Fishermen Advocates

Coming Together for Consumers Rights

nickyurchenko — Fri, 11 May 2018 06:49:56 GMT

Dear Backers,

Please support our campaign to protect consumers rights Explore Rapala Product. Stop Fake on the INDIEGOGO crowdfunding platform at the following link:

https://igg.me/at/stoprapalafake/x/18442472

Our resources:

https://sueingrapala.wixsite.com/yoursues

https://www.facebook.com/yoan.oles.9

https://twitter.com/sueingrapala

https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/g9IwNE?pageId=none

https://plus.google.com/collection/oAQZLF

https://curiousanglers.blogspot.com

https://www.reddit.com/user/sueingrapala

https://www.pinterest.com/oleholes/sueing-rapala

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickyurchenko

If you can not contribute, please make some noise about this campaign through the social networks.

If any questions come up along the way, please feel free to reach out to us at our support address:

sueingrapala@gmail.com

Thank you! Stop Rapala Fake

Animal responses to holographic patterns

nickyurchenko — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 15:05:19 GMT

Animal responses to holographic patterns

In ethological literature, little is known about responses of fish and other animals to holographic foils which may be used in decoration of nests, sexual and schoolmate dummies, artificial fishing lures and other objects.

To our knowledge, Östlund-Nilsson & Holmlund (2003) offered colored metal foil sticks (15 mm length) to males of three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, to decorate their nests and found that males preferred sticks of red color. Even earlier, Darkov (1980) studied schooling behaviour of sunbleak, Leucaspius delineatus, and found that fish preferred to school with the silvery models than with the black models.

However, in both these works the influence of holographic patterns on the behavioural responses of fish has not been studied.

Experimental procedure

Our experiments were carried out in an aquarium of 30 x 30 x 60 cm sizes under the daylight illumination. The aquarium bottom was covered with the pebbles of medium size (10-15 mm). At the distance of 3 cm from the side wall the lifting transparent glass was located. This glass was used to stick holographic models (see below). At the distance of 10 cm from this glass the frosted lifting glass was located. When animals moved near this glass, this glass was lifted and animals could see models.

This tank was used as aquarium to study fish and as terrarium to study lizards.

The experimental fish were wild perch, Perca fluviatilis (5-7 cm total length), wild roach, Rutilus rutilus (5-7 cm total length), and wild sunbleak, L. delineatus (about 4 cm total length). Fish were fed live bloodworms. The experimental lizards were sand lizards, Lacerta agilis (6-8 cm total length), which were fed live room flies and small grasshoppers (without one wing or one hind leg).

When animals discovered models, they usually moved towards these models. Three types of responses were fixated: 1) the first movement to the left or right model, 2) staying near the left or right model during 30 min, and 3) the first attempt to bite the left or right model. As animals observed both models at the same time for free choice, the method of paired comparisons (sign test) was used for statistics.

To make models, holographic foils produced by WTP Inc., USA (http://www.wtp-inc.com/color-card) were used.

Small holograpic fields

Fish

The sizes of models were 20 x 5 mm. Two models were placed horizontally at the distance of 10 cm from each other, at the height of 5 cm from the bottom and at the distance about 12-14 cm from the fish.

In the experiments of this type with perch and roach, the left model made of red plain foil, WTP 45, and the right model made of red holographic foil with large horizontal streaks, WTP 825, were compared. In all experiments with permutation models from left to right and vice versa, perch and roach preferred to approach, stay and bite without hesitations the holographic model over the plain model (sign test, P < 0,01).

However, fish were no able to discriminate models with the similar holographic patterns like red prism glitter, WTP 355, and red mini scale, WTP 185.

In general, fish can be trained to discriminate visual abstract patterns (for review, see Northmore et al., 1978), illusory patterns (Wyzisk & Neumeyer; 2007; Sovrano & Bisazza, 2009; Agrillo et al., 2013), mirror patterns (Gierszewski et al., 2013) and naturalistic forms (Schluessel et al., 2012). However, in our experiments wild perch and roach were untrained for the aims of visual discriminations and generalized similar holograpic patterns.

Lizards

Because lizards are more sensitive to the light of shorter wavelengths, models of blue color were used. Models made of blue plain foil, WTP 43, and blue holographic foil with large horizontal streaks, WTP 823, were compared. In all cases, lizards preferred the holographic model over the plain model (sign test, P < 0,01).

However, lizards were no able to discriminate models with the similar holographic patterns like blue prism glitter, WTP 353, and blue mini scale, WTP 183.

Basic wooden decoys

In this part of the experiments, we considered how predatory fish responded in the field to the plain foils and holographic foils with the different patterns.

Basic wooden decoys are lathed practically of any timber, including an imported balsa, and have not any concavities. Commonly, lures have an usable cylindric shape (with the flat or roundish ends), an elongated oval shape, an elongated barrel-like shape (with the flat ends) and an elongated drop-like shape (with the most diameter in the tail, near to the hook). Decoys do not equipped with self-righting ventral hooks, so their rostrums have not skews for sinking or lifting.

To use 2D & 3D artificial eyes, recesses with the flat bottom are milled in the decoy bodies.

Each decoy has the central longitudinal hole and is strung directly on the fishing line, resting on the treble hook. To fish pike, Esox lucius, with sharp teeth, steel leaders are used. The treble hook is decorated with the woolen or synthetic material, commonly of white or light grey colors.

In our experiments, waterproof cylindric wooden decoys of 5.0 cm length and 1.0 cm diameter were used. Their bodies were enveloped with silvery plain foils and sivery holographic foils described below. In addition, 2D eyes 7/32” with the red iris, WTP 405, were sticked bilaterally in the head part of all decoys.

Compared decoys were tested in pairs using standard trolling technique on the two sides of the boat at the same time. Trolling was carried out in daytime at the depth 2.5-3.0 m. The distance between moving decoys was about 2 m. Visibility in the water was 0.6-0.8 m for Secchi disk. Thus fish could not see both compared lures simultaneously and therefore independent samples were used for statistics.

The most abundant predatory fish like perch, P. fluviatilis, pikes, E. lucius, zanders, Stizostedion lucioperca, and asps, Aspius aspius, were catched and considered in the general pool.

In an aquarium when two flat foil stripes (20 x 5 mm) are static, perch have enough time to study both models and prefer (sign test, P < 0,01) the silvery holographic foil with prism glitter, WTP 351, over the silvery plain foil, WTP 41.

In the field, however, perch and other predatory fish are forced to attack potential prey very quickly (during split second) and thus they have not enough time to study their visual features. So approximately the same number of perch, pike, zander and asp (Table 1) were caught on decoys enveloped with the plain and holographic foils or with the different holographic foils.

In general (see Curio, 1976), the process of prey-recognition (seconds, minutes, hours) and the process of prey-attack (split second) are the different processes that are separated in time.

