Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:56:20.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Goldfish in a tank: the effect of substrate on foraging behaviour in aquarium fish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Smith  and
H Gray
A Smith*
Affiliation:
Animal and Environmental Research Group, Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
H Gray
Affiliation:
Animal and Environmental Research Group, Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The welfare of captive animals is influenced by their ability to express natural behaviours. Foraging is one behaviour that may be particularly important in this respect; many species will continue to work for food even when it is freely available. The role of substrate, and in particular particle size, on the foraging behaviour of goldfish (Carassius auratus) was examined through three repeated measures experiments. In the first, tanks were set up with five uniform substrates: plastic grid, coarse sand, fine gravel, pebbles, and cobbles. In the second, fish were provided with a choice between coarse sand and fine gravel, fine gravel and pebbles, and pebbles and cobbles. In the third, they were provided with two choices between coarse sand and cobbles, one where the sand contained more food and one where the cobbles did. Our results show that particle size significantly affected the amount of time goldfish spent foraging, and that goldfish exhibited foraging behaviour even in the absence of a substrate they can manipulate. Goldfish foraged longest when provided with coarse sand. Fish foraged significantly longer over smaller particle size substrates when given a choice, although they did not distinguish between the two finest substrates, coarse sand and gravel. Increases in total time spent foraging were achieved through more, rather than longer, bouts. Food density did not significantly alter preference for smaller particle substrates. In general, coarse sand (1.5 mm) was found to be the most appropriate substrate in terms of facilitating natural foraging behaviours. These findings are discussed with respect to the welfare and husbandry of goldfish and aquarium fish in general.

Keywords

animal welfareaquarium fishforaginggoldfishhusbandrysubstrate
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 311 - 319
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Algers, B, Blokhuis, HJ, Bøtner, A, Broom, DM, Costa, P, Domingo, M, Greiner, M, Hartung, J, Koenen, F, Müller-Graf, C, Morton, DB, Osterhaus, A, Pfeiffer, DU, Raj, M, Roberts, R, Sanaa, M, Salman, M, Sharp, JM, Vannier, P and Wierup, M 2009 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from European Commission on eneral approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. The EFSA Journal 954: 1–26Google Scholar
Anthouard, M, Kentourii, M and Divanach, P 1994 Les responses a la presentation de differentes tailles de nourriture obtenues chez le bar (Dicentrarchus labrax) nouvellement soumis a un nourrisage auto-controle, au cours de la periode automnale. Ichthyophysiology Acta 17: 41–62. [Title translation: Response of European sea bass to different food sizes following introduction of an auto-controlled feeding regime, through the autumn]Google Scholar
Appleby, MC and Lawrence, AB 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–110Google Scholar
Arnold, CE and Estep, DQ 1994 Laboratory caging preferences in golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Laboratory Animals 28: 232–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, KC 1997 Straw and forage material ameliorate abnormal behaviours in adult chimpanzees. Zoo Biology 16: 225–2363.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bashaw, MJ, Tarou, LR, Maki, TS and Maple, TL 2001 A survey assessment of variables related to stereotypy in captive giraffe and okapi. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 235–247CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D and Maechler, M 2009 lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes. R Package Version 0.999375-32. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Google Scholar
Baumans, V 2005 Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents and rabbits: requirements of rodents, rabbits, and research. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 46: 162–170Google ScholarPubMed
Beattie, VE and O’Connell, NE 2002 Relationship between rooting behaviour and foraging in growing pigs. Animal Welfare 11: 295–303Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1998 Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27–34Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ and Arkes, JG 1984 Some observations on the development of feather-pecking in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breland, K and Breland, M 1961 The misbehaviour of organisms. American Journal of Psychology 16: 681–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 2007 Cognitive ability and sentience: which aquatic animals should be protected? Diseases of aquatic organisms 75: 99–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, C and Laland, K 2002 Social enhancement and social inhibition of foraging behaviour in hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 61: 987–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, C, Laland, K and Krause, J 2003 Learning in fishes: why they are smarter than you think. Fish and Fisheries 4: 197–288Google Scholar
Brydges, NM and Braithwaite, VA 2008 Measuring animal welfare: what can cognition contribute? Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences 10: 91–103Google Scholar
Chamove, AS, Anderson, JR, Morgan-Jones, SC and Jones, SP 1982 Deep woodchip litter: hygiene, feeding, and behavioural enhancement in eight primate species. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 3: 308–318Google Scholar
Chen, I-S and Fang, L-S 1999 The Freshwater and Estuarine Fishes of Taiwan. National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium: Pingtung, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ 2007 The R Book. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichister, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocket, CM 1998 Psychological well-being of captive nonhuman primates: lessons from laboratory studies. In: Shepherdson, DJ, Mellen, JD and Hutchins, M (eds) Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals pp 83–96. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal behaviour Science 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1998 Evolution and animal welfare. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 305–328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 2004 Using behaviour to assess welfare. Animal Welfare 13: S3–S7Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, Ekkel, ED, van de Burgwal, JA, Lambooij, E, Korte, SM, Ruis, MAW, Koolhaas, JM, and Blokhuis, HJ 1998 Effects of straw bedding on physiological responses to stressors and behavior in growing pigs. Physiology and Behavior 64: 303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, JA and Ekkel, ED 2004 Effects of feeding level and the presence of a foraging substrate on the behaviour and stress physiological response of individually housed gilts. Applied Animal behaviour Science 86: 15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellmeier, GR 1989 Motivation in relation to the welfare of enclosed livestock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellmeier, GR, Friend, TH and Gbur, EE 1985 Comparison of four methods of calf confinement II Behaviour. Journal Animal Science 60: 1102–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAWC 1993 Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development In Farm Animal Welfare. Farm Animal Welfare Council, MAFF: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Ferber, I and Lawrence, JM 1976 Distribution, substratum preference and burrowing behaviour of Lovenia elongate (Gray) (Echinoidea: Spatangoida) in the Gulf of Elat (‘Aqaba), Red Sea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 22: 207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Phillips, PA, Thompson, BK and Tennessen, T 1991 Effect of straw on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galhardo, L, Correia, J and Oliveira, RF 2008 The effect of substrate availability on behavioural and physiological indicators of welfare in the African cichlid (Oreochromis mossambicus). Animal Welfare 17: 239–254Google Scholar
Gonyou, HW 1994 Why the study of animal behaviour is associated with the animal welfare issue. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2171–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkle-Conn, C, Fleeger, JW, Gregg, JC and Carman, KR 1998 Effects of sediment-bound aromatic hydrocarbons on feeding behaviour in juvenile spot (Leiostomus xanthurus Lacépède: Pisces). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 227: 113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJH 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’ models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntingford, FA 2004 Implications of domestication and rearing conditions for the behaviour of cultivated fish. Journal of Fish Biology 65(A): 122–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntingford, FA, Adams, C, Braithwaite, VA, Kadri, S, Pottinger, TG, Sandøe, P and Turnbull, JF 2006 Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 332–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwama, GK 2007 The welfare of fish. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 155–158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P 1993 Nest building in domestic sows: the role of external stimuli. Animal Behaviour 45: 351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastelein, RA and Wiepkema, PR 1989 A digging trough as occupational therapy for Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in human care. Aquatic Mammals 15: 9–17Google Scholar
Komiyama, T, Kobayashi, H, Tateno, Y, Inoko, H, Gojobori, T and Ikeo, K 2009 An evolutionary origin and selection process of goldfish. Gene 430: 5–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreger, MD, Hutchins, M and Fascione, N 1998 Context, ethics, and environmental enrichment in zoos and aquariums. In: Shepherdson, DJ, Mellen, JD and Hutchins, M (eds) Second Nature, Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals pp 59–82. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Krohn, TC, Hansen, AK and Dragsted, N 2003 Telemetry as a method for measuring the impact of housing conditions on rats’ welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 53–62Google Scholar
