Pikeperch

Sander lucioperca

Sander lucioperca (Pikeperch)
Taxonomy
    • Osteichthyes
      • Perciformes
        • Percidae
          • Sander lucioperca

Information


Authors: Maria Filipa Castanheira, Jenny Volstorf
Version: 2.0 (2022-01-22)

Cite

Reviewer: Pablo Arechavala-Lopez
Editor: Billo Heinzpeter Studer

Cite as: »Castanheira, Maria Filipa, and Jenny Volstorf. 2022. Sander lucioperca (Farm: Short Profile). In: FishEthoBase, ed. Fish Ethology and Welfare Group. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2016-11-23. Version 2.0. https://fishethobase.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Sander lucioperca
LiPoCe
Criteria
Home range
Depth range
Migration
Reproduction
Aggregation
Aggression
Substrate
Stress
Malformations
Slaughter


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)

Legend

High
Medium
Low
Unclear
No findings



General remarks

The production of Sander lucioperca has emerged over the past decades while important biological processes of the species are not known yet. The low FishEthoScore is substantially due to the dependence on fish in the diet, home range and substrate needs, complex courtship and stress under farming conditions. Further research is needed on both natural behaviour and physiological effects of farming practices in order to develop specific rearing conditions and provide recommendations for improving fish welfare. Extensive on-growing conditions using ponds and reduced stocking densities are simple measures that should help to improve welfare and reduce stressful events in farming conditions. Intensive on-growing conditions in tanks may use environmental enrichment to benefit 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 low for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Larvae: pelagic 1. Inhabit the water column, independent of bottom and shore.

Juveniles, adults: usually ≤ 8.8 km 2 3

Adults: pelagic within the spawning season 1. Inhabit the water column, independent of bottom and shore.

For all age clases, no data found yet on farming conditions.

 




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 low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Larvae: Caught at 0-6 m 4.

Juveniles, adults: Caught at 0-24 m 3 5 4

Adults: Spawn at 2-2.5 m 6.

For all age classes, no data found yet on depth under farming conditions.




3  Migration

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?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs and larvae: no data found yet.

Juveniles, adults: may migrate upstream and downstream 3.

Adults: migrate upstream and downstream to spawn 7. Migrate to the sea after spawning 8.




4  Reproduction

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?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Adults: In the wild, spawning in April-May 1 9. Tanks: Temperature and PHOTOPERIOD manipulation to adjust reproduction time 10 11 12. Intensive conditions: Eggs are manually extracted by stripping 11




5  Aggregation

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.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Larvae: no data found yet on aggregation behaviour in the wild. Tanks: 0.99 g/L, 1.65 g/L and 2.31 g/L 13.

Juveniles, adults: In the wild, no schooling behaviour 6 3. No data found yet on farming conditions.

Adults: no data found yet on aggregation behaviour in the wild within spawning season and under spawning culture conditions.




6  Aggression

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?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Larvae: no data found yet on aggression behaviour in the wild. Cannibalistic incidences in the lab 13 and under intensive farming conditions 14 15

Juveniles: no data found yet on aggression behaviour in the wild. In the lab, cannibalistic incidences reduced with Tryptophan in the diets 16 and green as background colour 17. Cannibalistic incidences in intensive farming conditions 18.

Adults: In the wild and in the lab, males protect the nest aggressively 19 20. No data found yet on aggression behaviour under spawning culture conditions.

 




7  Substrate

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 medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Larvae: Usually found close to the bottom 4 before they leave the nests for open water 1. .   

Juveniles, adults: Foraging behaviour 21 22, usually found over sand, rocks and plants 4 23

Adults: Use substrate to build nests 10 24 19 20

For all age classes, no data found yet on the effect of missing environmental enrichment in farming conditions. 

 




8  Stress

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 medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Larvae: no data found yet.

Juveniles: Stressed by handling 25 26 27 and sorting 28.

Adults: Stressed by handling 12 24 27.




