Version: B | 1.1 (2022-01-22)
Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.
Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.
Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential
FishEthoScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)
The production of Perca fluviatilis has emerged over the past decades while important biological processes of the species are not known yet. The low FishEthoScore is mainly due to this big gap of knowledge in several characteristics, such as the dependence on fish in the diet, home and depth needs and needs of substrate. Tanks or raceways will most probably not fulfill space needs in intensive conditions. Further research is needed on both natural behaviour and physiological effects of farming practices in order to provide recommendations for improving fish welfare.
1 Home range
Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to. What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
Eggs and larvae: Pelagic 1: Inhabit the water column, independent of bottom and shore. Further research needed on home range. Incubation containers in ponds: 100-4000 L 2; cages for floating eggs: 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 m 3; intensive conditions: 300 L to several m3 dependent on the farming conditions 3.
Juveniles, adults: Pelagic 4 5 6: Inhabit the water column, independent of bottom and shore; site fidelity 7. Further research needed on home range. Extensive conditions: Ponds: 0.1-0.8 hectares 3. Semi-intensive conditions done on a pilot scale: Tanks: ca 3 x 3 x 0.5 m 3.
Adults: no data found yet on home range within the spawning season. Spawning tanks: 1.6 m3 8.
2 Depth range
Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range. What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
Eggs and larvae: Usually 0-2 m 9 10; diel vertical shifting (deeper by night and dawn) 11. Extensive conditions: Ponds: 1.5 m 3. Semi-intensive conditions done on a pilot scale: Tanks: 50 cm 3. Further research needed on depth under intensive farming conditions.
Juveniles, adults: Caught at 0.5-12 m 12 13 9 14 15 16; seasonal vertical shifting into deeper water 17 7 11. Extensive conditions: Ponds: 1.5 m 3. Semi-intensive conditions done on a pilot scale: Tanks: 50 cm 3. Further research needed on depth under intensive farming conditions.
Adults: Caught at 0.5-12 m within spawning season 13 15. No data found yet on depth of spawning culture conditions.
Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.) and with them, environmental parameters (photoperiod, temperature, salinity) may change, too. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals. What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of theses circumstances?It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.
Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.
Eggs and larvae: live in shoals 22. Further research needed to determine extension of shoals in the wild. Extensive conditions: 10,000-60,000 eyed eggs/100 m2 3. Semi-intensive conditions: 500-4,000 eggs/100 m2 3. Intensive conditions: Tanks: Usually 20-50 larvae/L 3.
Juveniles, adults: live in schools 23 13 24 and shoals 25 26 27 28. Further research needed to determine extension of shoals and schools in the wild.
Juveniles: extensive conditions: Ponds: 1,000-5,000 juveniles of 0.5-1.5 g each in 100 m2 3. Semi-intensive conditions: Tanks: 500-4,000 individuals/100 m2 3. Intensive conditions: Tanks: 1.6-3 kg/m3 29.
Adults: live in schools within spawning season 13. Further research needed to determine extension of schools in the wild. Spawning tanks: Up to 20 kg/m3 8.
There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents. What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.
Larvae: In the wild, no aggressive interactions 22, cannibalistic incidences 30.
Juveniles, adults: In the wild, cannibalistic incidences 23 30 9 31 32 33. In the lab, aggressive in groups of 3 34 and 4 35, consistent personality traits (bold/shy) 27 36.
Juveniles: In the lab, no food competition in groups of 4 37.
Adults: no data found yet on aggression behaviour in the wild within the spawning season. In the lab, no aggression recorded during courtship 38.
For all age classes, no data found yet on aggression behaviour under farming conditions.
Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud). What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
Eggs: attached to substrate 13 39 15 21. Larvae: Pelagic 1: Independent of bottom substrate. No data found yet on behaviour under farming conditions.
Juveniles: usually found on rocky and plants beds 30 9 34 40. No data found yet on behaviour under farming conditions.
Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading). What is the probability of the species not being stressed?It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed. What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?There are unclear findings for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.
Eggs and larvae: initially rearing in ponds and feeding natural food before transferring to tanks reduces frequency of skeletal and other deformities compared to sole tank culture 3.
Juveniles and adults: initially rearing in ponds and feeding natural food before transferring to tanks reduces frequency of skeletal and other deformities compared to sole tank culture 3.
Adults: no data found yet on frequency of malformations under farming conditions.
For all age classes, no data found yet on frequency of malformations in the wild.
The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress. What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.
Side note: Domestication
Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place. What is the species’ domestication level?
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 49 50, level 5 being fully domesticated. Cultured since 1950 51.
Side note: Forage fish in the feed
450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity. To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?
Larvae: no data found yet on feed in the wild.
Juveniles: carnivorous and piscivorous, mainly zooplankton as juveniles, increasing proportion of fish with increasing age 30 9 15 33.
Adults: carnivorous and piscivorous 30 9 15 33.
For all age classes, no data found yet on replacement of fish meal and fish oil.
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
2 Policar, Tomas, Damien Toner, S.M.H. Alavi, and Ottomar Linhart. 2008. Reproduction and Spawning. In Farming of Eurasian Perch, ed. Damien Toner and Carole Rougeot, 1-Juvenile Production:22–29. Aquaculture Explained 24. Dublin: Aquaculture Development Division, Bord Iascaigh.
3 Kestemont, Patrick, Carole Rougeot, Jiri Musil, and Damien Toner. 2008. Larval and Juvenile Production. In Farming of Eurasian Perch, ed. Damien Toner and Carole Rougeot, 1-Juvenile Production:30–41. Aquaculture Explained 24. Dublin: Aquaculture Development Division, Bord Iascaigh.
4 Eklöv, P. 1997. Effects of habitat complexity and prey abundance on the spatial and temporal distributions of perch (Perca fluviatilis) and pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1520–1531. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-54-7-1520.
5 Linløkken, Arne, Eva Bergman, Larry Greenberg, and Per Arne Holt Seeland. 2008. Environmental correlates of population variables of perch (Perca fluviatilis) in boreal lakes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 82: 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-007-9301-y.
6 Francová, Kateřina, and Markéta Ondračková. 2014. Effect of habitat conditions on parasite infection in 0+ juvenile perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) in two Czech reservoirs. Hydrobiologia 721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1644-0.
7 Craig, J. F. 1974. Population dynamics of perch, Perca fluviatilis L. in Slapton Ley, Devon. I. Trapping behaviour, reproduction, migration, population estimates, mortality and food. Freshwater Biology 4: 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1974.tb00106.x.
8 Fontaine, Pascal, Patrick Kestemont, and Charles Mélard. 2008. Broodstock Management. In Farming of Eurasian Perch, ed. Damien Toner and Carole Rougeot, 1-Juvenile Production:16–21. Aquaculture Explained 24. Dublin: Aquaculture Development Division, Bord Iascaigh.
9 Persson, Lennart, Pär Byström, and Eva Wahlström. 2000. Cannibalism and Competition in Eurasian Perch: Population Dynamics of an Ontogenetic Omnivore. Ecology 81: 1058–1071. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1058:CACIEP]2.0.CO;2.
10 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2017. Perca fluviatilis summary page. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org.
11 Kratochvil, M., J. Peterka, J. Kubecka, J. Matena, M. Vasek, I. Vanickova, M. Cech, and Jaromir Seda. 2008. Diet of larvae and juvenile perch, Perca fluviatilis performing diel vertical migrations in a deep reservoir. Folia Zoologica 57: 313–323.
12 Craig, John F. 1977. Seasonal changes in the day and night activity of adult perch, Perca fluviatilis L. Journal of Fish Biology 11: 161–166.
13 Jellyman, D. J. 1980. Age, growth, and reproduction of perch, Perca fluviatilis L., in Lake Pounui. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 14: 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1980.9515881.
14 Ferter, Keno, and Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow. 2010. Turning Night into Day: Effects of Stress on the Self-Feeding Behaviour of the Eurasian Perch Perca fluviatilis. Zoological Studies 49: 176–181.
15 Ceccuzzi, Pietro, Genciana Terova, Fabio Brambilla, Micaela Antonini, and Marco Saroglia. 2011. Growth, diet, and reproduction of Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis L. in Lake Varese, northwestern Italy. Fisheries Science 77: 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-011-0353-8.
