The effect of meal size on gastric evacuation in whiting

Assessment of enzymatic efficiency on protein digestion in the tilapia Oreochromis niloticus

“…In the present work, the time required for total gut evacuation in juvenile tilapia was estimated in 7.15 h. This is a short time for completion of digestive transit when compared to some values reported in carnivorous species: 20-60 h for whiting Merlangus merlangus (L.) (Andersen 1998), 5-17 h in burbot Lota lota L. (Pääkkönen et al 1999), or up to 48 h for northern pike Esox lucius (Nilsson and Brönmark 2000). Nevertheless, such time of passage is in agreement with the 2-6 h range recorded for several stomachless fishes like the topsmelt Atherinops affinis L. (Logothetis et al 2001) the parrotfishes (Scarus gibbus L. & Scarus jonesi L.; Smith and Paulson 1974), or the rusty blenny Parablennius sanguinolentus at 20-30°C (Horn and Gibson 1990).…”

Precision of ingestion time and evacuation predictors for individual prey in stomachs of predatory fishes

“…(16)). Table 1 Gastric evacuation experiments: basic experimental data a and estimates of the rate parameter ρ of the evacuation model dS t /dt = −ρS 0.5 t to evacuation data Andersen (1998Andersen ( , 1999Andersen ( , 2001, and Andersen and Beyer (2005b). b l T , total length.…”

“…(3)) was examined, and σ e was estimated, by use of gastric evacuation data obtained from 26 laboratory experiments by Andersen (1998Andersen ( , 1999Andersen ( , 2001 and Andersen and Beyer (2005b). The predators Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), whiting, and saithe (pollock) (Pollachius virens) were fed single meals of the prey species herring (Clupea harengus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), lesser sandeel (Ammodytes tobianus), Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarki) and common goby (Pomatoschistus microps) (Table 1).…”

Hunger-induced foraging behavior of two cyprinid fish: Pseudorasbora parva and Rasbora daniconius

“…It has been evident that a state of satiation affects further foraging by fish because satiated individuals take longer to catch a prey (Ware, 1972;Werner, 1974;Kislalioglu & Gibson, 1976;Robinson & Pitcher, 1989;Sass & Motta, 2002) and react less efficiently to a prey encounter than when hungry (Croy & Hughes, 1991a, b;Sass & Motta, 2002). Thus, the stomach content level influences the feeding behavior of fish; in particular, searching for food will decline with an increasing level of satiation (Gill & Hart, 1994;Andersen, 1998;Riche et al, 2004), the selection of profitable prey (Croy & Hughes, 1991b), and reaction distance to the prey (Holling, 1966;Ware, 1972). The dependence of the internal state on foraging behavior of fish has been addressed in many studies in terms of the effects of satiation and appetite (Brett, 1971), motivation for feeding (Colgan, 1973), hunger state on prey capture (Morgan & Ritz, 1984), hunger on feeding behavior and learning (Croy & Hughes, 1991a, b), feeding on stomach fullness (Salvanes & Hart, 1998) or fullness of gut (Hart & Gill, 1992), hunger on swimming and handling of prey , and satiation on strike mode and prey capture (Sass & Motta, 2002).…”