Species

Caught fish number

Stimulus #1

(silvery)

Stimulus #2

(silvery)

Statistics

(n fish per 1 hour of trolling, Student’s t-test)

perch, pike, zander, asp

prism glitter,

WTP 351

without glitter,

WTP 41

indifferently

perch, pike, zander, asp

horizontal lines,

WTP 341

vertical lines,

WTP 341

indifferently

perch, pike, zander, asp

stripes tilted to the left,

WTP 201

stripes tilted to the right,

WTP 201

indifferently

Table 1. The results of predatory fish catching in the field on decoys decorated with the plain and holographic foils.

Dodgers and flashers

Oscillating dodgers and rotating flashers are special trolling devices. They have large sizes (up to 30 cm) and are frequently equiped with the holographic foils (Fig 1).

Fig. 1. Trolling flashers with the holographic foils.

Trolling gears with dodgers allow to catch predatory fish of larger sizes than gears without dodgers (Dooley, 1989). It means that strongly vibrating and shining dodgers and flahers repel relatively small predatory fish.

Nothing is known about the effect of holographic patterns.

Medium holographic fields

In the experiments of this type, rectangular models, 4 x 1 cm, and sunbleak (about 4 cm length) had approximately equal sizes to study schooling responses of fish. Three randomly placed horizontal models made of silvery plain foil, WTP 41, and three randomly placed horizontal models made of silvery holographic foils with prism glitter, WTP 351, were compared. In all cases, highly schooling sunbleak (1, 2 and 3 individuals) preferred to approach and to stay near the holographic models over the plain models (sign test, P < 0,01).

However, sunbleak were no able to discriminate models with the similar holographic patterns like silvery prism glitter, WTP 351, and silvery mini scale, WTP 181.

Large holographic fields

In these cases, the sizes of holographic objects are much more than the sizes of the experimental animals. The rectangular photos (20 x 10 cm) of underwater plants and rectangular photos of grass at the level of sand on the one hand, and the holographic panels (20 x 10 cm) of the various types on the second hand were used to study the responses of fish and lizards, respectively.

Fish and lizards were introduced individually in aquarium or terrarium in the center between photos and holographic panels and released. In all cases, fish and lizards moved immediately or after short confusion towards the natural backgrounds avoiding thus the large holographic panels (sign test, P < 0,01).

All holographic patterns scare. In other words, fish and lizards are not able to distinguish scared holographic patterns.

These results are not new. It is known, for example, that holographic foils are repellents for birds and produced on an industrial scale (see https://www.shopwtp-inc.com/index.php?cPath=34).

Basic references

Agrillo C., Petrazzini M.E.M., Dadda M. 2013. Illusory patterns are fishy for fish, too. Frontiers in Neural Circuits 7, doi: 10.3389/fncir.2013.00137

Curio E. 1976. Ethology of predation. Zoophysiology and Ecology 7. Berlin, Springer

Darkov A.A. 1980. Ecological features of visual signalling in fishes. Moscow, Science Publishing

Dooley R.H.A. 1989. The response of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) to lures with special reference to color preference. Master’s Thesis. University of British Columbia, Canada, 1-76

Gierszewski S., Bleckmann H., Schluessel V. 2013. Cognitive abilities in malawi cichlids (Pseudotropheus sp.): matching-to-sample and image/mirror-image discriminations. PLoS ONE 8: e57363. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057363

Northmore D., Volkmann F.C., Yager D. 1978. Vision in fishes: color and pattern. The Behavior of Fish and Other Aquatic Animals. Edited by D.I. Mostofsky. Academic Press, New York

Östlund-Nilsson S., Holmlund M. 2003. The artistic three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 53, 214-220

Schluessel V., Fricke G., Bleckmann H. 2012. Visual discrimination and object categorization in the cichlid Pseudotropheus sp. Animal Cognition 15:525-537

Siebeck U.E., Litherland L., Wallis G.M. 2009. Shape learning and discrimination in reef fish. Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 2113-2119

Sovrano V.A., Bisazza A. 2009. Perception of subjective contours in fish. Perception 38, 579-590

Wyzisk K., Neumeyer C. 2007. Perception of illusory surfaces and contours in goldfish. Visual neuroscience 24, 291-298

Responses of freshwater fish to fluorescent lures at daylight

nickyurchenko — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:51:04 GMT

Responses of freshwater fish to fluorescent lures at daylight

Many companies manufacture fishing lures and baits of bright fluorescent colors and position these products in the consumer markets as effective tools to attract and catch fish. However, numerous scientific, technical and applied investigations and recreational fishing practice show that these assertions are, as minimum, exaggerated.

In general case, fluorescence is an optical phenomenon when molecules of some substances absorb light in the ultraviolet or visual parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and immediately re-emit it with the longer wavelength. Because the falling light is partly reflected by these substances and the reflected light is mixed with the light of fluorescence, the eyes of human and animals (if they have color vision) perceive the total colors of these substances as “more bright”.

Spectral sensitivity

Fresh waters are optically more turbid than sea waters, so the maximum of spectral sensitivity in freshwater fish is shifted to the red part of the visual spectrum. In bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, for example, the maximum of spectral sensitivity is shifted to 620-640 nm (orange part of the spectrum) (Hawryshyn et al., 1988). According to Kawamura & Kishimoto (2002), the maximum of spectral sensitivity in largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, is shifted even to 673 nm (red part of the spectrum). It means that for freshwater fish red and orange colors are brighter than other colors, in full contradiction with the perception of saltwater fish and human.

This red or orange shift of the maximum of spectral sensitivity is typical for other freshwater fish (Protasov, 1978).

Turbidity

Turbid waters decrease overall intensity of ambient light, decrease via scattering an ability of receivers to resolve silhouettes and more (for review, see Utne-Palm, 2002). In particular, turbidity affects color perception of freshwater fish, their color patterns and communication with the assistance of color signals.

For example, with an increase in turbidity of habitat males of red shiners, Cyprinella lutrensis, develop more intensive red fins (Dugas & Franssen, 2011). According to Kelley et al. (2012), rainbowfish, Melanotaenia australis, in the dissolved organic matter treatment show an increase in the area and brightness of their orange striped patterns.

More generally, turbidity weakens color signals in inter-sexual selection (Seehausen et al. 1997), even limiting species recognition in mate choice.

Fluorescent colors underwater

Overall, fluorescent colors are brighter than ordinary colors and are more visible underwater (Kinney et al., 1967). In turbid water (like Thames river), orange fluorescent color is most visible for the human’s eye than other colors.

Other animals

For fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa, traps of orange fluorescent color are more attractive than traps of ordinary orange color (Greany et al., 1978).

Dull males versus bright males

Accustomed to think that females, in fish and other animals with the sexual dimorphism, prefer to mate with bright males than with dull males. In turn, generally recognized that bright males are more vulnerable to predation risks than dull males. However, special and most detailed investigations of these questions reveal that these “generally accepted rules” are not universal.

For example, Breden & Stoner (1987) have shown that females of guppy, Poecilia reticulata, from high-predation populations show genetically determined, lower preference for brightly colored males than do females from areas of low predation. In turn, predatory pike cichlid, Crenicichla alta, prefer to attack in sex-mixed schools of guppy dull and most profitable females than bright and less profitable males (Pocklington & Dill, 1995).

In other words, detection of potential prey even from the longer distance and the real attack on prey need the different decisions making and are separated in time.

Transgenic fluorescent zebrafish

The development of transgenic zebrafish, Danio rerio, and other fish with green, yellow, orange, red and other fluorescent colors has opened an opportunity to study the role of fluorescence in intraspecific and interspecific relations in fish and their predators under the control conditions. Note that under the day light transgenic zebrafish have slightly more intensive colors than wildtype zebrafish (usually with the longitudinal bluish and yellowish stripes), but under the special ultraviolet illumination (invisible for human) they become extremely bright (for example, see photos given by Gong et al., 2003).

In our context, Cortemeglia & Beitinger (2006) have found that under the day light predatory largemouth bass, M. salmodes, consume red fluorescent zebrafish and wildtype zebrafish approximately in an equal proportion. According to Jha (2010), snakehead, Channa striatus, consume under the day conditions both red fluorescent zebrafish and wildtype zebrafish, but try to avoid red fluorescent zebrafish. However, Hill et al. (2011) have found that largemouth bass consume under the day conditions about two times more red fluorescent zebrafish than wildtype zebrafish and concluded that transgenic fish are more susceptible to predation.

In boreal countries (like Ukraine), wildtype and transgenic zebrafish are not survive in the nature due to the cold winters. So, in our experiments we used common perch, Perca fluviatilis, as native predators (about 5-7 cm total length) and aquarium forms of wildtype and red fluorescent zebrafish as popetial prey.

An experimental aquarium was located near the large laboratory windows and was illuminated with the ambient light, which varied from daylight to twilight and nightlight. Because perch were not familiar with both forms of zebrafish, they learnt to hunt novel prey (note, perch are diurnal and crepuscular predators). Briefly, perch passed from the first observations for prey to approaches, chases and the first prey captures (about mutual learning in predators and prey, see Lescheva & Zhuykov, 1989). Under the day and crepuscular illuminations, no preferences of perch towards wildtype or red fluorescent zebrafish (relatively dull under these illuminations) were observed. However, under additional ultraviolet illumination red fluorescent zebrafish became very bright, and perch avoided them (during 3 days of observations none of bright prey were eaten).

Fig. 1. Transgenic fluorescent danios (http://shop.glofish.com/products/glofish-danio-package).

According to our abservations, pike, Esox lucius, another diurnal and crepuscular predator, does not avoid dull red fluorescent zebrafish but avoid bright (UV illuminated) prey.

In the wild nature, visually guided fish may include in their diets new and brightly colored prey but only after long-term testing of these prey and formation of search image in respect to these prey. For example, Hope (1984) has informed that wild trout included in their diet an invasive species of beetles with bright coloration only through about month of acquaintance with this new prey and their testing.

Large fluorescent objects versus small fluorescent implants

It is necessary to distinguish large fluorescent objects and small fluorescent implants used to tag fish. It is shown (e.g., Catalano et al., 2001; Roberts & Kilpatrick, 2004) that small but bright fluorescent implants may attract predators and thus decrease the recapture rate of tagged fish in the nature.

Fluorescent fishing lines

It is shown that largemouth bass may distiguish white, yellow and green fluorescent fishing lines but only after several trials with attached worms to these lines (Miller & Janzow, 1979).

Fishing practice. Part 1

There are fish habitats that allow to confirm the attractiveness of red or orange fluorescent lures at the statistic level. These habitats are rivers with clayish banks, clay pits or clay ponds in which water may be very turbid especially under wind and after rains.

Using one of these localities, we tested soft plastic lures of red fluorescent color and ordinary red color. Lures, namely curly tails of 3 cm length, were rigged in pairs at the distance of 10-12 cm between each other. Fish could observe both lures simultaneuosly for free choice, so the sign test for paired comparisons was used for statistics.

Tests were carried out in summer in clayish locality of Goryn river (Belarus). According to visual guide, turbidity of the water was about 90 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) and more under wind. Red fluorescent lures were illuminated naturally in the air under the sun light.

During 2 days of experiments, overall 39 fish were caught using standard spinning technique. They were adult perch, P. fluviatilis, and Donets ruffe, Gymnocephalus acerina, as well as juvenile pike, E. lucius, zander, Stizostedion lucioperca, asp, Aspius aspius, and chub, Leuciscus cephalus. Of these 39 fish, 28 fish preferred red fluorescent lures over ordinary red lures (sign test, P < 0.01).

However, in more or less clear waters red or orange fluorescent lures may seem too bright and thus they may deter or scare predatory fish.

It is known that mature males of three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus, with the red breast aggresively attack other mature males and artificial wooden red models (Darkov, 1980). According to our observations in the nature, nest guarding males of sticklebacks attack in the same manner approaching soft plastic shads (3 cm length) of ordinary red color but avoid much more conspicuous red fluorescent shads (additionally to sun light illuminated by LED lantern).

Fishing practice. Part 2

Other fish habitats suitable to use red or orange fluorescent lures are river back waters, lakes and ponds in which water is saturated with the soluble organic substances and suspensions (like algae). In these habitats, for example, some natural white maggots with one red fluorescent maggot can be more attractive for carp, Cyprinus carpio, tench, Tinca tinca, and other cyprinids than the same natural white maggots without one very visible red fluorescent maggot. However, preferences of cyprinid fish to red or orange fluorescent lures are not widespread, stable and suitable for statistic confirmations because colors of baits are not prefered stimuli for these fish.

Foraging carps and other large bentivorous fish increase turbidity of water bodies (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Roberts et al., 1995; Drenner et al., 1997; Sidorkewicj et al., 1998) thus making these habitats suitable to use red or orange fluorescent lures.

According to Sidorkewicj et al. (1998), tubidity induced by carps may achieve 100-140 NTU.

Note also, turbidity induced by carps decreases angler catch rates of other sport fish (Drenner et al., 1997).

