 13–20.Google Scholar
  14. Folt, C. L. & P. C. Shuitz, 1993. Spatial patchiness, individual performance and predator impacts. Oikos 68: 560–566.Google Scholar
  15. Gerritsen, J. & J. R. Strickler, 1977. Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: a mathematical model. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 34: 73–82.Google Scholar
  16. Gill, A. B. & P. J. B. Hart, 1994. Feeding behaviour and prey choice of the three-spine stickleback: interacting effects of prey size, fish size and stomach fullness. Anim. Behav. 47: 921–923.Google Scholar
  17. Gill, A. B. & P. J. B. Hart, 1996a. How feeding performance and energy intake change with a small increase in body size of the three-spined stickleback. J. Fish Biol. 47: 921–932.Google Scholar
  18. Gill, A. B. & P. J. B. Hart, 1996b. Unequal competition between three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L., encountering sequential prey. Anim. Behav. 51: 689–698.Google Scholar
  19. Gill, A. B. & P. J. B. Hart, 1998. Stomach capacity as a directing factor in prey size selection of three-spined stickleback. J. Fish Biol. 53: 897–900.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, P. J. B. & S. Ison, 1991. The influence of prey size and abundance, and individual phenotype on prey choice by the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. J. Fish Biol. 38: 359–372.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, P. J. B. & A. B. Gill, 1992. Constrains on prey selection by the three-spined stickleback: energy requirement and the capacity and fullness of the gut. J. Fish Biol. 40: 205–218.Google Scholar
  22. Holling, C. S., 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 48: 1–86.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, R. N. & M. I. Croy, 1993. An experimental analysis of frequency-dependent predation (switching) in the 15–spined stickleback Spinachia spinachia. J. anim. Ecol. 62: 341–352.Google Scholar
  24. Hunter, J. R. & G. L. Thomas, 1974. Effect of prey distribution and density on searching and feeding behaviour of larval anchovy Engrauli mordax Girard. In Blaxter, J. H. S. (ed.), The Early History of Fish. Springer, Berlin: 559–574.Google Scholar
  25. Ishiwata, N., 1968. Ecological studies on the feeding of fishes - III. Degree of hunger and satiation amount. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. 34, No. 7: 604–607.Google Scholar
  26. Kislalioglu, M. & R. N. Gibson, 1976. Prey' handling time' and its importance in food selection by the 15–spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 25: 151–158.Google Scholar
  27. Lazzaro, X., 1987. A review of planktivorous fishes: their evolution, feeding behaviours, selectivities and impacts. Hydrobiologia 146: 97–167.Google Scholar
  28. Letcher, B. H. & J. A. Rice, 1997. Prey patchiness and larval fish growth and survival: influences from an individual-based model. Ecol. Modelling 95: 29–43.Google Scholar
  29. Letcher, B. H., J. A. Rice, L. B. Crowder & K. A. Rose, 1996. Variability in survival of larval fish: disentangling components with an individual based model. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 53: 787–801.Google Scholar
  30. Lima, S. L. & L. M. Dill, 1990. Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68: 619–640.Google Scholar
  31. Luecke, C. & W. J. O'Brien, 1981. Prey location volume of a planktivorous fish: a new measure of prey vulnerability. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 38: 1264–1270.Google Scholar
  32. Mackney, P. A & R. N. Hughes, 1995. Foraging behaviour and memory window in sticklebacks. Behaviour 132: 1241–1253.Google Scholar
  33. Masuda, H., K. Amaoka, C. Araga, T. Uyeno & T. Yoshino, 1988. The fishes of the Japanese Archipelago (In Japanese). Tokai University Press, Tokyo. 56 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Metcalfe, N. D., 1993. Behavioural causes and consequences of life history variation in fish. In Huntingford, F. A. & P. Torricelli (eds), Behavioural Ecology of Fishes. Harwood Academic, Reading, U.K.: 205–217.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, T. J., L. B. Crowder, J. A. Rice & F. P. Binkowski, 1992. Body size and the ontogeny of the functional response in fishes. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 49: 805–812.Google Scholar
