1976
DOI: 10.1139/f76-342
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Light and Turbidity on the Reactive Distance of Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)

Abstract: Changes in the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) to various sizes of Daphnia pulex were measured at light intensities ranging from 0.70 to 215.3 lx (0.065–20.0 ft-c) and at turbidities ranging from 1 to 30 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU). Both reduced illumination and increased turbidity caused substantial reduction in the reactive distance of bluegill for all prey sizes, and particularly for large prey. This result should be considered in efforts to determine fish feeding rates in lakes, and m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

23
281
2

Year Published

1999
1999
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 391 publications
(306 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
23
281
2
Order By: Relevance
“…3) that the light flux in the basin waters will be several orders of magnitude lower in Lurefjorden, suggesting a severe reduction in the potential for visual feeding (Giske and Aksnes 1992; Aksnes and Giske 1993; Aksnes and Utne 1997). The importance of light flux and water optics for predator-prey relations has been well documented experimentally (Vinyard and O'Brien 1976;Wright and O'Brien 1984;Montgomery et al 1989;Gregory and Northcote 1993;Thetmeyer and Kils 1995;Utne 1997) and in the field (Kaartvedt 1996;Kaartvedt et al 1996). Hence, we cannot reject the hypothesis that a much higher light absorbance in the basin water of Lurefjorden (Figs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 78%
“…3) that the light flux in the basin waters will be several orders of magnitude lower in Lurefjorden, suggesting a severe reduction in the potential for visual feeding (Giske and Aksnes 1992; Aksnes and Giske 1993; Aksnes and Utne 1997). The importance of light flux and water optics for predator-prey relations has been well documented experimentally (Vinyard and O'Brien 1976;Wright and O'Brien 1984;Montgomery et al 1989;Gregory and Northcote 1993;Thetmeyer and Kils 1995;Utne 1997) and in the field (Kaartvedt 1996;Kaartvedt et al 1996). Hence, we cannot reject the hypothesis that a much higher light absorbance in the basin water of Lurefjorden (Figs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Since decreasing baseline activity is often a response to stressors (Walls et al 1990;Schreck et al 1997), it is possible that novel assay conditions were stressful for fish. In turbid water, encounter rate with an organism's environment (e.g., habitat, conspecifics, prey) is likely decreased, since the visual range of fish in these environments is diminished (Vinyard and O'brien 1976;De Robertis et al 2003). By increasing activity in turbid water (as observed in turbid water developmental treatment fish), a fish could maintain a certain encounter rate with salient factors in its environment (Gerritsen and Strickler 1977), as has been observed in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha; Gregory and Northcote 1993), perch (Perca fluviatilis; Granqvist and Mattila 2004), and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua; Meager and Batty 2007).…”
Section: Behavior In Turbid Watermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fish can position themselves vertically in the water column based on light intensity and may remain at levels that exceed the 10 23 lux levels required for foraging (Bohl 1980). In eutrophic systems where light penetration is low, turbidity decreases the reactive distance of fish predators (Vinyard and O'Brien 1976;Sweka and Hartman 2003), potentially allowing zooplankton to reduce visual predation through migration to deeper waters. While the effectiveness of an optical refuge from visual predators has been hypothesized as discussed above, it has not been convincingly demonstrated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%