Seasonal shifts in day-time resource use of 0+ barbel, Barbus barbus

  • Antje Bischoff
  • Jörg Freyhof
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes book series (DEBF, volume 19)


Habitat preference and diet of 0+ barbel were studied both on a meso- and a microhabitat scale in the River Sieg (Germany) between May 1993 and January 1995. Changes in mesohabitat use were observed. Barbel moved from shallow bays (larvae and step 1 juveniles) to gravel banks, and subsequently, to riffles (step 2 juveniles). Size-dependent shifts in microhabitat-use were observed during the second juvenile step. These juveniles left the shoreline and preferred microhabitats with stronger current velocities. 0+ barbel in riffles fed on Chironomidae and Ephemeroptera. No remarkable shifts in diet were detected between larvae and juveniles. We suggest that the observed ontogenetic shifts to habitats with high food supply and low predation pressure might contribute to the high abundances of barbel in the River Sieg.

Key words

larvae juveniles body size mesohabitat microhabitat riffles diet 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Adsmek, Z. and P. Obrdlík. 1977. Food of important cyprinid species in the warmed barb-zone of the Oslava River. Folia Zool. 26: 171–182.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J.D. and E. Russek. 1985. The quantification of stream drift. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 210–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balon, E.K. 1984. Reflections on some decisive events in the early life of fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 113: 178–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balon, E.K. 1986. Saltatory ontogeny and evolution. Riv. Biol. 79: 151–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltz, D.M. and P.B. Moyle. 1982. Life history characteristics of tule perch (Hysterocarpus traski) populations in contrasting environments. Env. Biol. Fish. 7: 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baras, E., J. Nindaba and J.C. Philippart. 1995. Microhabitat use in a 0+ rheophilous cyprinid assemblage: quantitative assessment of community structure and fish density. Bull. fr. Pêche Piscicult. 337 /9: 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Begon, M., J.L. Harper and C.R. Townsend. 1991. Ökologie - Individuen, Populationen, Lebensgemeinschaften. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel. 1024 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Boehlert, G.W. and B.C. Mundy. 1988. Roles of behavioral and physical factors in larval and juvenile fish recruitment to estuarine nursery areas. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 3: 51–67.Google Scholar
  9. Caspers, N. 1972. Ökologische Untersuchungen der Invertebratenfauna von Waldbächen des Naturparks Kottenforst Ville. Decheniana 112: 189–218.Google Scholar
  10. Copp, G.H. 1989. Electrofishing for fish larvae and 0+ juveniles: equipment modifications for increased efficiency with short fishes. Aqua. Fish. Manag. 20: 453–462.Google Scholar
  11. Copp, G.H. 1990. Shifts in the microhabitat of larval and juvenile roach Rutilus rutilus (L.), in a floodplain channel. J. Fish Biol. 36: 683–692.Google Scholar
  12. Copp, G.H. 1992. Comparative microhabitat use of cyprinid larvae and juveniles in a lotic floodplain channel. Env. Biol. Fish. 33: 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copp, G.H. 1993. The upper Rhône revisited: an empirical model of microhabitat use by 0+ juvenile fishes. Folia Zool. 42: 329–340.Google Scholar
  14. Copp, G.H. 1997. Microhabitat use of fish larvae and 0+ juveniles in a highly regulated section of the River Great Ouse. Reg. Riv. 13: 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Copp, G.H. and M. Peìíâz. 1988. Ecology of fish spawning and nursery zones in the floodplain, using a new sampling approach. Hydrobiologia 169: 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Copp, G.H., G. Guti, B. Rovny and J. Cerny. 1994. Hierarchical analysis of habitat use by 0+ juvenile fish in Hungarian/Slovak flood plain of the Danube River. Env. Biol. Fish. 40: 329–1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freyhof, J. 1996. Distribution of YOY-barbel Barbus barbus (L.) in the River Sieg/Germany. pp. 259–267. In: A. Kirchhofer and D. Hefti (ed.) Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garner, P. 1996. Microhabitat use and diet of 0+ cyprinid fishes in a lentic, regulated reach of the River Great Ouse, UK. J. Fish Biol. 48: 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garner, P. 1997a. Habitat use by 0+ cyprinid fish in the River Great Ouse, East Anglia. Freshwat. Forum 8: 2–27.Google Scholar
  20. Garner, P. 1997b. Sample sizes for length and density estimation of 0+ fish when using point sampling by electrofishing. J. Fish Biol. 50: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garner, P. 1998. Use of shallow marginal habitat by Phoxinus phoxinus: a trade-off between temperature and food ? J. Fish Biol. 52: 600–609.Google Scholar
  22. Granado-Lorencio, C. and F. Garcia-Novo. 1986. Feeding habits of the fish community in a eutrophic reservoir in Spain. Ekologia Polska 34: 95–110.Google Scholar
  23. Harvey, B.C. 1987. Susceptibility of young-of-the-year fishes to downstream displacement by flooding. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 116: 851–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hynes, H.B.N. 1961. The invertebrate fauna of a Welsh mountain stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 344–388.Google Scholar
