As reported in the previous posts, common perch, Perca fluviatilis, do not respond to sounds of the rattling wobblers and glass rattles. In this post, we will show that common zander, Stizostedion lucioperca, ignore sounds of the Ringing Bell System used (or has been used) in the Mepps spinners.

Zander are selected for experiments because these fish, like perch, have the well developed acoustically guided behaviour (Protasov, 1965).

The Mepps Ringing Bell brass system consists of an internal core and an external bell-shaped weight. This system has been mainly used in the Mepps Comet spinners (now these lures are absent in the catalogs) instead of typical cylindrical weights. Mepps Co. writes that sounds produced by the rotating blade and ringing bell attract… "the most hesitant fish”.

According to our field experiments, this marketing course is incorrect.

In these experiments, ringing and ringless 7 gr Mepps Comet Booster spinners of silver color were compared with each other. One half of lures, marked CBR, were intact. In the other half of lures, marked CBL, internal cores and external bells were glued with the waterproof adhesive.

Lures were tested (near the village Nedanchychi, the middle part of Dniepro river, in June) in the shallows, where zander preyed on small fish  (mainly river bleak, Alburnus alburnus) from the evening twilight to deep night.

Figure 1. Juvenile zander, Stizostedion lucioperca

At each estimated locality of zander, 12 presentations (cast and retrieving) of lures were made: 3 with CBR, 3 with CBL, 3 with CBR and 3 with CBL. After the 10-15 min rest, this procedure was repeated in the reverse order. In total, 27 zander were landed for three nights: 12 on CBR and 15 on CBL lures. To estimate mean differences for field data, fish were group per each 6 lure (for CBR and CBL) presentations. In final, zander, according to Student’s t-test, showed no reliable preference in favor of ringing (CBR) or ringless (CBL) Mepps Comet Booster spinners.

Because zander, like other fish, accustom to the repeatedly presenting artificial lures (stimuli) along with the decreasing of their attractiveness (Lescheva & Zhuykov, 1989), three different localities of zander have been used.

There are several reasons that allow to explain why zander ignore sounds of the Meeps Ringing Bell System. For more information, please see the posts mentioned above.

... Read more »

As reported in the previous post, common perch, Perca fluviatilis, do not respond to sounds of the rattling wobblers. In this post, we will show that perch ignore also sounds of the glass rattles mounted in the soft plastic lures.

Predatory fish do not respond to sounds of rattling wobblers

In these field experiments, noisy and quiet 5 cm Bobby Garland Baby Shads, Cajin Cricket color (Fig.1), were compared. One half of lures, marked BSN, were equipped with the eye-like double flanged glass rattles. They were made of glass tubes of 3 mm diameter, with 1 steel ball (like products of Rattle Arsenal Co.). In the other half of lures, marked BSQ, balls in the rattles were made of the silent graphite. Both flanges of the rattle, mounted perpendicularly into the Bobby Garland Baby Shads’ body, looked like the real eyes.

Figure 1. Bobby Garland Baby Shad (shown without an inserted eye-like glass rattle)

For lure presentations, typical drop shot rigs, with the 30 cm distance from lures to 10 gr standard bell like lead sinkers, were used. The two rigs fell into the two holes (10 cm diameter) drilled (at the distance of 20 cm between holes’ centers) in the ice. The depth at the fishing localities (the region of Kyiv, Dniepro river) was about 3-5 m, usually with weak underwater flows. Sinkers fell to the bottom, then lures were alternately jolted by an ice rod tip: 2 jolts per sec with an amplitude of 1-2 cm. Jolting (without lifting the sinkers) lasted 10 sec for one lure then 10 sec for the other lure, with some minute rest between one minute alternate joggles.

In the tests, perch ignored unactive lures choosing noisy or quiet jolted lures. Therefore, we used the sign test for statistical processing of the field findings. In total, 31 perch were iced during 1 day: 17 on BSN and 14 on BSQ. According to the sign test, these differences are statistically unreliable. In other words, perch ignored sounds of the glass rattles mounted in the soft plastic lures.

The same results, that is the absence of preference, have been obtained in the other 3 sessions with the foregoing lures (but with the two new colors: Pearl & White as well as Crystal) carried out in similar fishing conditions. Importantly, acoustic noises under the ice are much less than in the summer (due to the absence of waves, rain and acoustic activity of many animals: Protasov, 1965).

There are several reasons why perch ignore sounds of the glass rattles. For more information, please see the post mentioned above.

Basic References

Protasov V.R. 1965. The bioacoustics of fishes. Moscow, Science