Basic references

Breden F., Stoner G. 1987. Male predation risk determines female preference in the Trinidad guppy. Nature 329, 831-833

Catalano M.J., Chipps S.R., Bouchard M.A., Wahl D.Y. 2001. Evaluation of injectable fluorescent tags for marking centrarchid fishes: Retention rate and effects on vulnerability to predation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21, 211-217

Cortemeglia C., Beitinger T.L. 2006. Susceptibility of transgenic and wildtype zebra danios, Danio rerio, to predation. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76, 93-100

Darkov A.A. 1980. Ecological features of visual signalization in fishes. Science Publishing, Moscow

Drenner R.W., Gallo K.L., Edwards C.M., Rieger K.E., Dibble E.D. 1997. Common carp affect turbidity and angler catch rates of largemouth bass in ponds. North American Journal of Fisheries Menagement 17, 1010-1013

Dugas M.B., Franssen N.R. 2011. Nuptial coloration of red shiners (Cyprinella lutrensis) is more intense in turbid habitats. Naturwissenschaften DOI 10.1007/s00114-011-0765-4

Gong Z., Wan H., Tay T.L., Wang H., Chen M., Yan T. 2003. Development of transgenic fish for ornamental and bioreactor by strong expression of fluorescent proteins in the skeletal muscle. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 308, 58–63

Greany P.D., Burditt A.K., Agee H.R., Chambers D.L. 1978. Increasing effectiveness of visual traps for the Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa (Diptera: Tephritidae), by use of fluorescent colors. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 23, 20-25

Hawryshyn C.W., Arnold M.G., McFarland W.N., Loew E.R. 1988. Aspects of color vision in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): ecological and evolutionary relevance. Journal of Comparative Physiology A164, 107-116

Hill J.E., Kapuscinski A.R., Pavlowich T. 2011. Fluorescent transgenic zebra danio more vulnerable to predators than wild-type fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140, 1001-1005

Hope J. 1984. The well-lured trout. Science 84, 160-167

Jha P. 2010. Comparative study of aggressive behaviour in transgenic and wildtype zebrafish Danio rerio (Hamilton) and the flying barb Esomus danricus (Hamilton), and their susceptibility to predation by the snakehead Channa striatus (Bloch). Italian Journal of Zoology 77, 102-109

Kawamura G., Kishimoto T. 2002. Color vision, accomodation and visual acuity in the largemouth bass. Fisheries Science 68, 1041-1046

Kelley J.L., Phillips B., Cummins G.H., Shand J. 2012. Changes in the visual environment affect colour signal brightness and shoaling behaviour in a freshwater fish. Animal Behaviour 83, 783-791

Kinney J.A.S., Luria S.M., Weitzman D.O. 1967. The visibility of colors underwater. Journal of the Optical Society of America 57, 802-807

Lescheva T.S., Zhuykov A.Y. 1989. Learning in fish. Ecological and applied aspects. Moscow, Science

Miller R.J., Janzow F.T. 1979. An experiment on visual discrimination in the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 59, 34-40

Pocklington R., Dill L.M. 1995. Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Animal Behaviour 49, 1122-1124

Protasov V.R. 1978. Fish behaviour. The mechanisms of fish orientation and their use in fishing. Food Industry Publishing, Moscow

Richardson M.J., Whoriskey F.G., Roy L.H. 1995. Turbidity generation and biological impacts of an exotic fish Carassius auratus, introduced into shallow seasonally anoxic ponds. Journal of Fish Biology 47, 576-585

Roberts J., Chick A., Oswald L., Thompson P. 1995. Effect of carp, Cyprinus carpio L., an exotic benthivorous fish, on aquatic plants and water quality in experimental ponds. Marine and Freshwater Research 46, 1171-1180

Roberts J.H., Kilpatrick J.M. 2004. Predator feeding preferences for a benthic stream fish: effects of visible injected marks. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 19, 531-538

Seehausen O., van Alphen J.J.M., Witte F. 1997. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277, 1808-1811

Sidorkewicj N.S., López Cazorla A.C., Murphy K.J., Sabbatini M.R., Fernandez O.A., Domaniewski J.C.J. 1998. Interaction of common carp with aquatic weeds in Argentine drainage channels. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 36, 5-10

Utne-Palm A.C. 2002. Visual feeding of fish in a turbid environment: physical and behavioural aspects. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 35, 111–128

How freshwater fish perceive some colored baits underwater

nickyurchenko — Tue, 27 Dec 2016 09:56:38 GMT

Computer modeling: how freshwater fish perceive some colored baits underwater

The Dynamite Baits company (one of the brands of the Rapala company) offers to catch carp and other freshwater cyprinid fish feeding baits containing the fluorescent colorants.

Pink fluorescent pop-ups are ones of the typical examples:

http://www.dynamitebaits.com/products/p/the-crave-fluro-pop-ups

However, in the development of these baits the Dynamite Baits company does not consider achievements of the sensory ecology, which studies, in particular, the optical properties of water environments and how fish perceive different colors (if the fish have color vision) underwater. Therefore, the Dynamite Baits company does not correctly determine the palette of suitable fluorescent colors and does not correctly positioned in the consumer market baits with such colors as exceptionally attractive and successful to catch carp and other freshwater cyprinid fish.

It is known that fresh water absorbs short-wavelength rays and transmits long-wavelength rays, so the maximum of spectral sensitivity of eyes of freshwater fish is shifted to the orange and red parts of the optical spectrum (e.g., Tamura & Niwa, 1967). Therefore, the “white light” for freshwater fish is enriched with the long-wavelength rays (we name this light as “worm light” or “warm white”). In contrast, marine water absorbs long-wavelength rays and transmits short-wavelength rays, so the maximum of spectral sensitivity of eyes of saltwater fish is shifted to the blue and green parts of the optical spectrum (Tamura & Niwa, 1967). Therefore, the “white light” for saltwater fish is enriched with the short-wavelength rays (we name this light as “cool light” or “cool white”).

For more information how fish perceive colors, see Vorobyev et al. (2001).

It means that baits with pink color, which is one of the numerous combinations of red, green and blue colors, are not suitable for the freshwater environment. Baits with pink color loss mostly blue color, when observed through yellow-and-green water column (see Fig. 1), and, in final sum, baits with pink (or similar) color become in the eutrophicated water (where carps live) dirty shade.

Fig. 1. Baits of the Dynamite Baits company with pink color observed through the yellow-and-green optical filter.

Color coordinates are given in Table 1.

Color and its location in Fig.1

Hex Code

# RRGGBB

Decimal Code

R,G,B

pink,

upper part of pop-up

without filter

# FAC8E3

RGB (250,200,227)

dirty,

lower part of pop-up

with filter

# E0C8B3

RGB (224,200,179)

Table 1. Color coordinates of pink color observed without and through yellow-and green filter.

It is necessary to add that many freshwater fish have in their nuptial coloration various combinations of short wavelength (violet, blue) and long wavelength (red) colors. An example is rosy bitterling, Rhodeus ocellatus (Fig. 2). However, short wavelength colors are used at short distances in the private interspecific communication channel relatively inaccessible to predators.

Fig. 2. Coloration of freshwater rosy bitterling, Rhodeus ocellatus.

Basic references

Tamura T., Niwa H. 1967. Spectral sensitivity and color vision of fish as indicated by S-potential. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 22, 745-754

Vorobyev M., Marshall J., Osorio D., de Ibarra N.H., Menzel R. 2001. Colourful objects through animal eyes. Color Research & Application 26, S214-S217

How saltwater fish perceive some colored lures underwater

nickyurchenko — Mon, 26 Dec 2016 13:59:10 GMT

Computer modeling: how saltwater fish perceive some colored lures underwater

The Rapala company offers to catch freshwater and saltwater predatory fish artificial lures with various fluorescent colors.

