Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 6, 2026

Laboratory Estimation of Net Trophic Transfer Efficiencies of PCB Congeners to Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush from Its Prey
12:24

Laboratory Estimation of Net Trophic Transfer Efficiencies of PCB Congeners to Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush from Its Prey

Published on: August 29, 2014

11.4K

Do goldeneye and perch compete for food?

John McAllister Eadie1, Allen Keast1

  • 1Department of Biology, Queen's University, K7L 3N6, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Oecologia
|March 18, 2017
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

Optimal Foraging00:48

Optimal Foraging

14.1K
How animals obtain and eat their food is called foraging behavior. Foraging can include searching for plants and hunting for prey and depends on the species and environment.
14.1K
Fixed Action Patterns01:06

Fixed Action Patterns

17.9K
A fixed action pattern (FAP) is a specific, hard-wired sequence of behaviors that occurs in response to an external stimulus, called a sign stimulus. The behavior is “fixed” because it is essentially unchangeable—proceeding similarly across individuals of a species every time it occurs.
17.9K
Competition02:34

Competition

25.2K
When organisms require the same limited resources within an environment, they may have to compete for them. Competition is a net-negative interaction. Even if two competing individuals or populations do not interact directly, the overall fitness of both competitors is lowered as a result of not having full access to the limited resource.
25.2K
Predator-Prey Interactions02:39

Predator-Prey Interactions

22.0K
Predators consume prey for energy. Predators that acquire prey and prey that avoid predation both increase their chances of survival and reproduction (i.e., fitness). Routine predator-prey interactions elicit mutual adaptations that improve predator offenses, such as claws, teeth, and speed, as well as prey defenses, including crypsis, aposematism, and mimicry. Thus, predator-prey interactions resemble an evolutionary arms race.
22.0K
Mate Choice01:20

Mate Choice

11.9K
Mate choice—the decision about whom to mate with—is a type of natural selection, since animals must reproduce to pass down their genes. Mate choice is also called intersexual selection because the behavior occurs between the sexes.
11.9K
Osmoregulation in Fishes02:32

Osmoregulation in Fishes

54.1K
When cells are placed in a hypotonic (low-salt) fluid, they can swell and burst. Meanwhile, cells in a hypertonic solution—with a higher salt concentration—can shrivel and die. How do fish cells avoid these gruesome fates in hypotonic freshwater or hypertonic seawater environments?
54.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF ECOLOGICAL NICHES AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE AUSTRALIAN HONEYEATER GENUS MELITHREPTUS (MELIPHAGIDAE).

Evolution; international journal of organic evolution·2017
See all related articles

Goldeneye and perch exhibit high diet overlap, suggesting competition for invertebrate prey. Their reciprocal population densities, even when controlling for habitat, support this interspecific competition hypothesis.

Area of Science:

  • Ecology
  • Aquatic Ecology
  • Behavioral Ecology

Background:

  • Interspecific competition is a key factor shaping aquatic communities.
  • Eriksson's (1979) hypothesis suggests goldeneye and perch compete for invertebrate prey.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To test Eriksson's (1979) hypothesis on goldeneye and perch competition.
  • To investigate the ecological interactions between goldeneye and perch.

Main Methods:

  • Diet analysis of goldeneye and perch stomach contents.
  • Analysis of species co-occurrence and abundance patterns across lakes and plots.
  • Statistical control for habitat structure using partial correlation.

Main Results:

  • High diet overlap (71% prey type, 80% prey size) observed, with Ephemeroptera nymphs and Trichoptera larvae dominating diets.

More Related Videos

A Fish-feeding Laboratory Bioassay to Assess the Antipredatory Activity of Secondary Metabolites from the Tissues of Marine Organisms
16:03

A Fish-feeding Laboratory Bioassay to Assess the Antipredatory Activity of Secondary Metabolites from the Tissues of Marine Organisms

Published on: January 11, 2015

10.1K
A Standardized Protocol for Preference Testing to Assess Fish Welfare
07:29

A Standardized Protocol for Preference Testing to Assess Fish Welfare

Published on: February 22, 2020

7.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 6, 2026

Laboratory Estimation of Net Trophic Transfer Efficiencies of PCB Congeners to Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush from Its Prey
12:24

Laboratory Estimation of Net Trophic Transfer Efficiencies of PCB Congeners to Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush from Its Prey

Published on: August 29, 2014

11.4K
A Fish-feeding Laboratory Bioassay to Assess the Antipredatory Activity of Secondary Metabolites from the Tissues of Marine Organisms
16:03

A Fish-feeding Laboratory Bioassay to Assess the Antipredatory Activity of Secondary Metabolites from the Tissues of Marine Organisms

Published on: January 11, 2015

10.1K
A Standardized Protocol for Preference Testing to Assess Fish Welfare
07:29

A Standardized Protocol for Preference Testing to Assess Fish Welfare

Published on: February 22, 2020

7.5K
  • Inverse relationship between goldeneye and perch abundance, persisting after controlling for habitat.
  • Food resources were limited in some sites, and sites with both species showed greater resource diversity and production.

    • Conclusions:

    • Results support Eriksson's (1979) hypothesis of competition between goldeneye and perch for invertebrate prey.
    • Interspecific interactions between these species may be consistent across large geographic areas.
    • Competition, not just habitat preference, likely influences goldeneye and perch population dynamics.