9  Malformations

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 medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Larvae: Under farming conditions, malformations of digestive tract 29, swimbladder 30, skeleton and jaw 31 32 in >10% of individuals.

Juveniles: Under farming conditions, malformations of operculum and jaw 33 in >10% of individuals.

Adults: no data found yet on farming conditions.

For all age clases, no data found yet on frequency of malformations in the wild.




10  Slaughter

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?

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.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Common and high-standard slaughter method: a protocol for electrical stunning and killing by immersion in icewater needs to be optimised. Most effective stunning after 5 s (144 V dc and 13 Vrms ac 100 Hz) and placement in icewater for 10 min was 90% effective 34.




11  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 35 36, level 5 being fully domesticated. Cultured since 1950 37.




12  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: Carnivorous 1. Inert diets formulation demonstrates dependence of fish meal and fish oil 38 39 32. No data found yet on replacement of fish meal and fish oil.

Juveniles, adults: Carnivorous 8 40 5 41 4. Fish meal and fish oil may be partly* replaced by plant protein 42 43 44

Adults: Carnivorous within the spawning season 45 40. No data found yet on replacement of fish meal and fish oil.

*partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%




Glossary


PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 35



Bibliography


[1] Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2016. Sander lucioperca summary page. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org.
[2] Nyberg, Per, Erik Degerman, and Berit Sers. 1996. Survival after catch in trap-nets, movements and growth of the pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) in Lake Hjälmaren, Central Sweden. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 569–575.
[3] Vehanen, T., and M. Lahti. 2003. Movements and habitat use by pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca (L.)) in a hydropeaking reservoir. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12: 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0633.2003.00026.x.
[4] KratochvíL, Michal, Martin čEch, Mojmír VašEk, Jan KubečKa, Josef Hejzlar, Josef MatěNa, Jiří Peterka, Jiří MacháčEk, and Jaromír SeďA. 2010. Diel vertical migrations of age 0+ percids in a shallow, well-mixed reservoir. Journal of Limnology 69: 305. https://doi.org/10.4081/jlimnol.2010.305.
[5] Lappalainen, Jyrki, Mikko Olin, and Mika Vinni. 2006. Pikeperch cannibalism: effects of abundance, size and condition. Annales Zoologici Fennici 43: 35–44.
[6] Jepsen, N., A. Koed, and F. ØKland. 1999. The movements of pikeperch in a shallow reservoir. Journal of Fish Biology 54: 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb00859.x.
[7] Abdolmalaki, Shahram, and Iwona Psuty. 2007. The effects of stock enhancement of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) in Iranian coastal waters of the Caspian Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 973–980.
[8] Ložys, Linas. 2003. Seasonal Migrations of Pikeperch (Sander Lucioperca L.) from the Curonian Lagoon to the Baltic Sea and Advantages of the Phenomenon. Acta Zoologica Lituanica 13: 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13921657.2003.10512562.
[9] Özyurt, Caner Enver, Erhan Akamca, and Sinan Mavruk. 2011. Spawning, Maturity Length and Size Selectivity for Pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) in Seyhan Dam Lake. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 10: 545–551.
[10] Schlumberger, O., and J.-P. Proteau. 1996. Reproduction of pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca) in captivity. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 12: 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1996.tb00080.x.
[11] Rónyai, András. 2007. Induced out-of-season and seasonal tank spawning and stripping of pike perch (Sander lucioperca L.). Aquaculture Research 38: 1144–1151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01778.x.
[12] Pourhosein Sarameh, Sara, Bahram Falahatkar, Ghobad Azari Takami, and Iraj Efatpanah. 2012. Effects of different photoperiods and handling stress on spawning and reproductive performance of pikeperch Sander lucioperca. Animal Reproduction Science 132: 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2012.05.011.
