The Role of Behaviour and Morphology in the Selection of Prey by Pike

  • Paul J. B. Hart
  • Stellan F. Hamrin
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 20)


Explaining and predicting prey selection has been one of the major tasks of optimal foraging models (Hart, 1986; Stephens & Krebs, 1986). Most models assume that optimal choice is brought about by some behavioural process. For example the basic prey model as used by Werner and Hall (1974), assumes that animals are able to rank prey by their profitabilities and to make decisions about which prey type to include in the diet. There is no implication from the models that an animal must be able to calculate complex optimisation relations but in so far as the forager uses a rule of thumb to make a foraging decision, behaviour is the main process involved (Stephens & Krebs, 1986).


Search Time Prey Type Prey Size Handling Time Large Prey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Clarke I (1986) The interaction of factors influencing the predatory behaviour of the pike Esox lucius L. PhD Thesis, University of Leicester.Google Scholar
  2. Diana JS (1979) The feeding pattern and daily ration of a top carnivore, the northern pike (Esox lucius). Can J Zool 57: 2121–2127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hart PJB (1986) Foraging in teleost fishes. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behavior of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, London, p553Google Scholar
  4. Hart PJB (1988) The murderous patriarch. New Scientist 119: 53–57Google Scholar
  5. Hart PJB, Connellan B (1984) The cost of prey cature, growth rate and ration size in pike (Esox lucius) as functions of prey weight. J Fish Biol 25: 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hart PJB, Hamrin SF (1988) Pike as a selective predator. Effects of prey size, availability, cover and pike jaw dimensions. Oikos 51: 220–226Google Scholar
  7. Mann RHK (1982) The annual food consumption and prey preference of pike (Esox lucius) in the River Frome, Dorset. J Anim Ecol 51: 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meddis R (1984) Statistics using ranks: A unified approach. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p449Google Scholar
  9. Raat AJP (1988) Synopsis of biological data on the northern pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758. FAO Fish Synop 30 Rev 2: 178 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Rand DM, Lauder GV (1981) Prey capture in the chain pickerel, Esox niger: correlations between feeding and locomotor behaviour. Can J Zool 59:1072– 1078Google Scholar
  11. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton p247Google Scholar
  12. Stephens DW, Lynch JF, Sorenson AE, Gordon C (1986) Preference and profitability: theory and experiment. Amer Nat 127: 533–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Webb PW (1976) The effect of size on the fast-start performance of rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri, and a consideration of piscivorous predator-prey interactions. J exp Biol 65: 157–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Webb PW (1978) Fast-start performance and body form in seven species of teleost fish. J exp Biol 74: 211–226Google Scholar
  15. Webb PW (1983) Speed, acceleration and manoeuvrability of two teleost fishes. J exp Biol 102: 115–122Google Scholar
  16. Webb PW (1984) Body and fin form and strike tactics of four teleost predators attacking fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) prey. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41: 157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Webb PW (1986) Locomotion and predator-prey relationships. In: Feder ME, Lauder GV (eds) Predator-prey relationships. Perspectives and approaches from the study of lower vertebrates. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pl98Google Scholar
  18. Webb PW, Skadsen JM (1980) Strike tactics of Esox. Can J Zool 58: 1462–1469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Werner EE (1977) Species packing and niche complementarity in three sunfishes. Amer Nat 111: 553–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55: 1042–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. B. Hart
    • 1
  • Stellan F. Hamrin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, LimnologyUniversity of LundLundSweden

Personalised recommendations