Saturday, May 19, 2018

Red displacement of spectral sensitivity in freshwater fish

Salt and fresh waters are very different from each other on their optical properties. Optically pure off-shore oceanic water absorbs shiefly red rays and transmits blue rays. Therefore, oceans and open seas have typical blue color (similar to blue sky). Inland seas are more turbid and have bluish colors with the transition to greenish ones. Due to suspended particles fresh waters are much more turbid than in inland seas. In general, turbid fresh water absorbs chiefly blue rays and transmits red rays. Depending on the properties of suspended particles, fresh waters have greenish, yellowish or even brownish (in peat bogs) colors. Only optically pure fresh water in mountain lakes and drawn quarries is blue.



These differences in the optical mediums are reflected in the spectral sensitivity of eyes in saltwater and freshwater fish. Spectral sensitivity is an ability of the eye to perceive monochromatic light of equal power with the different wavelengths. Eyes of saltwater fish, and human, are most sensitive to light with the wavelengths of 550-560 nm (the green-yellow part of the spectrum) (the left curve in the Fig.1). Reflecting optical properties of the freshwater medium, eyes of freshwater fish are more sensitive to light with the wavelengths of 600-680 nm (the red part of the spectrum) (the right curve in the Fig.1). Due to bell like dependence of spectral sensitivity equipower monochromatic light of different wavelengths are not equally bright to the eye. Green light is most bright for human and saltwter fish, red light is most bright for freshwater fish contrary to our perception.

For example, the maximum of spectral sensitivity in freshwater adapted threespined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, is near 605 nm (e.g., Rowe et al., 2004). In common carp, Cyprinus carpio, goldfish, Carassius auratus, and bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus, these maximums lie in the region of 612-615 nm (Cronly-Dillon & Muntz, 1965;  Tamura & Niwa, 1967). Grundfest (1932) gives the same results for other Lepomis. In L. macrochirus, this maximum can be shifted to 620-640 nm (Hawryshyn et al., 1988). The maximum of spectral sensitivity in largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, which are the natural predators for the foregoing Lepomis, is shifted even to 673 nm (Kawamura & Kishimoto, 2002). According to Matsumoto & Kawamura (2005), eyes of common carp and Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, are sensitive to light in the near-infrared part of the spectrum.

In anadromous Far-Eastern redfin, Tribolodon hakonensis, the maximum of spectral sensitivity is shifted from 548 nm, in lake, to 612 nm, in more turbid pond (Kawamura & Kishimoto, 2002).

These features of spectral sensitivity in fish must be taken into consideration in naturalistic, scientific, applied and other research. Color vision of human is closer to that in saltwater fish. On the other  hand, color vision in freshwater fish and other freshwater animals, like tadpoles, is far different than ours.

Basic References

Cronly-Dillon J.R., Muntz W.R.A. 1965. The spectral sensitivity of the goldfish and the clawed toad tadpole under photopic conditions. Journal of Experimental Biollogy 42, 481-493
Grundfest H. 1932. The sensibility of the sun-fish, Lepomtis, to monochromatic radiation of low intensities. Journal of General Physiology 15, 307-328
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
Kawamura G., Kishimoto T. 2002. Color vision, accomodation and visual acuity in the largemouth bass. Fisheries Science 68, 1041-1046
Matsumoto T., Kawamura G. 2005. The eyes of the common carp an Nile tilapia are sensitive to near-infrared. Fisheries Science 71, 350-355
Rowe M.P., Baube C.L., Loew E.R., Phillips J.B. 2004. Optimal mechanisms fo finding and selecting mates: how threespine stickleback (Gaserosteus aculeatus) should incode male throat colors. Journal of Comparative Physiology A190, 241-256
Tamura T., Niwa H. 1967. Spectral sensitivity and color vision of fish as indicated by S-potential. Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology 22, 745-754

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Oral baits: elegant solutions in wobbler design!

General

According to tests and general observations in the nature, pursuits of horizontally moving small objects, float up small objects and sinking small objects are stereotypical motor acts in the feeding behaviour of fish, predatory and omnivorous (Protasov, 1968). The foregoing feeding motor acts together with the typical feeding postures play in fish an important signaling role, both in intraspecific (like dace-dace or bass-bass) and interspecific (like dace-bass) relationships.

Krause & Godin (1996) exposed separately nonforaging, horizontally foraging and nose-down foraging guppies, Poecilia reticulata, to an approaching cichlid fish predator model in an aquarium. Nonforaging guppies responded sooner to and initiated flight further away from the approaching model than foraging fish did collectively. At the same time, horizontally foraging individuals responded sooner to the model than nose-down foraging ones. Comparing all test guppies, nose-down foraging individuals were the most likely not to exhibit any response to the predator model. Individual blue acara cichlids, Aequidens pulcher (6.5 cm), natural predators of guppies, preferred to attack foraging prey over nonforaging ones and nose-down foraging prey over horizontally foraging ones (2.0 cm all). An individual risk of predation for guppies foraging nose-down was greater than for guppies foraging horizontally, and all these fish were at greater risk than nonforaging guppies. This result was consistent with the differences in the guppy's responsiveness to an approaching predation threat depending on their foraging behaviour. It is important in our context that cichlid predators preferentially selected less wary and more vulnerable prey, this must be true for predators of other species (references in Krause & Godin, 1996).

Design

Taking into consideration the foregoing data, we modified commercial lipless wobblers adding to their fore parts an eyelet of some smaller diameter than main eyelets. Then the thread of red, orange, yellow or white colors (ordinary or more visible fluorescent) was tied to this eyelet, or the thin silicone worm was threaded (with equal left and right ends in both cases). Sufficiently long ends of these thread or worm undulated during sinking and vibrations of wobbler, mimicing all together foraging and thus more vulnerable prey.



Special chaplet-like or segmented silicone worms (bloodworms) of various colors must be made.

Field experiments

Orally baited wobblers, or simply oral baits, are much more effective than common unbaited wobblers.

Using spinning technique at the selected fishing locality, 20 presentations were made per ten presentations of orally baited and unbaited wobblers. Then an angler moved to the other fishing locality, where 20 presentations of the compared lures were made in reverse order, and so forth.

More than 75% of predatory fish (perch, bass, pike, zander and other) preferred orally baited wobblers (independent samples, P < 0.01, Student’s t-test). In addition, orally baited wobblers were most effective (60-70% of all strikes) when they were sinking in the nose-down posture (see Krause & Godin, 1996).
  
Basic References

Krause J. Godin J-G.J. 1996. Influence of prey foraging posture on flight behavior and predation risk: predators take advantage of unwary prey. Behavioral Ecology 7, 264-271
Protasov V.R. 1968. Vision and near orientation in fishes. Academy of the USSR. Science Publishing, Moscow, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1970, 177 p.

Friday, May 11, 2018

Coming Together for Consumers Rights

Dear Backers,

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




Our resources:


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:


Thank you! Stop Rapala Fake

Friday, May 4, 2018

Pro-Cure attractant for pike is ineffective. Stop Fake


Please visit: https://curiousanglers.blogspot.com/2018/05/pro-cure-attractant-for-pike-and-musky.html

MegaStrike Fish Attractant for pike is ineffective. Stop Fake


Please visit: https://curiousanglers.blogspot.com/2018/05/megastrike-fish-attractant-for-pike.html

Dr. Juice USA attractant for pike is ineffective. Stop Fake


PLease visit: https://curiousanglers.blogspot.com/2018/05/dr-juice-usa-attractant-for-pike-and.html

Liquid Mayhem attractant for pike is ineffective. Stop Fake


Please visit: https://curiousanglers.blogspot.com/2018/05/liquid-mayhem-attractant-for-pike-and.html

Pro-Cure attractant for pike and musky. Stop Fake

Pro-Cure Co. offers an attractant for pike and musky:

  
According to producer, this attractant “contains chubs, minnows, panfish and perch, plus some secret ingredients”.




However, this attractant is the fake product because pikes (Esocidae) do not respond to feeding odors (Devitsyna & Makyukina, 1977).

Pikes are attracted only by the conspecific sexual pheromones (Devisyna & Makyukina, 1977) as well as by the alarm cues deposited in the skin of cyprinid and some other prey fish (
Wisenden & Thiel, 2001).

Basic References

Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502
WisendenB.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422        

Thursday, May 3, 2018

MegaStrike Fish Attractant for pike. Stop Fake

MegaStrike Fish Attractant is comprised of the proper balance of Amino Acids and Proteins to make the fish strike, hold onto, and consume our product. MegaStrike is scientifically formulated to work in conjuction with the fishs chemo receptors and olfactory glands using the exact combination of the fishs life-yielding provisions.

MegaStrike offers the special pike furmula:















However, this attractant is the fake product because pikes (Esocidae) do not respond to feeding odors (Devisyna & Makyukina, 1977).

Pikes are attracted only by the conspecific sexual pheromones (Devisyna & Makyukina, 1977) as well as by the alarm cues deposited in the skin of cyprinid and some other prey fish (Wisenden & Thiel, 2001).

Basic References

Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502
Wisenden B.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422    

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Dr. Juice USA attractant for pike and musky. Stop Fake

Dr. Juice USA Co. offers an attractant for pike and musky:
























However, this attractant is the fake product due to the following reasons.

On the one hand, it is well known that pikes (Esocidae) do not respond to any feeding odors (Devitsyna & Makyukina, 1977). Nevertheless, Dr. Juice USA informs consumers that the pike and musky attractant contains feeding ingredients.

On the other hand, it is known also that pikes are attracted only by the conspecific reproductive sexual pheromones (Devisyna & Makyukina, 1977) as well as by the alarm cues deposited in the skin of cyprinid and some other prey fish (Wisenden & Thiel, 2001).

In turn, Dr. Juice USA informs consumers that the pike and musky attractant contains Aggressive Sex Pheromones, Fear Pheromones and Schooling Pheromones (in addition to feeding ingredients).

However, this is the pseudoscientific information.

There are not any statistic data obtained with the use of standard biometric methods that any artificial fishing lures enhanced with Dr. Juice USA pike and musky attractant allow to catch more these fish than the same artificial lures without this attractant.

Basic References

Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502
WisendenB.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422        

Liquid Mayhem attractant for pike and musky. Stop Fake

Mayhem Bait Co. offers an attractant for pike and musky:




























However, this attractant is the fake product because pikes (Esocidae) do not respond to feeding odors (Devitsyna & Makyukina, 1977).

Pikes are attracted only by the conspecific sexual pheromones (Devisyna & Makyukina, 1977) as well as by the alarm cues deposited in the skin of cyprinid and some other prey fish (Wisenden & Thiel, 2001).

Basic References

Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502
WisendenB.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422        

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Cormoran: explain how the pike attractant Double Fish works

As typical microsmatic visually guided fish, pike, Esox lucius, and other representatives of Esox genus do not respond to food odors (Devitsyna & Malyukina, 1977).

Pike larvae decrease the frequency of attacks on zooplankton prey and show other anti-predator responses on chemical cues of Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis (Lehtiniemi, 2005; Lehtiniemi et al., 2005). Chemical cues of perch (water from under adult predators, 15 cm length, fed on pike larvae until experiments) affect alone, but chemical and visual cues offered together are more effective.

Among pheromones, pike are respond to the conspecific sexual pheromone (Devitsyna & Malyukina, 1977).

Furthermore, it is shown that pike are attracted by alarm pheromone of fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Mathis et al., 1995; Chivers et al., 1996; indirect data by Wisenden & Thiel, 2001). In addition, pike demonstrate distinct foraging responses to artificial hypoxanthin-3(N)-oxide (Mathis et al., 1995) identified as an active component of ostariophysan fish alarm pheromones.




On this background, Daiwa Cormoran Co., Germany, offers the pike attractant Double Fish.

The exact composition of this attractant is unknown. As feeding attractant (with food extracts, amino acids and related chemicals), it cannot work. Nothing is known whether pheromones are included.

Basic References

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
Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502
Lehtiniemi M. 2005. Swim or hide: predator cues cause species specific reactions in young fish larvae. Journal of Fish Biology 66, 1285–1299
Lehtiniemi M., Engström-Öst J., Viitasalo M. 2005. Turbidity decreases anti-predator behaviour in pike larvae (Esox lucius). Environmental Biology of Fishes 37, 1-8
Mathis A., Chivers D.P., Smith R.J.F. 1995. Chemical alarm signals: predator detterents or predator attractants? The 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        

Lineaeffe: explain how the pike attractant works

As typical microsmatic visually guided fish, pike, Esox lucius, and other representatives of Esox genus do not respond to food odors (Devitsyna & Malyukina, 1977).

Pike larvae decrease the frequency of attacks on zooplankton prey and show other anti-predator responses on chemical cues of Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis (Lehtiniemi, 2005; Lehtiniemi et al., 2005). Chemical cues of perch (water from under adult predators, 15 cm length, fed on pike larvae until experiments) affect alone, but chemical and visual cues offered together are more effective.

Among pheromones, pike are respond to the conspecific sexual pheromone (Devitsyna & Malyukina, 1977).

Furthermore, it is shown that pike are attracted by alarm pheromone of fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Mathis et al., 1995; Chivers et al., 1996; indirect data by Wisenden & Thiel, 2001). In addition, pike demonstrate distinct foraging responses to artificial hypoxanthin-3(N)-oxide (Mathis et al., 1995) identified as an active component of ostariophysan fish alarm pheromones.

On this background, Lineaeffe Co., Italy, offers the pike attractant under the name Attirante Per Pesci # 5883500 (luccio, pike, brochet) in the spray flacones.

The exact composition of this attractant is unknown. As feeding attractant (with food extracts, amino acids and related chemicals), it cannot work. Nothing is known whether pheromones are included.

Basic References

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
Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502
Lehtiniemi M. 2005. Swim or hide: predator cues cause species specific reactions in young fish larvae. Journal of Fish Biology 66, 1285–1299
Lehtiniemi M., Engström-Öst J., Viitasalo M. 2005. Turbidity decreases anti-predator behaviour in pike larvae (Esox lucius). Environmental Biology of Fishes 37, 1-8
Mathis A., Chivers D.P., Smith R.J.F. 1995. Chemical alarm signals: predator detterents or predator attractants? The 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 

Vibrax Hot Pepper: effectiveness of the classic spotted patterns is problematic

Blue Fox company offers spinning lures with lots of spotted blades under the mark Vibrax Hot Pepper.




Other producers of spinning lures use the same or similar design patterns.

For decades, these patterns are considered as classic: the effectiveness of them is taken for granted, not qualified or verified. However, direct comparisons in the field of spinning lures with spotted blades and plain blades do not confirm clearly this banality.

An objective of tests described below was to compare these lures using schooling perch, Perca fluviatilis, in the capacity of test objects.

Spinning lures of two types, Vibrax Hot Pepper #1 with black-yellow ring spots on silver blades (SYB) and silver Vibrax Original without spots (S), were compared in the field.

At each estimated locality of perch, 20 presentations (cast and retrieving) of lures were made: 5 with SYB, 5 with S, 5 with SYB and 5 with S. Then an experimentator moved to the other locality, where 20 presentations of the compared lures were made in the reverse order. In total, 220 lure presentatations per 1 day were made, 43 perch were included in the calculation (see Table, null and equal results for SYB and S lures were canceled).