Lester, NP 1984 The ‘feed-feed’ decision: how goldfish solve the patch depletion problem. Behaviour 89: 175–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V, Mejdell, CM, Röcklinsberg, H, Anthony, R and Håstein, T 2007 Expanding the moral circle: farmed fish as objects of moral concern. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 109–118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luz, RK, Martínez-Álvarez, RM, De Pedro, N and Delgado, MJ 2008 Growth, food intake regulation and metabolic adaptations in goldfish (Carassius auratus) exposed to different salinities. Aquaculture 276: 171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, AE 1984 Gregarious goldfish: a solitary life in a goldfish bowl is an unnatural state of affairs for these complicated social creatures. New Scientist 9: 32–33Google Scholar
Mason, GJ 1993 Forms of stereotypic behaviour. In: Lawrence, AB and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare pp 7–40. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Nel, R, McLachlan, A and Winter, DPE 1999 The effect of sand particle size on the burrowing ability of the beach mysid Gastrosaccus psammodytes Tattersall. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 48: 599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nel, R, McLachlan, A and Winter, DPE 2001 The effect of grain size on the burrowing of two Donax species. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 265: 219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuringer, AJ 1969 Animals respond for food in the presence of free food. Science 166: 399–401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ 1995 The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association 2011 Annual Report. Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Pitcher, TJ and Magurran, AE 1983 Shoal size, patch profitability and information exchange in foraging goldfish. Animal Behaviour 31: 546–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team 2009 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Rose, JD 2007 Anthropomorphism and ‘mental welfare’ of fishes. Disease of Aquatic Organisms 75: 139–154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez-Vásquez, FJ, Yamamoto, T, Akiyama, T, Madrid, JA and Tabata, M 1998 Selection of macronutrients by goldfish operating self-feeders. Physiology and Behavior 65: 211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, GS, Vestergaard, KS, Agger, JF and Lawson, LG 1995 The relative preference for feathers, straw, wood-shavings and sand for dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherdson, DJ, Mellen, JD and Hutchins, M 1998 Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, DB, Ottesen, JL and Hansen, AK 2004 Consequences of enhancing environmental complexity for laboratory rodents: a review with emphasis on the rat. Animal Welfare 13: 193–204Google Scholar
Sørensen, DB, Ottesen, JL and Hansen, AK 2004 Consequences of enhancing environmental complexity for laboratory rodents: a review with emphasis on the rat. Animal Welfare 13: 193–204Google Scholar
Stenberg, M and Persson, A 2005 The effects of spatial food distribution and group size on foraging behaviour in a benthic fish. Behavioural processes 70: 41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1984 The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales de Recherché Veterinaries 15: 287–299Google ScholarPubMed
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, DGM 1989 The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48: 419–425Google Scholar
Swaisgood, RR, White, AM, Zhou, XP, Zhang, HM, Zhang, GQ, Wei, RP, Hare, VJ, Tepper, EM and Lindburg, DG 2001 A quantitative assessment of the efficacy of an environmental enrichment programme for giant pandas. Animal Behaviour 61: 447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczerbowski, JA 2002 Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758). In: Bănărescu PM and Paepke H-J (eds) The Freshwater Fishes of Europe, Cyprinidae 2, Part III pp 5–41. AULA-Verlag: Wiebelsheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Vasil'eva, ED and Vasil'ev, VP 2000 The origin and taxonomic status of the triploid form of the goldfish, Carassius auratus (Cyprinidae). Journal of Ichthyology 40: 553–563Google Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, van den Broek, FAR and Baumans, F 1996 Preference for different types of flooring in two rat strains. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volpato, GL, Gonçalves-de-Freitas, E and Fernandes-de-Castilho, M 2007 Insights into the concept of fish welfare. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 165–171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, E and König, B 2004 Refinement of gerbil housing and husbandry in the laboratory. Animal Welfare 13: 229–235Google Scholar
Warburton, K 1990 The use of local landmarks by foraging goldfish. Animal behaviour 40: 500–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2001 Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal 161: 229–2378CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, MC and Barbeau, MA 2003 Effects of substrate on interactions between juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus Gmelin) and predatory sea stars (Asterias vulgaris Verrill) and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus Say). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 287: 155–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar