Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40426197›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2025

Ecosystem, spatial and trophic dimensions of niche partitioning among freshwater fish predators.

Milan Říha, Lukáš Vejřík, Rubén Rabaneda-Bueno, Ivan Jarić, Marie Prchalová, Ivana Vejříková, Marek Šmejkal, Petr Blabolil, Martin Čech, Vladislav Draštík and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Milan ŘíhaBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. milan.riha@hbu.cas.cz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3930-420X
Lukáš VejříkBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Rubén Rabaneda-BuenoBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Ivan JarićBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Marie PrchalováBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Ivana VejříkováBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Marek ŠmejkalBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Petr BlabolilBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Martin ČechBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Vladislav DraštíkBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Michaela HolubováBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Tomáš JůzaBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Karl Ø GjellandNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Tromsø, Norway.
Zuzana SajdlováBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Luboš KočvaraBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Michal TušerBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Jiří PeterkaBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.

Funding

Akademie Věd České Republiky RP21European Commission LIFE21-NAT/IT/PREDATOR No. 101074458HORIZON EUROPE European Innovation Council No 101157886
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNiche partitioning allows species to diversify resource utilisation and space allocation and reduce interspecific competition. Variations in abiotic and biotic conditions in different ecosystems may further influence resource availability and habitat utilisation, potentially reducing competition. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of environmental variation on spatial and trophic niche overlap between two freshwater apex predators, the northern pike (Esox lucius) and the European catfish (Silurus glanis), in three different water bodies.

methodsWe used fine-scale acoustic telemetry to assess the spatial niche overlap of pike and catfish, analyzing their spatial and habitat use in relation to the thermocline and their presence in benthic versus open-water habitats. Stable isotope analysis (SIA) was used to quantify trophic niche overlap and dietary differences between the species. We compared the habitat use, spatial niche width and overlap, and trophic differentiation among waterbodies to determine how environmental conditions influence predator interactions.

resultsDuring summer, pike and catfish primarily occupied benthic habitats above the thermocline across all waterbodies and diel periods. However, catfish more frequently used open water above the thermocline, while pike were more often present in both open water and benthic habitats below it. While this general pattern of habitat use was consistent, its extent varied among lakes, suggesting that local environmental conditions shape species-specific habitat selection. Despite these variations, the species exhibited substantial spatial overlap, though its magnitude fluctuated across waterbodies and diel periods. Catfish occupied a broader spatial niche in two waterbodies, while pike had a broader niche in one. Across all lakes, catfish consistently maintained a broader trophic niche than pike. However, pike exhibited higher trophic overlap with catfish than vice versa, with nearly complete overlap in one lake and substantial but incomplete overlap in others. This suggests that pike relies more heavily on shared prey resources, while catfish exploits a broader range of food sources beyond those used by pike.These patterns were primarily driven by the position of the thermocline, prey availability, structural complexity and the greater foraging plasticity of catfish, highlighting the environmental dependence of niche partitioning in these predators.

conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that spatial and trophic niche overlaps between pike and catfish are highly context-dependent, shaped by abiotic conditions, prey availability, and species-specific foraging strategies. This study highlights the importance of integrating spatial and trophic analyses to understand predator interactions in aquatic ecosystems.

Indexed as

Acoustic telemetryAquatic ecosystemsDietary plasticityEnvironmental variationInterspecific competitionNiche partitioningPredator interactionsResource utilizationSpatial nichesStable isotopesTrophic niches

Identifiers

PMID40426197
PMCPMC12107910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.