Habitat-choice interactions between pike predators and perch prey depend on water transparency

Journal of Fish Biology

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 298-302

  Skov, C ^a   Nilsson, P A ^b   Jacobsen, L ^a   Bronmark C ^b  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Antipredatory behaviour; Esox lucius; Habitat choice; Perca fluviatilis; Water transparency

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; CLUPEOID; HABITAT SELECTION; PERCIFORM; PREDATOR; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; TRANSPARENCY;

ESOX LUCIUS; PERCA FLUVIATILIS;

EID: 33846065553     PISSN: 00221112     EISSN: 10958649     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01255.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Brönmark, C. & Weisner, S. E. B. (1992). Indirect effects of fish community structure on submerged vegetation in shallow, eutrophic lakes: an alternative mechanism. Hydrobiologia 243/244, 293-301.
2. Crowder, L. B. & Cooper, W. E. (1982). Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63, 1802-1813.
3. Eklöv, P. (1992). Group foraging versus solitary foraging efficiency in piscivorous predators: the perch, Perca fluviatilis, and pike, Esox lucius, patterns. Animal Behaviour 44, 313-326.
4. Jeppesen, E., Lauridsen, T. L., Kairesalo, T. & Perrow, M. R. (1998a). Impact of submerged macrophytes on fish-zooplankton interactions in lakes. In The Structuring Role of Submerged Macrophytes in Lakes (Jeppesen, E., Søndergaard, M., Søndergaard, M. & Christoffersen, K., eds), pp. 91-114. New York: Springer-Verlag.
5. Jeppesen, E., Søndergaard, M., Søndergaard, M. & Christoffersen, K. (1998b). The Structuring Role of Submerged Macrophytes in Lakes. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6. Miner, J. G. & Stein, R. A. (1996). Detection of predators and habitat choice by small bluegills: effects of turbidity and alternative prey. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125, 97-103.
7. Scheffer, M. & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 648-656. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.002
8. Skov, C., Berg, S., Jacobsen, L. & Jepsen, N. (2002). Habitat use and foraging success of 0+ pike (Esox lucius L.) in experimental ponds related to prey fish, water transparency and light intensity. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 11, 65-73. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0633.2002.00008.x
9. Skov, C., Lousdal, O., Johansen, P. H. & Be rg, S. (2003). Piscivory of 0+ pike (Esox lucius L.) in a small eutrophic lake and its implication for biomanipulation. Hydrobiologia 506, 481-487. doi: 10.1023/B:HYDR.0000008609.15451.9d
10. Snickars, M., Sandström, A. & Mattila, J. (2004). Antipredator behaviour of 0+ year Perca fluviatilis: effect of vegetation density and turbidity. Journal of Fish Biology 65, 1604-1613. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2004.00570
11. Werner, E. E., Gilliam, J. F., Hall, D. J. & Mittelbach, G. G. (1983). An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64, 1540-1548.