For comparison, the number of landed perch were group per each 10 lure presentations (180 lure presentations were included in the calculation).


Vibrax Original #1
silver blade without spots
Vibrax Hot Pepper #1
silver blade with black spots
23
13
32
43
12
34
13
21
23

Total number of landed perch
19
Total number of landed perch
24

Mean number
per 10 lure presentations
2,11
Mean number
per 10 lure presentations
2,67

Lures had the same brass cores with slver bells

Perch were released. Some landed and released Northern pike, Esox lucius, were no included in the calculation.

At the first glance, it seems that lures with spotted blades are slightly more effective (on an average, 2,67 perch per 10 lure presentations) than lures with plain blades (2,11 perch). However, an estimation of mean difference with the assistance of Student’s t-test does not confirm this hypothesis (n1 = 9, n2 = 9, k =16, tfact < tstandard): perch show preference for neither of lures.

The same results were obtained within several sessions. However, in some other sessions, perch displayed the preference for lures with spotted blades (Student’s t-test, p <0.05).

There are at least two ways to explain these ambiguous results.

Looking in the water at the lure with black-yellow ring spots on the silver background, you will see with increasing the velocity of its movement and, in turn, the velocity of blade rotation the following picture. First you will see flashing black (eyellowish) spots, then the spots will merge into the dark circles, then the dark circles will merge into the colorless (semi)transparent aureole.

For example, click here to see how Mepps spinners move (at the constant velocity) in the water.

According to the laboratory experiments (Gehres & Neumeyer, 2007; Stojcev et al., 2011), fish (goldfish, Carassius auratus) see as colored only slow-moving (2-4 cm per second) red and blue discs.

The so called critical frequency of flash fusion (CFFF) in Northern pike, E. lucius, (28 flashes per second) and human (18-24 flashes per second) are sufficiently close (Protasov, 1978). In adult roach, Rutilus rutilus, CFFF is essentially less (16 flashes per second) (Sbikin, 1980). According to the same author, in perch, P. fluviatilis, CFFF is higher (33 flashes per second). It means (reviwed by Protasov, 1978; Sbikin 1980) that prech are able to discriminate flashing of visual objects at the higher velocity than human, pike, E. lucius, roach, R. rutilus, and other fish.

In our case, perch can see the spots as flashing objects or objects fused together (into circles or an aureole), because the velocity of lure retrieving is not fixed in practice.

Note also that perch are chiefly overtake-and-catch predators (like yellow perch, P. flavescens: Nursall, 1973). Perch that pursue the lures cannot see any details in their front coloration. In our case, the number of these perch is unknown.

Basic References

Gehres M.M., Neumeyer C. 2007. Small field motion detection in goldfish is red-green color blind and mediated by the M-cone type. Visual Neuroscience 24, 399-407
Nursall J.R. 1973. Some behavioral interections between spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and Northern pike (Esox lucius). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30, 1161-1178
Protasov V.R. 1978. Fish behaviour. Mechanisms of fish orientation and their use in fishing. Food Industry, Moscow
Sbikin Y.N. 1980. Age changes in vision of fish in connects with the peculiarites of their behaviour. Nauka, Moscow
Stojcev M., Radtke N., D'Amaro D., Dyer A.G., Neumeyer C. 2011. General principles in motion vision: Color blindness of object motion depends on pattern velocity in honeybee and goldfish. Visual Neuroscience 28, 361-370

International Society for Applied Ethology. Canada 2018

International Society for Applied Ethology. Canada 2018


EuroScience Open Forum

ESOF (EuroScience Open Forum) is the largest interdisciplinary science meeting in Europe.


Behavioral Biology: Proximate and Ultimate Causes of Behavior

Behavioral Biology: Proximate and Ultimate Causes of Behavior