  36. Millinski, M. & R. Heller, 1978. Influence of predators on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275: 642–644.Google Scholar
  37. Mills, E. L., J. L. Confer & R. C. Ready, 1984. Prey selectivity by young yellow perch: the influence of capture success, visual acuity and prey choice. Trans. am. Fish Soc. 113: 579–587.Google Scholar
  38. Morgan, W. l. & D. A. Ritz, 1984. Effect of prey density and hunger state on capture of krill, Nyctiphanes australis Sars, by Australian salmon, Arripis trutta (Bloch & Schneider). J. Fish Biol. 24: 139–156.Google Scholar
  39. Munk, P. & T. Kiørboe, 1985. Feeding behaviour and swimming activity of larval herring (Clupea harengus) in relation to density of copepod nauplii. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 24: 15–21.Google Scholar
  40. O'Brien, W. J., 1979. The predator-prey interaction of planktivorous fish and zooplankton. Am. Sci. 7: 572–581.Google Scholar
  41. O'Brien, W. J., H. I. Browman & B. I. Evans, 1990. Search strategies in foraging animals. Am. Sci. 78: 152–160.Google Scholar
  42. O'Brien, W. J. & B. I. Evans, 1991. Saltatory search behavior in five species of planktivorous fish. Internationale Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie. Verhandlungen 24: 2371–2376.Google Scholar
  43. Okada, Y., 1966. Fishes of Japan. Uno Shoten Co. Ltd. Tokyo, Japan. 81 pp.Google Scholar
  44. Robinson, C. J. & T. J. Pitcher, 1989. The influence of hunger and ration level on shoal density, polarization and swimming speed of herring, Clupea harengus L. J. Fish Biol. 34: 631–633.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenthal, H. & G. Hempel, 1970. Experimental studies in feeding and food requirements of herring larvae (Clupea harengus). Mar. Biol. 3: 208–221.Google Scholar
  46. Salvanes, A. V. & P. J. B. Hart, 1998. Individual variability in statedependent feeding behaviour in three-spined sticklebacks. Anim. Behav. 55: 1349–1359.Google Scholar
  47. Scott, A., 1987. Prey selection by juvenile cyprinids from running water. Freshwat. Biol. 17: 129–142.Google Scholar
  48. Steingrund, P. &.A. Fernö, 1997. Feeding behaviour of reared and wild cod and the effect of learning: two strategies of feeding on the two-spotted goby. J. Fish Biol. 51: 334–348.Google Scholar
  49. Stephens, D. W. & J. R. Krebs, 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton, Princeton University Press, New Jersey: 247 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Wankowski, J. W. J., 1979. Morphological implications, prey size selectivity and growth responses of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., on particular drifting prey. Anim. Behav. 29: 557–571.Google Scholar
  51. Ware, D. M., 1972. Predation by Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): the influence of hunger, prey density and prey size. J. Fish Res. Bd Can. 29: 1193–1201.Google Scholar
  52. Werner, E. E. & D. J. Hall, 1988. Ontogenetic habitat shifts in bluegill: the foraging rate - predation risk trade off. Ecology 69: 1352–1366.Google Scholar
  53. Werner, E. E., 1974. The fish size, prey size, handling time relation in several sunfishes and some implications. J. Fish Res. Bd Can. 31: 1531–1536.Google Scholar
  54. Werner, E. E., G. G. Mittelbach, D. J. Hall & J. F. Gilliam, 1993. Experimental tests of optimal habitat use in fish: the role of relative habitat profitability. Ecology 64: 1525–1539.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Asaeda
    • 1
  • Tilak Priyadarshana
    • 2
  • Jagath Manatunge
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences & Human TechnologySaitama UniversitySaitamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences & Human TechnologySaitama UniversitySaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations