The food of roach, Rutilus rutilus (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), in a biomanipulated water supply reservoir

• Autorzy: Zapletal T. , Mares J. , Jurajda P. , Vsetickova L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background. Roach, Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758), is an omnivorous fish species that is able to utilise a range of food resources. Both juvenile and older roach can negatively affect zooplankton abundance in freshwater bodies of water; hence populations are often reduced (biomanipulated) in order to increase zooplankton populations. The aim of this study was to assess the roach diet after large-scale removal of cyprinids (bream, roach) from a reservoir. The study was done to clarify the roach diet after three years of intensive reduction of cyprinid fish and also to find out how the roach feeding behaviour impacts the quantity of filtering zooplankton. As such, this study may help to explain more general relations within the aquatic food web and specify the roach diet during the vegetative season (from spring to autumn). Materials and Methods. This study was undertaken at the Hamry water supply reservoir in the Czech Republic. Samples of macrozoobenthos, periphyton, and zooplankton were collected as representative food resources. Fish were caught using a 100-m littoral beach seine during the April to October growing season in 2011. Supplementary fish were caught using a pelagic Nordic gillnet in August and September 2012 and a 15-m beach seine in June and August 2012. Gut contents were preserved in 4% formaldehyde for later laboratory analysis (frequency of occurrence, index of preponderance, index of gut fullness). Results. ‘Detritus’ was the major component found in roach guts, with no difference observed in age category or locality (littoral vs. open water areas). Significant differences were observed, however, between younger (0+ and 1+, 36–92 mm) and older (>3 years, >92 mm) fish. The 0+ and 1+ age groups also fed on zooplankton (P < 0.008), accompanied by Chironomidae (1+), while diet of older roach (3–4+; 6–8+) included macrophytes and periphyton, together with Cladocera (fish from open water; P < 0.008). Conclusion. The results demonstrate that detritus was the main ‘dietary’ component of roach during the growing season, with macrophytes and periphyton as complementary dietary items. Zooplankton was an important dietary component of mainly younger roach age classes. Roach appear to be an important component in ichthyo-eutrophication of the Hamry Reservoir, mainly through transfer of phosphorous from plants to water.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 44
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.15-22,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Zapletal T.

• Department of Zoology, Fisheries, Hydrobiology and Apiculture, Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University, Brno, Zemedelska 1/1665, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

autor

Mares J.

• Department of Zoology, Fisheries, Hydrobiology and Apiculture, Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University, Brno, Zemedelska 1/1665, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

autor

Jurajda P.

• Institute of Vertebrate Biology Academy of Sciences Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic

autor

Vsetickova L.

• Institute of Vertebrate Biology Academy of Sciences Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic

Bibliografia

• Adámek Z., Jirásek J., Pravda D., Sukop I., Heteša J.,Provázek R., Škrabánek A. 1985. [“The food biology and biological value of roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) in the Mušovská Reservoir”.] Živočišná Výroba 30 (10): 901–910.[In Czech with English abstract.]
• Adámek Z., Jirásek J., Sukop I. 1987. [“The food biology of the economically important fishes in the Dalešice Reservoir”.] Živočišná Výroba 32 (10): 909–920. [In Czech with English abstract.]
• Baruš V., Oliva O. (eds.) 1995. Mihulovci Petromyzontes a ryby Osteichthyes (2). [Cyclostomes Petromyzontes and fishes Osteichthyes (2).] Academia, Praha, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
• Brabrand Ĺ. 1985. Food of roach (Rutilus rutilus) and ide (Leusiscus [sic] idus): significance of diet shift for interspecific competition in omnivorous fishes. Oecologia 66 (4): 461–467. DOI: 10.1007/BF00379334
• Dokulil M.T., Teubner K. 2000. Cyanobacterial dominance In lakes. Hydrobiologia 438 (1–3): 1–12. DOI: 10.1023/A: 1004155810302
• Giles N., Street M., Wright R.M. 1990. Diet composition and prey preference of tench, Tinca tinca (L.), common bream, Abramis brama (L.), perch, Perca fluviatilis L. and roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), in two contrasting gravel pit lakes: potential trophic overlap with wildfowl. Journal of Fish Biology 37 (6): 945–957. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990. tb03598.x
• Hammer C. 1985. Feeding behaviour of roach (Rutilus rutilus) larva and the fry of perch (Perca fluviatilis) in Lake Lankau. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 103 (1): 61–74.
• Hellawell J.M. 1972. The growth, reproduction and food of the roach Rutilus rutilus (L.) of the River Lugg, Herefordshire. Journal of Fish Biology 4 (4): 469–486. DOI: 10. 1111/j.1095-8649.1972.tb05696.x
• Horppila J. 1994. The diet and growth of roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.)) in Lake Vesijärvi and possible changes in the course of biomanipulation. Hydrobiologia 294 (1): 35–41. DOI:10.1007/BF00017623
• Horppila J., Nurminen L. 2009. Food niche segregation between two herbivorous cyprinid species in a turbid lake. Journal of Fish Biology 75 (6): 1230–1243. DOI:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02359.x
• Horppila J., Peltonen H. 1997. A bioenergetic approach to food consumption of roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.) in a eutrophic lake. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 139 (2): 207–222.
• Hyslop E.J. 1980. Stomach contents analysis—a review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17 (4):411–429. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1980.tb02775.x
• Klimczyk-Janikowska M. 1978. Influence of warmed water on the growth and feeding of the roach Rutilus rutilus L. Acta Hydrobiologica 20 (2): 175–185.
• Kokeš J., Němejcová D. 2006. Metodika odběru a zpracování vzorků makrozoobentosu tekoucích vod metodou PERLA. [Methodology for macrozoobenthos sampling in running waters and sample processing using the Perla method.] VÚV TGM Prague, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
• Kubečka J., Seďa J., Matěna J. 1998. Fish-zooplankton interactions during spring in a deep reservoir. International Review of Hydrobiology 83 (Special Issue): 431–442.
• Linfield R.S.J. 1980. Ecological changes in a lake fishery and their effects on a stunted roach Rutilus rutilus population. Journal of Fish Biology 16 (2): 123–144. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1980.tb03692.x
• Martyniak A., Gitler K., Adámek Z. 1991. Food biology of roach (Rutilus-rutilus) in the Pierzchaly Reservoir (Poland). Folia Zoologica 40 (4): 377–384.
• Matěna J. 1995. The role of ecotones as feeding grounds for fish fry in a Bohemian water supply reservoir. Hydrobiologia 303 (1–3): 31–38. DOI: 10.1007/BF00034041
• Matěna J. 1998. Diel spectra and competition between juvenile fish in a pelagic zone of a deep stratified reservoir during the first year of life. International Review of Hydrobiology 83 (Special Issue): 577–583.
• Michelsen K., Pedersen J., Christoffersen K., Jensen F. 1994. Ecological consequences of food partitioning for the fish population structure in a eutrophic lake. Hydrobiologia 291 (1): 35–45. DOI: 10.1007/BF00024237
• Natarajan A.V., Jhingran A.G. 1961. Index of preponderance-a method of grading the food elements in the stomach analysis of fishes. Indian Journal of Fisheries 8: 54–59.
• Okun N., Mehner T. 2005. Interactions between juvenile roach or perch and their invertebrate prey in littoral reed versus open water enclosures. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14 (2): 150–160. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0633.2005.00086.x
• Persson L., Hansson L.-A. 1999. Diet shift in fish following competitive release. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56 (1): 70–78. DOI: 10.1139/f98-141
• Peterka J., Matěna J. 2009. Differences in feeding selectivity and efficiency between young-of-the-year European perch (Perca fluviatilis) and roach (Rutilus rutilus)-field observations and laboratory experiments on the importance of prey movement apparency vs. evasiveness. Biologia 64 (4):786–794. DOI: 10.2478/s11756-009-0133-4
• Pivnička K. 1981. Ekologie ryb: odhady základních parametrů charakterizujících rybí populace. 1st edn. [Fish ecology: estimation of basic parameters characterizing fish populations.] SPN Praha, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
• Pivnička K. 1992. The Klíčava Reservoir, Czechoslovakia: A 30 year study of the fish community. Fisheries Research 14 (1): 1–20. DOI: 10.1016/0165-7836(92)90069-6
• Ponton D., Gerdeaux D. 1988. Quelques aspects de l’alimentation de deux poissons planctonophages du lac Léman: le córegone (Coregonus schinzii palea Cuv. et Val.) et le gardon (Rutilus rutilus (L.)). Bulletin Français de la Peche et de la Pisciculture 308: 11–23. DOI: 10.1051/kmae:1988011
• Prejs A. 1976. Fishes and their feeding habits. Pp. 155–171. In: Pieczyńska E. (ed.) Selected problems of lake litoral ecology. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa, Poland.
• Prejs A. 1984. Herbivory by temperate freshwater fishes and its consequences. Environmental Biology of Fishes 10 (4): 281–296. DOI: 10.1007/BF00001481
• Prejs A., Jackowska H. 1978. Lake macrophytes as the food of roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) and rudd (Scardinius erythropthalmus L.). Species composition and dominance relations in the lake and food. Ekologia Polska 26 (3): 429–438.
• Prejs A., Martyniak A., Boroń S., Hliwa P., Koperski P. 1994. Food web manipulation in a small, eutrophic Lake Wirbel, Poland: effect of stocking with juvenile pike on planktivorous fish. Hydrobiologia 275–276 (1): 65–70.DOI: 10.1007/BF00026700
• Přikryl, I. 2006. Metodika odběru a zpracování vzorků zooplanktonu stojatých vod. [Methodology for zooplankton sampling in still waters and sample processing.] VÚV TGM Prague, Czech Republic. [In Czech.]
• Richeux C., Arias-Gonzalez J.E., Tourenq J.N. 1992. Etude du régime alimentaire des gardons (Rutilus rutilus (L.)) du lac de Pareloup (Massif Central, France). Annales de Limnologie 28 (3): 245–252. DOI: 0.1051/limn/1992021
• Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry. 3rd edn. Freeman, New York, NY, USA.
• Specziár A., Tölg L., Bíró P. 1997. Feeding strategy and growth of cyprinids in the littoral zone of Lake Balaton.Journal of Fish Biology 51 (6): 1109–1124. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01130.x
• Szczyglińska A. 1987. Diet composition and daily feeding patterns of Rutilus rutilus (L.), in Włocławek dam reservoir In 1982–1984. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 17 (2): 55–68.
• Tarkowska-Kukuryk M. 2008. Influence of submerged vegetation on the diet of roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) in shallow Polesie lakes. Teka Komisji Ochrony i Kształtowania Środowiska Przyrodniczego 5A: 145–152.
• Tarvainen M., Sarvala J., Helminen H. 2002. The role of phosphorus release by roach [Rutilus rutilus (L.)] in the water quality changes of a biomanipulated lake. Freshwater Biology 47 (12): 2325–2336. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2427. 2002.00992.x
• Vašek M., Kubečka J. 2004. In situ diel patterns of zooplankton consumption by subadult/adult roach Rutilus rutilus, bream Abramis brama, and bleak Alburnus alburnus. Folia Zoologica 53 (2): 203–214.
• Vašek M., Kubečka J., Matěna J., Seďa J. 2006. Distribution and diet of 0+ fish within a canyon-shaped European reservoir in late summer. International Review of Hydrobiology 91 (2): 178–194. DOI: 10.1002/iroh.200510835
• Volta P., Jepsen N. 2008. The recent invasion of Rutilus rutilus (L.) (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in a large South-Alpine lake: Laggo Maggiore. Journal of Limnology 67 (2): 163–170.
• Walker J.L., Younos T., Zipper C.E. 2007. Nutrients in lasek and reservoirs—a literature review for use in nutrient criteria development. VWRRC Special Report SR34-2007. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA, USA.