[13] Szkudlarek, Maciej, and Zdzisław Zakęś. 2002. The effect of stock density on the effectiveness of rearing pikeperch Snader lucioperca (L.) summer fry. Archives of Polish Fisheries 10: 115–119.
[14] Szkudlarek, Maciej, and Zdzisław Zakęś. 2007. Effect of stocking density on survival and growth performance of pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.), larvae under controlled conditions. Aquaculture International 15: 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-006-9069-7.
[15] Szczepkowski, M., Zdzislaw Zakes, B. Szczepkowska, and I. Piotrowska. 2011. Effect of size sorting on the survival, growth and cannibalism in pikeperch (Sander lucioperca L.) larvae during intensive culture in RAS. Czech Journal of Animal Science 56: 483–489.
[16] Król, Jarosław, and Zdzisław Zakęś. 2016. Effect of dietary l-tryptophan on cannibalism, survival and growth in pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.) post-larvae. Aquaculture International 24: 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-015-9936-1.
[17] Grozea, Adrian, Alexandru Draşovean, Dacian Lalescu, Gál Denes, Ludovic Toma Cziszter, and Romeo Teodor Cristina. 2016. The Pike Perch (Sander lucioperca) Background Color First Choice in the  Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 16: 891–897. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v16_4_16.
[18] Molnár, T., Cs. Hancz, M. Bódis, T. Müller, M. Bercsényi, and P. Horn. 2004. The effect of initial stocking density on growth and survival of pike-perch fingerlings reared under intensive conditions. Aquaculture International 12: 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AQUI.0000032079.62056.8c.
[19] Lehtonen, H., J. Lappalainen, J. Kervinen, and E. Fontell. 2006. Spatial distribution of spawning sites of pikeperch [Sander lucioperca (L.)] in a highly eutrophic clay-turbid lake – implications for management. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22: 540–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00721.x.
[20] Drasovean, Alexandru G., and Flavius C. Blidariu. 2013. The Naturally Conducted Reproductive Behavior of Sander Lucioperca L. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Animal Science and Biotechnologies 70: 255–262. https://doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-asb:70:2:9497.
[21] Greenberg, Larry A., Cynthia A. Paszkowski, and William M. Tonn. 1995. Effects of Prey Species Composition and Habitat Structure on Foraging by Two Functionally Distinct Piscivores. Oikos 74: 522–532. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545998.
[22] Turesson, H., and C. Brönmark. 2004. Foraging behaviour and capture success in perch, pikeperch and pike and the effects of prey density. Journal of Fish Biology 65: 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00455.x.
[23] Argillier, Christine, Marc Barral, and Pascal Irz. 2012. Growth and diet of the pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.) in two French reservoirs. Archives of Polish Fisheries 20: 191–200. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10086-012-0024-0.
[24] Zakęś, Zdzisław, and Mirosław Szczepkowski. 2004. Induction of Out-of-Season Spawning of Pikeperch, Sander Lucioperca (L.). Aquaculture International 12: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AQUI.0000017183.40691.7d.
[25] Falahatkar, Bahram, Sobhan R. Akhavan, Iraj Efatpanah, and Bahman Meknatkhah. 2012. Primary and Secondary Responses of Juveniles of a Teleostean, Pikeperch Sander lucioperca, and a Chondrostean, Persian Sturgeon Acipenser persicus, to Handling during Transport. North American Journal of Aquaculture 74: 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2012.675988.
[26] Falahatkar, Bahram, and Samaneh Poursaeid. 2013. Effects of hormonal manipulation on stress responses in male and female broodstocks of pikeperch Sander lucioperca. Aquaculture International 22: 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-013-9678-x.
[27] Fatemeh, Abbasi, Ghafori Sanaz, and Jamili Shahla. 2008. Plasma cortisol changes and body composition in Stizostedion lucioperca exposed to handling stress. Pakistan journal of biological sciences: PJBS 11: 623–627.
[28] Zakęś, Zdzisław, Agata Kowalska, and Stanisław Czerniak. 2004. Effect of sorting on selected rearing factors of pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.). Fisheries & Aquatic Life 12: 71–79.
