Diel food selection of pelagic Arctic charr, <i>Salvelinus alpinus</i> (L.), and brown trout, <i>Salmo trutta</i> L., in Lake Atnsjø, SE Norway

Dervo, Børre Kind; Hegge, Ola; Hessen, Dag O.; Skurdal, Jostein

doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1991.tb03106.x

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, Arctic charr may also commonly utilise the pelagic and deep benthic areas for feeding. In contrast, brown trout seem more restricted to the littoral zone, but may in some cases utilise the pelagic habitat for feeding (Klemetsen 1967;Hegge et al 1989;Dervo et al 1991;Saksgå rd and Hesthagen 2004). Both brown trout and Arctic charr seem commonly to become piscivorous with increased size (L'Abè e- Lund et al 1992;Amundsen 1994;Amundsen et al 1995;Klemetsen et al 2003;Svenning and Borgstøm 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Food borne parasites as indicators of trophic segregation between Arctic charr and brown trout

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The habitat and diet choice and the infection (prevalence and abundance) of trophically transmitted parasites were compared in Arctic charr and brown trout living sympatrically in two lakes in northern Norway. Arctic charr were found in all main lake habitats, whereas the brown trout were almost exclusively found in the littoral zone. In both lakes the parasite fauna reflected the niche segregation between trout and charr. Surface insects were most common in the diet of trout, but transmit few parasites, and accordingly the brown trout had a relatively low diversity and abundance of parasites. Parasites transmitted by benthic prey such as Gammarus and insect larva, were common in both salmonid host species. Copepod transmitted parasites were much more common in Arctic charr, as brown trout did not include zooplankton in their diets. Parasite species that may use small fish as transport hosts, were far more abundant in piscivorous fish, especially brown trout. The seasonal dynamics in parasite infection were also consistent with the developments in the diet throughout the year. The study demonstrates that the structure of parasite communities of charr and the trout is highly dependent on shifts in habitat and diet of their hosts both on an annual base and through the ontogeny, in addition to the observed niche segregation between the two salmonid species.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Food borne parasites as indicators of trophic segregation between Arctic charr and brown trout

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the zooplankton species selected by large trout were B. Zongimanus and D. longispina, small trout preyed upon H. gibberum or the littoral species E. lamellatus. D. longispina and especially B. longimanus are all large, easily visible species (Flossner 1972) and are usually positively selected by planktivorous brown trout (Nilsson 1965, Klemetsen 1967, Dervo et al 1991). These normally pelagic species (Flossner 1972) are probably less available to small trout living close to the bottom.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These normally pelagic species (Flossner 1972) are probably less available to small trout living close to the bottom. H. gibberum is usually a less preferred food item for brown trout than B. longimanus and D. longispina (Klemetsen 1967, Dervo et al 1991. H. gibberum is usually regarded as a pelagic species, but is also commonly found in littoral areas (Flossner 1972), and may even occur benthically (Herr 1917).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vertical distribution and substrate preference of brown trout in a littoral zone

Hegge¹,

Hesthagen

Skurdal³

1993

Environ Biol Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisWe studied vertical distribution, substrate preference and food choice of brown trout, Salmo trutta, from benthic gillnet catches at four littoral sampling locations in a Norwegian hydroelectric reservoir. The sampling locations had different bottom substrates; at one location the bottom substrate consisted of sand, while at the other three, substrates consisted of stones ranging 2-5 cm, 10-30 cm and 30-150 cm in diameter, respectively. Small-sized (< 160cm) and intermediate-size (160-269mm) brown trout were mainly caught close to the bottom (O-O.5 m above). Small-sized brown trout were caught in the highest frequency at the location with substrate consisting of 10-30 cm large stones. Intermediate-sized brown trout were also caught in highest frequency at this location, but were also caught in a high frequency at the location with sandy substrate. In contrast, the catches of large-sized (2 270 mm) brown trout did not vary with distance from the bottom or with substrate coarseness. The most important food items for the brown trout were aquatic insects, surface insects, Eurycercus lamellatus and crustacean zooplankton, mainly Daphnia longispina, Bythotrephes longimanus, and Holopedium gibberum. In accordance with the differences in vertical distribution, benthic food was more important to small than to large brown trout. We argue that small brown trout stayed close to the bottom to reduce aggressive behaviour from larger specimens, and that small brown trout were therefore more dependent on benthic food items. We also argue that the observed differences in substrate preference between the size groups of brown trout is explained by variation in access to shelter, visual isolation between individuals and benthic feeding conditions between locations.

show abstract

“…Copepods are available to the fish from March/April to September/October, but are excluded from the diet of large (length > 90 mm) fish, despite being abundant (Figure 1). In some instances gill-raker spacing is an important factor determining lower size limit of catchable prey (Wankowski, 1979;Dervo et al, 1991), but cannot account for the exclusion of larger copepods, exceeding the gap between gill rakers, from the diet of large Spinachia (Figure 2). Copepods are probably unprofitable prey for fish > 90 mm in length, due to the large number that must be eaten to reach satiation, together with the associated increase in energy expended on searching and prey capture.…”

Section: Constraints Associated With Feeding Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 98%

Factors affecting the behavioural mechanisms of diet selection in fishes

Kaiser

Hughes

1993

Marine Behaviour and Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diel food selection of pelagic Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), and brown trout, Salmo trutta L., in Lake Atnsjø, SE Norway

Cited by 30 publications

References 16 publications

Food borne parasites as indicators of trophic segregation between Arctic charr and brown trout

Food borne parasites as indicators of trophic segregation between Arctic charr and brown trout

Vertical distribution and substrate preference of brown trout in a littoral zone

Factors affecting the behavioural mechanisms of diet selection in fishes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About