Predation risk from piscivorous fish influencing the diel use of macrophytes by planktivorous fish in experimental ponds

Abstract

Abstract— This study investigated interactions between zooplanktivores (roach and perch) and piscivorcs (pike and large perch) in experimental ponds (16 m2) with open water habitat and three densities of natural macrophytes. Fish habitat selection was determined both day and night and was supported by daytime observations to study anti‐predator behavioural patterns. Diel migration out from among macrophytes was seen in the absence of predators, particularly for roach, which changed from 13% of individuals being in open water during the day to 90% at night. The risk of predation from piscivores influenced the habitat selection of the zooplanktivores. Roach seemed to be the most vulnerable to predation from pike and selected the open water (90‐92%) during daylight hours, but kept a 1‐m distance from the macrophytes edge. The presence of pike thus reduced the use of macrophytes by roach, which in turn may improve macrophytes and the edge area as a refuge for zooplankton. Pike appeared to have less impact on the gross habitat selection of O+ perch, which were associated with the macrophytes (58–89%), though they were still vulnerable to predation. Adult perch, which was a generally less effective predator than pike, showed subdued behavior, concealing them selves in the macrophytes most of the time. No effect of the simultaneous presence of two predator species was found.

Response of the residential piscivorous fish community to introduction of a new predator type in a mesotrophic lake

“…This may be indicated by the decreased specific consumption rates in perch after the pikeperch stocking and is in accordance with other studies in which juvenile northern pike was found to be the more effective forager compared with perch in complex littoral structures (Jacobsen and Perrow 1998). Furthermore, only the northern pike growth rates increased in experiments when northern pike only treatments were contrasted with treatments in which perch and northern pike co-occurred.…”

“…Intraguild predation and cannibalism are frequent interactions, among others, that may dampen the expected direct density effects on the prey populations (Polis et al 1989;Arim and Marquet 2004;Claessen et al 2004). Furthermore, the response of the predators may be additionally influenced by both densitydependent and trait-mediated responses in the prey fish communities (Brabrand and Faafeng 1993;Christensen and Persson 1993;Jacobsen and Perrow 1998).…”

Water turbidity affects predator–prey interactions in a fish–damselfly system

“…Abrahams and Kattenfeld (1997) hypothesized that in turbid systems, antipredator behaviour of the prey will become ineffective and will occur less frequently. Several studies found support for this hypothesis in fish-fish predatorprey systems (Abrahams and Kattenfeld 1997;Jacobsen and Perrow 1998;Jacobsen et al 2004). From this hypothesis, Abrahams and Kattenfeld (1997) derived a second hypothesis that predator-prey interactions in turbid water will be primarily characterized by the direct effects of predator consumption of prey, while in clear-water systems, direct as well as indirect effects of the predator on the prey's growth rate through behavioural modification will be important.…”

Effects of natural banks of free-floating plants on zooplankton community in a shallow subtropical lake in Southern Brazil

“…In shallow temperate lakes, these plants can influence the spatial distribution of fish (Tatrái and Herzig, 1995;Jacobsen and Perrow, 1998;Schindler, 1999), zooplankton (Timms and Moss, 1984;Lauridsen and Buenk, 1996), and phytoplankton (van Donk and van de Bund, 2001). The clear water state and the turbid water state are the two distinct trophic conditions known in shallow temperate lakes based on the alternative stable states hypothesis (Scheffer et al, 1993).…”

“…Submerged vegetation can support the clear water state by decreasing nutrient availability and/or releasing allelopathic substances (bottom-up control) (van Donk and van de Bund, 2001), and providing refuges for zooplankton grazers (topdown control) (Scheffer et al, 1993). It can also provide a daytime refuge for large-bodied zooplankton, such as Daphnia (Timms and Moss, 1984;Lauridsen and Buenk, 1996;Lauridsen and Lodge, 1996;Burks et al, 2002) and has an effect on the spatial distribution of fishes (Tatrái and Herzig, 1995;Jacobsen and Perrow, 1998;Schindler, 1999) causing cascade effects in littoral area or open water. Tropical and subtropical lakes are different from temperate lakes in general characteristics of the food webs.…”