[29] Kowalska, Agata, Zdzisław Zakęś, and Krystyna Demska-Zakęś. 2006. The impact of feeding on the results of rearing larval pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.) with regard to the development of the digestive tract. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities 9.
[30] Demska-Zakęś, Krystyna, Agata Kowalska, and Zdzisław Zakęś. 2003. The development of the swim bladder of pikeperch sander lucioperca (L.) reared in intensive culture. Archives of Polish Fisheries 11: 45–55.
[31] Kestemont, Patrick, Xu Xueliang, Neïla Hamza, Jean Maboudou, and Ibrahim Imorou Toko. 2007. Effect of weaning age and diet on pikeperch larviculture. Aquaculture 264: 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.034.
[32] Hamza, N., P. Kestemont, I.b. Khemis, M. Mhetli, and C. Cahu. 2012. Effect of different sources and levels of dietary phospholipids on performances and fatty acid composition of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) larvae. Aquaculture Nutrition 18: 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2011.00891.x.
[33] Zakęś, Z., M. Szczepkowski, B. Szczepkowska, A. Kowalska, A. Kapusta, S. Jarmołowicz, I. Piotrowska, et al. 2015. Effects of Stocking Earthen Ponds With Pikeperch (Sander lucioperca (L.)) Fingerlings Reared in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems – Effects of Fish Size and the Presence of Predators. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 21: 5–11.
[34] Llonch, P., E. Lambooij, H.G.M. Reimert, and J.W. van de Vis. 2012. Assessing effectiveness of electrical stunning and chilling in ice water of farmed yellowtail kingfish, common sole and pike-perch. Aquaculture 364–365: 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.08.015.
[35] 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.
[36] 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.
[37] FAO. 2017. FAO Fisheries & Aquaculture - Species Fact Sheets - Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758). World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fao.org.
[38] Hamza, Neila, Mohamed Mhetli, and Patrick Kestemont. 2007. Effects of weaning age and diets on ontogeny of digestive activities and structures of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) larvae. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 33: 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-006-9123-4.
[39] Hamza, Neïla, Mohamed Mhetli, Ines Ben Khemis, Chantal Cahu, and Patrick Kestemont. 2008. Effect of dietary phospholipid levels on performance, enzyme activities and fatty acid composition of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) larvae. Aquaculture 275: 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.01.014.
[40] Balik, Ísmet, Hidir Çubuk, Belgin Karasahin, Remziye Özkök, Rahmi Uysal, and Ahmet Alp. 2006. Food and Feeding Habits of the Pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758), Population from Lake Eğirdir (Turkey). Turkish Journal of Zoology 30: 19–26.
[41] Schulz, C., M. Huber, J. Ogunji, and B. Rennert. 2008. Effects of varying dietary protein to lipid ratios on growth performance and body composition of juvenile pike perch (Sander lucioperca). Aquaculture Nutrition 14: 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2007.00516.x.
[42] Nyina-Wamwiza, Laetitia, Xueliang L Xu, Gersande Blanchard, and Patrick Kestemont. 2005. Effect of dietary protein, lipid and carbohydrate ratio on growth, feed efficiency and body composition of pikeperch Sander lucioperca fingerlings. Aquaculture Research 36: 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2005.01233.x.
[43] Molnár, T., A. Szabó, G. Szabó, C. Szabó, and C. Hancz. 2006. Effect of different dietary fat content and fat type on the growth and body composition of intensively reared pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.). Aquaculture Nutrition 12: 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2006.00398.x.
[44] Kowalska, Agata, Zdzisław Zakęś, Barbara Jankowska, and Andrzej Siwicki. 2010. Impact of diets with vegetable oils on the growth, histological structure of internal organs, biochemical blood parameters, and proximate composition of pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.). Aquaculture 301: 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.01.028.
[45] Hansson, Sture, Fredrik Arrhenius, and Sture Nellbring. 1997. Diet and growth of pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca L.) in a Baltic Sea area. Fisheries Research 31: 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(97)00022-2.






© 2022 fair-fish international

Imprint
Data privacy