About fluorescent color patterns, see, for example:

https://www.rapala.com/rapala/lures/magnum-lures/floating-magnumandreg/Floating+Magnum.html

However, in the development of these lures the Rapala company does not consider achievements of the sensory ecology, which studies, in particular, the optical properties of water environments and how fish perceive different colors (if the fish have color vision) underwater. Therefore, the Rapala company does not correctly determine the palette of suitable fluorescent colors and does not correctly positioned in the consumer market lures with such colors as exceptionally attractive and effective to catch freshwater and saltwater predatory fish.

For example, the Rapala company offers for freshwater and saltwater predatory fish lures with the color pattern named “Gold Fluorescent Red” (see Fig. 1).

For more information how fish perceive colors, see Vorobyev et al. (2001).

It means that lures with the color pattern “Gold Fluorescent Red” are theoretically suitable for freshwater environment and are not suitable for saltwater environment. Lures with this color pattern save red color, when observed through yellow-and-green water column (the case of freshwater environment), and loss red color, when observed through blue water column (the case of saltwater environment) (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Rapala’s lures with the color pattern “Gold Fluorescent Red” observed through yellow-and-green and blue optical filters (at the top the single blue filter and at the bottom the double blue filter).

On the other hand, the Rapala company positions in the consumer market lures with the color pattern “Gold Fluorescent Red” as attractive and effective to catch freshwater and saltwater predatory fish. Note, this color pattern is similar to another Rapala’s color pattern named “Fire Tiger” (see Fig 2). However, Wilde et al. (2003) have shown in the field experiments that lures with the color pattern “Fire Tiger” are less effective than lures with the natural color patterns “Blue Shiner”, “Brown Trout” and “Fathead Minnow”.

Fig. 2. Rapala’s lures with the color pattern “Fire Tiger”.

Basic references

Tamura T., Niwa H. 1967. Spectral sensitivity and color vision of fish as indicated by S-potential. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 22, 745-754

Vorobyev M., Marshall J., Osorio D., de Ibarra N.H., Menzel R. 2001. Colourful objects through animal eyes. Color Research & Application 26, S214-S217

Wilde G.R., Pope K.L., Durham B.W. 2003. Lure-size restrictions in recreational fisheries. Fisheries 28, 17-26

Ultraviolet colors in fishing lures

nickyurchenko — Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:44:41 GMT

Ultraviolet colors in fishing lures

Rapala VMC Corporation manufactures and sells artificial fishing lures with the ultraviolet (UV) finishes that combine fluorescent paints, reflective surfaces and optical brighteners (see http://rapala.fishing/lure-finishes). Lures with theses finishes are marked by signs “UV BRIGHT” or simply “UV”. However, Rapala does not understand the abilities of ultraviolet (with the wavelength below 400 nm) vision in fish and its role in their responses to UV reflected objects in the nature and fishing.

Fig. 1. The sigh used by Rapala (brands Rapala, Storm, Blue Fox and Luhr Jenssen) to mark the lures with the UV finishes.

UV finishes in mafacturing fishing lures are also used by other companies like Lakeland Inc., USA (see http://lakelandinc.com/UFI/UFI_vibrant.html).

Ultraviolet vision

Freshwater fish

Numerous freshwater small-sized fish like three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, reflect (Rick et al., 2004) radiation in the ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum and have UV vision. In particular, three-spined stickleback use UV vision in schooling (Modarressie et al., 2006), sexual (Rick & Bakker, 2008) and foraging (Rick et al., 2012) behavioural responses. The similar results are found for guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Smith et al., 2002), sailfin molly, P. latipinna (Palmer & Hankison, 2015), and other freshwater small-sized fish in the adult age.

However, UV reflection by some body does not provide the success per se. For example, during the nest decoration in artificial conditions males of three-spined stickleback choose rather red foil strips which absorb UV radiation than silvery or blue foil strips which reflect UV radiation (Östlund-Nilsson & Holmlund, 2003).

In turn, yearlings of predatory brown trout, Salmo trutta, use UV reflection of three-spined stickleback to hunt these prey (Modarressie et al., 2013). However, only young trout are sensitive to UV (see data by Bowmaker & Kunz, 1987, for Salmo trutta; Hawryshyn et al., 1989, for Salmo gairdneri), while older (over two years) fish lose this ability.

The same ontogeny of UV vision is typical for other freshwater predatory fish like perch and others (see Bowmaker, 1990). With the age, the ocular structures change radically and do not allow the fish to perceive UV radiation.

Saltwater fish

Great care must be taken in relation to marine fish and invertebrates (like crustaceans) many of which have UV vision (Losey & Cronin, 1997; Siebeck & Marshall, 2001; Losey et al., 2003).

According to Fritsches et al. (2000), marine predatory fish of the younger age groups and medium-sized fish (like slimy mackerel, Scomber australasicus, and others) are sensitive to UV, while marine predatory fish of the older age groups and large-sized fish (like blue marlin, Makaira nigricans, black marlin, Makaira indica, sailfish, Istiophorus platypterus, and others) are UV blind.

In general, UV signals are mainly used by small-sized and juvenile fish (both freshwater and saltwater) to form private communuication channels that are relatively inaccessible for potential predators (Siebeck, 2014).

Thus, UV finishes of Rapala’s lures and lures of other companies are useless for freshwater and saltwater predatory fish of the older age groups which lose UV vision with the age.

Optical brighteners

In addition to reflective surfaces, Rapala uses optical brighteners. The use of optical brighteners complicates the description of the optical properties of UV fishishes.

It is well known that optical brighteners are fluorescent substances which absorb UV radiation and immediately re-emit it in the visible part of the spectrum with the maximun of re-emission in violet and blue parts of the spectrum. White covers with optical brightners reflect partly the falling sun light which is mixed with the light of fluorescence, so the human’s eye perceives these covers as “more bright” and “more white” (well known as “snow white”) than white covers without optical brighteners.

In the pure form, fluorescent white finishes are used, for example, by Lakeland Inc. to cover its metal spoons and spinners (see http://www.lakelandinc.com/finishes.html).

In general, white and fluorescent white colors are most visible in the freshwater and saltwater environments (Kenney et al., 1967, 1968). But the great visibility of white and fluorescent white colors does not guarantee their attractiveness for fish.

For example, Dooley (1989) has studied using trolling technique the responses of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, to wobblers, spoons and spinners of various colors and found that lures of the solid white color were less effective than lures of blue, green, yellow and red colors. Moraga et al. (2015) have studied using sink-and-retrieving technique the responses of largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, to soft plastic worms (of 12.7 cm length) of various colors and found that worms of the “pearl white” color were less effective than worms of natural and dark colors.

The same results were obtained in marine fishing. For example, according to Hsieh et al. (2001), in mackerel longline fishing white lures were slightly more effective than blue, purple and transparent lures (cryptic on the background of marine column) but less effective than black and red lures.

Psychological perception of white objects

It is known that relatively large objects of white color may scare fish. So, Moraga et al. (2015) have found that white soft plastic worms of 12.7 cm length allow to catch largemouth bass of greater sizes than the same worms of darker colors. It means that white lures warn of danger or scare largemouth bass of smaller sizes.

In general, white objects are perceived greater in size than the same dark objects (e.g., Kremkow et al., 2014).

On the other hand, because the natural sun light contains all the chromatic colors, which may be detected with the assistance of Newton’s lens, we perceive the sun light as “white”. In the same manner, we perceive any white surfaces (like white clouds, snow, paper, etc.) as “white” because these surfaces reflect more or less evently all components of the sun light.

However, our perceptions can not be automatically transferred to fish perceptions!

How fish perceive colors, see Vorobyev et al. (2001).

In addition, for small-sized and juvenile freshwater and salwater fish the “white light” is enriched with UV rays (see above), which are invisible for the human’s eye.

Numerous freshwater and saltwater fish have white or whitish with the different tints belly (or the lower side in flat fish) that masks them on the backgrounds of the bright water surface illuminated with the sun light. Subjected to the conditions of crypsis in the water environment, boldly white fish (like arctic animals in winter) are absent in this environment, excepting white morphs.

In order to estimate roughly the composition of the underwater light, you must check first of all the ventral coloration in fish, that is the coloration of their bellies. For example, in such fish as carp, Cyprinis carpio, tench, Tinca tinca, and other ecologically close fish, which live in the strongly eutrophicated and colored fresh waters, the ventral coloration is characterized by yellowish, olivish, orangish, brownish or even reddish tints (e.g., see colored images of freshwater peacock bass, Cichla temensis: Reiss et al., 2012). Namely these colors and tints define at the first approach the composition of the underwater light under the foregoing optical conditions.

Because for freshwater fish red color is most lighter than all others, red colors and tints occur widely in coloration of their lower fins (this phenomenon is called colored countershading).

Whitish ventral coloration is observed only in pelagic and, partly, in demersal freshwater fish. Snow white ventral coloration occurs only in pelagic saltwater fish.

In conclusion, Rapala and Lakeland companies do not give the reflectance spectra of their finishes. There not any statistic data confirmed the effectiveness of lures with these finishes to catch more fish.

Basic references

Bowmaker J.K. 1990. Visual pigments of fishes. In: The visual system of fishes. Edited by Douglas R.H. & Djamgoz M.B.A. Chapman & Hall, London, 81–107

Bowmaker J.K., Kunz Y.W. 1987. Ultraviolet receptors, tetrachromatic colour vision and retinal mosaics in the brown trout (Salmo trutta): Age-dependent changes. Vision research 27, 2101-2108

Dooley R.H.A. 1989. The response of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) to lures with special reference to color preference. Master’s Thesis. University of British Columbia, Canada, 1-76

Fritsches K.A, Partridge J.C., Pettigrew J.D., Marshall N.J. 2000. Colour vision in billfish. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 29, 1253-1256

Hawryshyn C.W., Arnold M.G., Chaisson D.J., Martin P.C. 1989. The ontogeny of ultraviolet photosensitivity in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Visual Neuroscience 2, 247-254

Hsieh K.Y., Huang B.Q., Wu R.L., Chen C.T. 2001. Color effects of lures on the hooking rates of mackerel longline fishing. Fisheries Science 67, 408-414

Kinney J.A.S., Luria S.M., Weitzman D.O. 1967. Visibility of colors underwater. U.S. Naval Submarine Medical Center. Report Number 503

Kinney J.A.S., Luria S.M., Weitzman D.O. 1968. The underwater visibility of colors with artificial illumination. U.S. Naval Submarine Medical Center. Report Number 551

Kremkow J., Jin J., Komban S.J., Wang Y., Lashgari R., Li X., Jansen M., Zaidi Q., Alonso J.M. 2014. Neuronal nonlinearity explains greater visual spatial resolution for darks than lights. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 3170-3175

Losey G.S., Cronin T.W. 1997. The UV visual world of fishes. Proceedings of the 5th Indo-Pacific Fish Conference: Noumea, New Caledonia, 819-826

Losey G.S., McFarland W.N., Loew E.R., Zanzow J.P., Nelson P.A., Marshall N.J. 2003. Visual biology of Hawaiian coral reef fishes. I. Ocular transmission and visual pigments. Copeia 2003, 433-454

Modarressie R., Rick I.P., Bakker T.C.M. 2006. UV matters in shoaling decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B273, 849-854

Modarressie R., Rick I.P., Bakker T.C.M. 2013. Ultraviolet reflection enhances the risk of predation in a vertebrate. Current Zoology 59, 151-159

Moraga A.D., Wilson A.D.M., Cooke S.J. 2015. Does lure colour influence catch per unit effort, fish capture size and hooking injury in angled largemouth bass? Fisheries Research 172, 1–6

Östlund-Nilsson S., Holmlund M. 2003. The artistic three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 53, 214-220

Palmer M.S., Hankison S.J. 2015. Use of ultraviolet cues in female mate preference in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Acta Ethologica 18, 153–160

Reiss P., Kenneth W. Able K.W., Nunes M.S., Hrbek T. 2012. Color pattern variation in Cichla temensis (Perciformes: Cichlidae): Resolution based on morphological, molecular, and reproductive data. Neotropical Ichthyology 10, 59-70

Rick I. P., Bakker T.C.M. 2008. UV wavelengths make female three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) more attractive for males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62, 439-445

Rick I.P., Bloemker D., Bakker T.C.M. 2012. Spectral composition and visual foraging in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteidae: Gasterosteus aculeatus L.): Elucidating the role of ultraviolet wavelengths. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society105, 359-368

Rick I.P., Modarressie R., Bakker T.C.M. 2004. Male three-spined sticklebacks reflect in ultraviolet light. Behaviour 141, 1531-1541

Siebeck U.E., Marshall N.J. 2001. Ocular media transmission of coral reef fish  can coral reef fish see ultraviolet light? Vision research 41, 133-149

Siebeck U.E. 2014. Communication in the ultraviolet: Unravelling the secret language of fish. In: Biocommunication of animals. Edited by Guenther Witzany, Springer, 299-320

Smith E.J., Partridge J.C., Parsons K.N., White E.M., Cuthill I.C., Bennett A.T.D., Church S.C. 2002. Ultraviolet vision and mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behavioral Ecology 13, 11-19

Tamura T., Niwa H. 1967. Spectral sensitivity and color vision of fish as indicated by S-potential. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 22, 745-754

Vorobyev M., Marshall J., Osorio D., de Ibarra N.H., Menzel R. 2001. Colourful objects through animal eyes. Color Research & Application 26, S214-S217

Zanders respond to alarm pheromone

nickyurchenko — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:31:03 GMT

Already in the 19th century Sabaneev (1960) reported that piscivorous visually guided zanders, Stizostedion lucioperca, which eat only live food can nonetheless be caught on dead fish cut into stripes with the skin and silver scale. Like other visually guided predatory fish, namely pike, Esox lucius, and perch, Perca fluviatilis, zanders never eat decaying fish. According to the modern knowledge, zanders could respond in addition to visual cues to alarm pheromone that released in the water from the injured skin of fish or from dead fish without injuring their skin (Malyukina et al., 1980).

Indeed, dead fish in trolling and other rigs may be used to fish big pike and zander (Sabaneev, 1960).

In the undirect winter experiments carried out in the USA by Wisenden & Thiel (2001), predatory fish active in cold season such as pike, E. lucius, walleye, S. vitreum, largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, and yellow perch, P. flavescens, colud be attracted by the skin extract of fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Cyprinidae).

In the direct field experiments (Dnipro river in Ukraine, in June) described below, we found that S. lucioperca could be attracted by alarm pheromone of roach, Rutilus ruitlus.

Chemical stimulus of one type was prepared by squashing 30 g of roach skin together with the scale in the rough clay mortar and diluted with the 0,3 liter of river water, without further filtration. Chemical stimulus of another type was prepared of 30 g of roach flesh without skin in the foregoing way (according to Malyukina et al., 1980, standard extract of fish skin contains 1g of skin per 1 liter of water).

To compare both chemical stimuli, artificial soft lures made of high quality white foam rubber were used. Lures were in the form of stripes (0,5 x 0,5 x 5,0 cm) attached at one end to the single hooks (VMC live bait hooks #1/0, short shank). For more buoyancy, one white styrofoam olive was dressed similar to sabiki on the line leader in front of each lure.

In the field, two units of the typical feeder rods with reels, main lines, simple sinkers and two line leaders, 30 and 40 cm length, with the attached lures were used. In one rig, lures attached to 30 and 40 cm leaders was soaked with the skin and flesh extracts, respectively, vice versa in another rig.

Lures of both types were compared in the typical zander location with the depth of 2,0- 2,5 m at the distance of 15-20 meters from the shore, with the middle flow. Tests were carried out during two nights from 10⁰⁰of evening until 12⁰⁰of midnight, skin and flesh extracts in rubber bodies of lures were resoaked every thirty minutes.

In total, within two nights 21 bites were obtained. Potential predators, in addition to zander, were large individuals of chub, Leuciscus cephalus, ide, L. idus, and wels catfish, Silurus glanis, all with the nocturnal type of feeding activity. Among potential predators, 9 individuals of zander (from 0,8 to 1,2 kg) were caugh, all for lures soaked with the skin extract (sign test, n = 9, z = 9, p < 0,01). Also, single 3 kg wels was caught for the same lure.

These data show the preference of zanders to alarm pheromone of cyprinid fish. According to Valentinčič (2004), for wild zanders an odor of the fish flech extract must be indifferent.

Basic References

Malyukina G.A., Kasumyan A.O., Marusov E.A. 1980. Significance of olfaction in fish behaviour. Sensory systems: olfaction and gustation, 30-44

Sabaneev L.P. 1960. Life and fishing of freshwater fish. Prepared on the 3rd edition of 1911. Agricultural Literature State Publishing, Ukrainian SSR, Kyiv

Valentinčič T. 2004. Taste and olfactory stimuli and behavior in fishes. The senses of fish: Adaptations for the reception of natural stimuli. 90-108

Wisenden B.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422

Perch and zander: unworking feeding attractants

nickyurchenko — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:26:50 GMT

Perch

Freshwater percid (Percidae) fish can be divided into the two groups depending on type of their activity and sensory equipment. European perch, Perca fluviatilis, American yellow perch, Perca flavescens, and numerous American darters (Etheostoma) demonstrate the day type of activity (first of all of the feeding activity), are visually guided fish and, thus, may be included in the first group.

In laboratory and natural conditions, both perches usually do not eat immobile as well as dead food and demonstrate relatively weak responses to food odors or their absence. According to Mirza et al. (2003), an aqueous brine shrimp (Artemia spp.) extract (5 g of frozen shrimp in 150 ml of distilled water for 1 hour) induces searching movements in P. flavescens. Both perches, however, do not go practically into the minnow traps baited with the animal lures (in contrast to cyprinid, cobitid and other fish).

In aquarium, blinded P. fluviatilis may find the pieces of earthworms using olfactory and gustatory systems (Wunder, 1927). But convergence of perch with brown trout, Salmo trutta, on sensory system utilization is incorrect.

Skin of percid fish contains alarm pheromone that is documented in yellow perch P. flevescens, common ruffe Gymnochephalus cernuus and other species. Releasing in the water, this pheromone induces in small (planktivorous) perch an avoidance behaviour, whereas large (piscivorous) perch display feeding behaviour (Mirza et al., 2003; Harvey & Brown, 2004).

Zander

Another group is formed by percids with the twilight or nocturnal type of feeding activity with the morphologically developed chemosensory and lateral line systems. Three Europen zanders or pikeperches, Stizostedion lucioperca , S. volgensis and estuarine pikeperch S. marinus, both North American zanders, walleye S. vitreus and sauger S. canadensis, all species of Gymnocephalus genus (such as common ruffe G. cernuus, Donets ruffe G. acerina, striped ruffe G. schraetser and other), all species of Zingel genus (such as Z. zingel, Z. streber, Z. balcanicus and other) and sculpin-perch Romanichthys valsanicola (single species of Romanichthys genus) belong to this group. Three last genera are represented in temperate Europe, except common ruffes which occupy mainly boreal areas around the world being active intruders in America.

Underyearling walleyes are mainly visually guided fish with the olfactory system that can detect individual chemicals and artificial food odors (Rottiers & Lemm, 1985). In particular, fish are attracted by amino acids (arginine), betaine, washings from live Daphnia and Artemia but reject many other chemicals (cysteine, glycine, glycine-betaine).

According to Valentinčič (2004), walleyes and some other fish occupy an exclusive niche of visually guided predators with the secondary role of chemosensory system in feeding behaviour. Electrophysiological dara indicate that olfactory system of walleyes is broadly tuned while gustatory system of them is tuned very narrowly. On the other hand, behaviuoral data for wild walleyes show that over 90 % of fish do not use chemical senses to release feeding excitatory state. In addition, walleyes which are not conditioned to eat nonliving foods during their early life do not use olfactory and taste systems to control feeding bahaviour (Valentinčič, 2004).

The olfactory sensitivity of nocturnal percid fish to food odors, if any, is probably low. It is known, for example, that the olfactory sensitivity of ruffe G. cernuus to food odors (extracts of Chronomidae larvae and Tubifex sludgeworms) is about 10^-2 g l^-1 that is much less than the olfactory sensitivity of cyprinid fish (Kasumyan et al., 2003).

Attractants

Thus, there is no scientific evidence to develop feeding attractants (that include food extracts, amino acids and other chemicals) for perch and zander (walleye, sauger), except attractants based on pheromones and other behaviourally significant chemicals.

Meantime, some manufacturers offer attractants for perch and zander:

Super Juice Walleye Scent (Blue Fox Co.)

MegaStrike Fish Attractant, including unworking Pike Formula (MegaStrike Inc.)

Bombix Perche & Zander (Sensas Co.)

PowerBait Attractant Walleye Formula (Pure Fishing Inc.)

Kick’n Bass Walleye Formula (Scientific Bass Products Inc.)

Attractant for Walleye & Sauger (Fizards Co.), and some more.

Some traders (like Jim Fish or Pike-Attack, Germany) recommend original attractants of manufacturers for perch and zander (such as MegaStrike Lockstoff Barsch & Zander).

Feeding attractants do not work, it is unclear whether they (such as Super Juice Walleye Scent) contain an alarm pheromone of preyfish.

Basic References

Harvey M.C., Brown G.E. 2004. Dine or dash?: Ontogenetic shift in the response of yellow perch to conspecific alarm cues. Environmental Biology of Fishes 70, 345-352

Kasumyan A.O., Marusov E.A., Sidorov S.S. 2003. Feeding behavior of the ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus triggered by olfactory and gustatory stimulants. Journal of Ichthyology 43, S247-S254

Mirza R.S., Fisher S.A., Chivers D.P. 2003. Assessment of predation risk by juvenile yellow perch (Perca flavescens): responses to alarm cues from conspecifics and prey guild members. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66, 321–327.

Rottiers D.V., Lemm C.A. 1985. Movement of underyearling walleyes in response to odor and visual cues. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 47, 34-41

Valentinčič T. 2004. Taste and olfactory stimuli and behavior in fishes. The senses of fish: Adaptations for the reception of natural stimuli. 90-108

Wunder W. 1927. Sinnesphysiologische Untersuchungen über die Nahrungsaufnahme bei verschiedenen Knochenfischarten. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie 6, 67-98

Aquatic predators are attracted by alarm pheromones

nickyurchenko — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:22:17 GMT

Northern pike, Esox lucius, are attracted by alarm pheromone of fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, deposited normally in the undamaged fish skin (Mathis et al., 1995; Chivers et al., 1996; undirect data by Wisenden & Thiel, 2001). According to Mathis et al. (1995), pike are also attracted by an artificial hypoxanthin-3(N)-oxyde identified as an active component of the Ostariophysi alarm pheromones.

In addition to pike in the winter experiments (Wisenden & Thiel, 2001), other predatory fish active in cold season such as walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, and yellow perch, Perca flavescens, might be attracted by the skin extract of fathead minnow, P. promelas. Other potential predators in the experimental locality (Wisenden & Thiel, 2001) such as black bullhead catfish, Ameiurus melas, brown bullhead, A. nebulosus, and yellow bullhead, A. natalis, are inactive in the winter season.

It is shown directly that piscivorous (adult) largemouth bass, M. salmoides, are attracted by alarm pheromone of finescale dace, Phoxinus neogaeus (Brown et al., 2001). Likewise, adult yellow perch, P. flavescens, are attracted by conspecific alarm pheromone (Hurvey & Brown, 2004) while juvenile (planktivorous) bass and perch demonstrate anti-predator behaviour to the same cue.

According to Mathis et al. (1995), skin extract of fathead minnow, P. promelas, attracts also 6 species of predaceous diving beetles (Dytiscidae) like Colymbetes sculptilis and more.

Basic References

Brown G.E., LeBlanc V.J., Porter L.E. 2001. Ontogenetic changes in the response of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides, Centrarchidae, Perciformes) to heterospecific alarm pheromones. Ethology 107, 401-414

Chivers D.P., Brown G.E., Smith R.J.F. 1996. The evolution of chemical alarm signals: attracting predators benefits alarm signal senders. The American Naturalist 148, 649-659

Harvey M.C., Brown G.E. 2004. Dine or dash?: Ontogenetic shift in the response of yellow perch to conspecific alarm cues. Environmental Biology of Fishes 70, 345-352

Mathis A., Chivers D.P., Smith R.J.F. 1995. Chemical alarm signals: predator detterents or predator attractants? American Naturalist 145, 994-1005

Wisenden B.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422

Fish ignore sweet baits

nickyurchenko — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:42:01 GMT

According to literature data (Kasumyan & Døving, 2003; Isaeva 2007), sucrosa as gustatory stimulus is indifferent for most of cyprinid (Cyprinidae) fish such as carp, Cyprinus carpio, tench Tinca tinca, bitterling Rhodeus sericeus amarus, lake bleak Leucaspius delineatus, crucian Carassius carassius, goldfish Carassius auratus, chub Leuciscus cephalus, European minnow Phoxinus phoxinus and bream Abramis brama, in the experiments with the agar-agar pellets.

Sucrosa as gustatory stimulus is only positive for roach Rurilus rutilus, grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella as well as for guppy Poecilia reticulata (Poeciliidae) (Kasumyan & Døving, 2003) which eat the most large amount of vegetable food.

In the field experiments described below, we have tested the attractiveness of sucrosa for cyprinid fish.

Moistured unfermented wheat bran with sucrosa (10 %) and without sucrosa were mixed with the pure dry grey clay in proportion 1:1 or 1:2, depending on the clay pastiness. Both mixes were rolled into the balls (3 cm diameter) and dried in air within 12 hours. Then dry balls (that had the same color) were strung on the lines (0,25 mm) ended by the small button like stoppers (15 mm diameter), with marks to distinguish them.

In the field, lines with the two compared balls were tied (25 cm between centers of the balls) to the cross bar placed above the water with the help of two racks. Narrow channels (40-50 cm width) in the shallows between macrophytes (usually water lily, Nuphar lutea, and pondweeds Potamogeton spp.) were selected. Balls went down to the depth of about 5 cm, to attract roach and other top dwelling fish, or about 30 cm, to attract crucian and other bottom dwelling fish.

In the surface tests, mainly juvenile roach, R. rutilus, rudd, Scardinius erythropthalmus, as well as juvenile and adult river bleak, Alburnus alburnus, were attracted. In lentic waters, lake bleak, L. delineatus, occured instead of river bleak. In the bottom tests, mainly juvenile crucian, C. carassius, tench, T. tinca, as well as juvenile and adult bitterling, R. sericeus amarus, (in areas with the sandy bottom) were attracted.

Roach, rudd and bitterling actively ate (in June) green algae.

After immersion into the water, clay balls with sweet and savorless wheat brans were beginning to crumble with bran particles and attract fish. The fish were biting and destroying the balls. So, the first touch of fish to one of the balls and the destruction of the most attractive ball first were used as criteria for statistical estimations.

15 tests of compared balls were carried out within one session. No preferences to sweet or savorless brans were obsereved (sign test), including roach. Both balls were chosen equally often, close to 50:50.

Basic References

Isaeva O.M. 2007. Taste preferences and taste behaviour of cyprinid fish. Moscow Lomonosov State University, Moscow, 1-25

Kasumyan A.O., Døving K.B. 2003. Taste preferences in fishes. Fish and Fisheries 4, 289-347