  25. Hyslop, E.J. 1980. Stomach contents analysis–a review of methods and their application. J. Fish Biol. 17: 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jurajda, P. 1995. Effect of channelization and regulation on fish recruitment in a floodplain river. Reg. Riv. 10: 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamler, E. 1992. Early life history of fish. An energetics approach. Chapman and Hall, London. 267 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koblitskaya, A.F. 1981. Identification keys for young of freshwater fishes. Consumer and Food Industry Press, Moscow. 208 pp. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  29. Krupka, I. 1988. Early development of the barbel [Barbus barbus (Linnaeus, 1758)]. Prâce Ústaru Rybârstva a Hydrobiológie (Bratislava) 6: 115–138.Google Scholar
  30. Kurmayer, R., H. Keckeis, S. Schrutka and I. Zweimüller. 1996. Macro-and microhabitats used by 0+ fish in a side-arm of the River Danube. Arch. Hydrobiol. (Suppl. 113, Large Rivers) 10: 425–432.Google Scholar
  31. Lechowicz, M.J. 1982. The sampling characteristics of electivity indices. Oecologia 52: 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lightfoot, G.W. and N.V. Jones. 1996. The relationship between the size of 0+ roach, Rutilus rutilus, their swimming capabilities, and distribution in an English river. Folia Zool. 45: 355–360.Google Scholar
  33. Lister, D.B. and H.S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilisation by cohabiting underyearlings of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 27: 1215–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lobón-Cervia, J. and A. De Diego. 1988. Feeding strategy of the barbel (Barbus bocagei Steind.) with relation to benthos composition. Arch. Hydrobiol. 114: 83–95.Google Scholar
  35. Losos, B., M. Peúâz and J. Kuvickovâ. 1980. Food and growth of fishes of the Jihlava River. Acta Scientarum Naturalium bohemoslovacae, Brno 14: 1–46.Google Scholar
  36. Mann, R.H.K. and C.A. Mills. 1986. Biological and climatic influences on the dace Leuciscus leuciscus in a southern chalk stream. F. B. A. Ann. Rep. 54: 123–136.Google Scholar
  37. Mann, R.H.K. and J.A.B. Bass. 1997. The critical water velocities of larval roach (Rutilus rutilus) and dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) and implications for river management. Reg. Riv. 13: 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mérigoux, S. and D. Ponton. 1998. Body shape, diet and ontogenetic diet shifts in young fish of the Sinnamary River, French Guiana, South America. J. Fish Biol. 52: 556–569.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, T., L.B. Crowder, J.A. Rice and E.A. Marschall. 1988. Larval size and recruitment mechanism in fishes: towards a conceptual framework. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 45: 1657–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mills, C.A. 1985. Sources of variation in the feeding of larval dace Leuciscus leuciscus in an English River. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 114: 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mills, C.A. 1991. Reproduction and life history. pp. 483–508. In: I.J. Winfield and J.S. Nelson (ed.) Cyprinid Fishes–Systematics, Biology and Exploitation, Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Penâz, M. 1973. Embryonic development of the barbel Barbus barbus (Linnaeus, 1758). Zool. Listy 22: 363–374.Google Scholar
  43. Power, M.E., W. Matthews and A.J. Steward. 1985. Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and stream algae: dynamics of a strong interrelation. Ecology 66: 1448–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rincon, P.A., P. Barrachina and Y. Bernat. 1992. Microhabitat use by 0+ juvenile cyprinids during summer in a Mediterranean river. Arch. Hydrobiol. 125: 323–337.Google Scholar
  45. Sabo, M.J. and D.J. Orth. 1994. Temporal variation in microhabitat use by age-0 smallmouth bass in the North Anna River, Virginia. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 123: 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoener, T.W. 1970. Nonsynchronous spatial overlap of lizards in patchy habitats. Ecology 51: 408–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schlosser, I.J. 1987. The role of predation in age-and size-related habitat use by stream fishes. Ecology 33: 651–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Staas, S. and D. Neumann. 1996. The occurence of larval and juvenile 0+ fish in the lower River Rhine. Arch. Hydrobiol. (Suppl. 113, Large Rivers) 10: 325–332.Google Scholar
  49. Vanderploeg, H.A. and D. Scavia. 1979. Calculation and use of selectivity coefficients of feeding: zooplankton grazing. Ecol. Modelling 7: 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watkins, M.S., S. Doherty and G.H. Copp. 1997. Microhabitat use by 0+ and older fishes in a small English chalk stream. J. Fish Biol. 50: 1010–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Webb, P.W. and D. Weihs. 1986. Functional locomotion morphology of early life history stages of fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 115: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Werner, E.E. and J.F. Gilliam. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wieser, W. 1991. Physiological energetics and ecophysiology. pp. 427–455. In: I.J. Winfield and J.S. Nelson (ed.) Cyprinid Fishes - Systematics, Biology and Exploitation, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  54. Windell, J.T. and S.H. Bowen. 1978. Methods for study of fish diets based on analysis of stomach contents. pp. 219–226. In: T. Bagenal (ed.) Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters, IBP Handbook No. 3, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  55. Wintersberger, H. 1996. Spatial resource utilization and species assemblages of larval and juvenile fishes. Arch. Hydrobiol. (Suppl. 115, Large Rivers) 11: 29–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antje Bischoff
    • 1
  • Jörg Freyhof
    • 2
  1. 1.Deptartment of Biology and Ecology of FishesInstitute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Deptartment of IchthyologyZoological Research Institute and Museum Alexander KoenigBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations