Effect of reward level on individual variability in demand feeding activity and growth rate in Arctic charr and rainbow trout

• Published in: Journal of Fish Biology
• Main Authors: Brännäs, E., Alanärä, A.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 1994
• Subjects: Arctic; Arctic charr
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1994.tb01325.x; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1095-8649.1994.tb01325.x; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1994.tb01325.x

Groups of Arctic charr and rainbow trout were fed by using demand feeders and their individual trigger actuations registered with a PIT‐tag (Passive Integrated Transponder) system. Food was supplied at two reward levels, low and high, to five replicate groups of each species for 21 to 27 days. The reward level was defined as the amount of food obtained in response to a single trigger actuation. The effects of reward level on individual demand feeding activity and growth rale were assessed. As a result of high demand feeding activity, the daily food rations for trout were in excess of their needs at both reward levels. This can be ascribed to the fact that they compensated a low reward level by increasing their bite activity. In contrast, demand feeding activity in charr did not differ significantly between reward levels. Instead, resulting food rations were limiting and excessive, at low and high reward levels, respectively. The variation in bite activity between individuals (measured as their proportional contribution to the total number of trigger actuations within a group) for charr was significantly higher in the low‐reward treatment than in the high‐reward level. For trout, the variation in bite activity did not differ significantly between treatments. Differences in response to reward level are suggested to be due to the fact that the social hierarchy is weaker in trout than in charr; i.e. the differences in bite activity between dominant and non‐dominant individuals are smaller in trout. At both reward levels, the benefit of being dominant, measured in terms of growth rate was significant for charr but non‐significant for trout.