16 Petrtýl, Miloslav, Lukáš Kalous, Jaroslava Frouzová, and Martin Čech. 2015. Effects of habitat type on short- and long-term growth parameters of the European perch (Perca fluviatilis L.): Size distribution and RNA/DNA ratio of European perch fry. International Review of Hydrobiology 100: 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.201301675.
17 Allen, K. R. 1935. The Food and Migration of the Perch (Perca fluviatilis) in Windermere. Journal of Animal Ecology 4: 264–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/1016.
18 Järv, L. 2000. Perch Perca fluviatilis L. in Estonian coastal waters. Science Biology Ecology 49. Proc. Estonian Acad.: 270–276.
19 Gerlach, Gabriele, Uwe Schardt, Reiner Eckmann, and Axel Meyer. 2001. Kin-structured subpopulations in Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis L.). Heredity 86: 213–221.
20 Voskoboinikova, O. S., and I. G. Grechanov. 2002. Development of the Skeleton during the Ontogenesis of the River Perch Perca fluviatilis. Journal of Ichthyology 42: 322–333.
21 Čech, Martin, Lukáš Vejřík, Jiří Peterka, Milan Říha, Milan Muška, Tomáš Jůza, Vladislav Draštík, Michal Kratochvíl, and Jan Kubečka. 2012. The use of artificial spawning substrates in order to understand the factors influencing the spawning site selection, depth of egg strands deposition and hatching time of perch (Perca fluviatilis L.). J. Limnol. 71: 18. https://doi.org/10.4081/jlimnol.2012.e18.
22 Behrmann-Godel, Jasminca, Gabriele Gerlach, and Reiner Eckmann. 2006. Kin and Population Recognition in Sympatric Lake Constance Perch (Perca fluviatilis L.): Can Assortative Shoaling Drive Population Divergence? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59: 461–468.
23 Thorpe, J. E. 1977. Morphology, Physiology, Behavior, and Ecology of Perca fluviatilis L. and P. flavescens Mitchill. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34: 1504–1514. https://doi.org/10.1139/f77-215.
24 Guillard, Jean, Patrice Brehmer, Michel Colon, and Yvon Guennégan. 2006. Three dimensional characteristics of young–of–year pelagic fish schools in lake. Aquatic Living Resources 19: 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:2006011.
25 Čech, M., M. Kratochvíl, J. Kubečka, V. Draštík, and J. Matěna. 2005. Diel vertical migrations of bathypelagic perch fry. Journal of Fish Biology 66: 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2005.00630.x.
26 Čech, M., J. Kubečka, J. Frouzová, V. Draštík, M. Kratochvíl, J. Matěna, and J. Hejzlar. 2007. Distribution of the bathypelagic perch fry layer along the longitudinal profile of two large canyon-shaped reservoirs. Journal of Fish Biology 70: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01282.x.
27 Magnhagen, Carin, and Nils Bunnefeld. 2009. Express your personality or go along with the group: what determines the behaviour of shoaling perch? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 276: 3369–3375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0851.
28 Probst, Wolfgang Nikolaus, Gregor Thomas, and Reiner Eckmann. 2009. Hydroacoustic observations of surface shoaling behaviour of young-of-the-year perch Perca fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) with a towed upward-facing transducer. Fisheries Research 96: 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.10.009.
29 Overton, JL, and H Paulsen. 2005. Ongrowing of Perch (Perca fluviatilis) Juveniles (Videreopdræt af aborreyngel). No. 151-05. Danmarks Fiskeriundersøgelser, Afdeling for Havøkologi og Akvakultur, Bornholms Lakseklækkeri.
30 Rask, Martti. 1983. Differences in growth of perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) in two small forest lakes. Hydrobiologia 101: 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00008666.
31 Magnhagen, C., and E. Heibo. 2004. Growth in length and in body depth in young-of-the-year perch with different predation risk. Journal of Fish Biology 64: 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2004.00325.x.
32 Magnhagen, Carin, and Jost Borcherding. 2008. Risk-taking behaviour in foraging perch: does predation pressure influence age-specific boldness? Animal Behaviour 75: 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.007.
33 Heermann, Lisa, Werner Scharf, Gerard van der Velde, and Jost Borcherding. 2014. Does the use of alternative food resources induce cannibalism in a size-structured fish population? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 23: 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12060.
34 Mikheev, Victor N., Anna F. Pasternak, Gerhard Tischler, and Josef Wanzenböck. 2005. Contestable shelters provoke aggression among 0+ perch, Perca fluviatilis. Environmental Biology of Fishes 73: 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-005-0558-8.
35 Westerberg, Magdalena, Fia Staffan, and Carin Magnhagen. 2004. Influence of predation risk on individual competitive ability and growth in Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis. Animal Behaviour 67: 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.06.003.
36 Goldenberg, Silvan U., Jost Borcherding, and Martina Heynen. 2014. Balancing the response to predation—the effects of shoal size, predation risk and habituation on behaviour of juvenile perch. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 68: 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1711-1.
37 Staffan, F., C. Magnhagen, and A. Alanärä. 2002. Variation in food intake within groups of juvenile perch. Journal of Fish Biology 60: 771–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb01702.x.
38 Treasurer, J. W. 1981. Some aspects of the reproductive biology of perch Perca fluviatilis L. Fecundity, maturation and spawning behaviour. Journal of Fish Biology 18: 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1981.tb03814.x.
39 Treasurer, J. W., and F. G. T. Holliday. 1981. Some aspects of the reproductive biology of perch Perca fluviatilis L. A histological description of the reproductive cycle. Journal of Fish Biology 18: 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1981.tb03778.x.
40 Borcherding, Jost. 2006. Prey or predator: 0+ perch (Perca fluviatilis) in the trade-off between food and shelter. Environmental Biology of Fishes 77: 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-006-9057-9.
41 Čech, M., J. Peterka, M. Říha, L. Vejřík, T. Jůza, M. Kratochvíl, V. Draštík, M. Muška, P. Znachor, and J. Kubečka. 2012. Extremely shallow spawning of perch (Perca fluviatilis L.): the roles of sheltered bays, dense semi-terrestrial vegetation and low visibility in deeper water. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 406: 12. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2012026.
42 Douxfils, J., S. N. M. Mandiki, G. Marotte, N. Wang, F. Silvestre, S. Milla, E. Henrotte, et al. 2011. Does domestication process affect stress response in juvenile Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 159: 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2011.01.021.
43 Haux, Carl, Maj-Lis Sjöbeck, and Åke Larsson. 1985. Physiological stress responses in a wild fish population of perch (Perca fluviatilis) after capture and during subsequent recovery. Marine Environmental Research 15: 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-1136(85)90131-X.
44 Acerete, L, J. C Balasch, E Espinosa, A Josa, and L Tort. 2004. Physiological responses in Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis, L.) subjected to stress by transport and handling. Aquaculture 237: 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.03.018.
45 Jentoft, Sissel, Are H. Aastveit, Peter A. Torjesen, and Øivind Andersen. 2005. Effects of stress on growth, cortisol and glucose levels in non-domesticated Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) and domesticated rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 141: 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpb.2005.06.006.
46 Strand, Å., A. Alanärä, F. Staffan, and C. Magnhagen. 2007. Effects of tank colour and light intensity on feed intake, growth rate and energy expenditure of juvenile Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis L. Aquaculture 272: 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.08.052.
47 Milla, Sylvain, Cédric Mathieu, Neil Wang, Sophie Lambert, Stéphanie Nadzialek, Sophie Massart, Emilie Henrotte, et al. 2010. Spleen immune status is affected after acute handling stress but not regulated by cortisol in Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 28: 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2010.02.012.
48 Douxfils, J., S. Lambert, C. Mathieu, S. Milla, S. N. M. Mandiki, E. Henrotte, N. Wang, et al. 2014. Influence of domestication process on immune response to repeated emersion stressors in Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis, L.). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 173: 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2014.03.012.
49 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
50 Teletchea, Fabrice. 2015. Domestication of Marine Fish Species: Update and Perspectives. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 3: 1227–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse3041227.
51 FAO. 2017. FAO Fisheries & Aquaculture - Species Fact Sheets - Perca fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758). World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fao.org.