Fish-habitats

[davedave]

Don't ask me why, but recently i've had a thought-Do you think fish know the exact layout of the lake or pond they live in or do you think they just swim about following the wind/food/cover?

Edited April 17, 2011 by davedave

[Dales]

Don't ask me why, but recently i've had a thought-Do you think fish know the exact layout of the lake or pond they live in or do you think they just swim about following the wind/food/cover?

 

What a great question. But I don't know the answer but I guess they know some or a good part of it as some fish do seem to be homers staying in certain areas for long periods and I do think that some do have patrol paths or even set times when they can be found it certain areas and I do think they know where they are going and how to get there.

[Renrag39]

Now you've got me thinking... It hurts!

 

I would say Yes but with caution. Yes with the more territorial species such as Pike and Carp (and often regarded as more intelligent) and Yes to older specimens of most species (guessing now) albeit unconciously.

Which brings me to River dwellers. Again Yes to the territorial species, which actively protect and patrol a feeding area and, to a lesser degree than in lakes, I would surmise that older specimens of most species (unconciously) know their relative position to areas of safety and feeding areas.

 

I'm only guessing from what limited understanding of fish behaviour I have. Like Dales said, a VERY good question. I'm off googling...

 

Renrag

[Anderoo]

I think in the main, fish know their habitat in precise detail. I don't think there's much in their behaviour that's random.

[Dick Dastardly]

Don't know if this is totally relevant or not but it might be of interest-

 

I used to manage the fishing at an old gravel working that had "three pits" For a period in time these three pits had been all joined (thus making one). They were divided by solid causeways.

 

Over a period of around 15 years I fished all three but this story is about the behaviour of the carp in one of them.They used to have (well a group of them at least) a habit of regularly patrolling the same route (basically the margins of the inaccessible bank (large reed beds) They would be like clock work at certain times of the season they could be seen in the same areas/moving through the same areas at the same time daily.Most mornings at around 11.00 I would try to stalk them from a snaggy area near one of the causeways. They would hang around this area for about 2 hours,by far the longest period of any of the areas they visited/travelled through.I/we had long thought this due to it being a favourite "safe" area despite being next to the causeway (that had the main access road for the complex on it).

 

Years after losing the water I met an angler who had fished the water some 20+ years before me and an old fellow who had worked a drag line at the pit when it/they were still being worked. Both told me of how they remembered the carp could be seen regularly following a route around the lake (back then the causeways were not in place and so the pits one)

 

Going on this and the times they mentioned it became quite apparent that the lake now divided from the lake in question by the causeway had been part of the original patrol route.They would be seen arriving at the point the causeway now blocked them at the same time then as they were now and "leaving" at the same time as they now did! There patrol route/routine hadn't actually altered just that they now hung around the causeway area for the period of time they would have been in the (now) second lake.

 

I hope you understand that?

 

So why? A remembered thing or were they just following/being influenced to move by something else?

[Renrag39]

Why indeed? I get what you're saying exactly. It would appear to be a habit and a learned one as well, passed down through the generations by imitation. It certainly leads me to believe this anyway. The benefit that it is a 'safe area' as you say, would give little reason to break this habit too.

 

Renrag

[Anderoo]

Last season I was bream fishing after dark, and hooked a pike that took a fancy to a bit of fake corn. I got it under the rod tip, and it then bit me off. I tied on a new hooklength and recast to the same spot, about 50 yards into the lake. About 10 minutes later I had another bite and hooked the same pike again, this time landing it and getting my other hook back!

 

So that fish had immediately swum 50 yards back to precisely the same spot, through a myriad of gravel bars and humps.

 

When you catch a shoal fish like a bream and release it, how does it find its shoal mates again? Because it knows exactly where they will be!

 

The fact that we can learn about fish behaviour in general (e.g. what all chub tend to do/like/etc.) and specific to certain waters (e.g. what the chub in river x prefer in terms of flow, etc.) is why we can remove as much of the luck element as possible, and try to remove a little more each time we go.

 

When Terry Hearn is fishing for a particular carp in a big pit, he doesn't just turn up and cast the rods out... he observes the fish he is after, learns its behaviour, finds out what it likes, and then fishes for it.

 

Unfortunately we can't all be Terry Hearn but if we have a good understanding of the topography and features of the water we are fishing, and have some knowledge of the behaviour of the fish we are trying to catch, we're 90% of the way there.

[lozza]

I think fish are defiantly aware of the surroundings and position within the lake or river. I have lost count of the amount I time I have been snagged buy fish that apparently have very poor eye site that bolt for the same snag from 15 feet away in very coloured water they no were the snag is and how to get there. In the more pressured waters that I fish you have to be very precise with your bating and position of you bait to have any chance to catch. The fish have very specific patrol routes and if your bait is out of that route by a foot you may as well be sat at home.

[Steve Walker]

As an undergraduate, for my honours year project, I tried to find out whether sticklebacks could remember the location of food. I had a tank with a plastic seed tray stuck to the bottom and a shallow covering of water. I put a pinch of whiteworm in one of the cells of the tray, introduced the stickleback and timed how long it took to find the food and recorded the coordinates of where it was every few seconds. Some fish had the food in the same place all the time, some had it randomised.

 

Spent days doing this. Hours and hours in a dimly lit basement room, watching sticklebacks.

 

When I collated and analysed the data, I found that sticklebacks with randomised food found it quicker than fixed food. Which was unexpected...

 

When I looked at the data for where the fish spent their time, it was pretty obvious why. Sticklebacks spend a lot of their time attacking their reflection in the glass, so they tend to swim round the edges of the tank. My fixed spot was somewhere near the middle - the randomised spots were much more likely to be near where the fish would pass over.

 

Stupid boy! Poorly designed experiment!

 

What was true was that the average foraging time fell for both groups over the course of the trial, so they definitely became more effective at foraging in that artificial habitat.

 

I'm pretty sure fish have behaviours which lead them to visit good feeding places. Whether they have a cognitive map of their environment, or whether they just behave in a mechanistic way which causes them to be in the right place at the right time, I don't know. I expect it varies with species. I'd expect territorial species to be much more rooted in local geography than patrolling species, and I'd expect fish feeding in the upper layers to be more interested in which way the wind is blowing than on where they actually are, but I'm just guessing.

[Anderoo]

Interesting stuff. I know that in coloured water, river chub definitely know where the snags are, even though they aren't able to see them.