<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Journal of Ichthyology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Journal of Ichthyology</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вопросы ихтиологии</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">0042-8752</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">3034-5146</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">The Russian Academy of Sciences</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">688143</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31857/S0042875225030105</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="edn">FHIIYS</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Статьи</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Taste responses of carp fishes (Cyprinidae) to carboxylic acids. 2. Feeding behavior</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вкусовые ответы карповых рыб (Cyprinidae) на карбоновые кислоты. 2. Пищевое поведение</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Kasumyan</surname><given-names>A. O.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Касумян</surname><given-names>А. О.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><email>alex_kasumyan@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Mikhailova</surname><given-names>E. S.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Михайлова</surname><given-names>Е. С.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><email>alex_kasumyan@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Lomonosov Moscow State University</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Московский государственный университет</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2025-09-04" publication-format="electronic"><day>04</day><month>09</month><year>2025</year></pub-date><volume>65</volume><issue>3</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en"/><issue-title xml:lang="ru"/><fpage>372</fpage><lpage>390</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2025-07-23"><day>23</day><month>07</month><year>2025</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2025-07-23"><day>23</day><month>07</month><year>2025</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2025, Russian Academy of Sciences</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2025, Российская академия наук</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2025</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Russian Academy of Sciences</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Российская академия наук</copyright-holder></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://transsyst.ru/0042-8752/article/view/688143">https://transsyst.ru/0042-8752/article/view/688143</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The feeding behavior of the dace <italic>Leuciscus leuciscus</italic>, roach <italic>Rutilus rutilus</italic>,<italic> </italic>and common carp <italic>Cyprinus carpio </italic>was studied using orosensory testing with agar pellets containing carboxylic acids and some other substances (10<sup>−1</sup> M). We found that feeding behavior is characterized by species-specific features and features common to these fishes. Dace and common carp in about 10% of experiments reject pellets for repeated grasps, the number of which reaches eight and six, respectively. Roach is more likely to manipulate and make repeated grasps of pellets in &gt;45% of experiments, the maximum number of grasps being 14. The number of repeated grasps does not correlate with the palatability of pellets and does not affect the total duration of their retention in the mouth, which in dace, roach, and common carp does not exceed 1 s in 20, 30, and 60% of experiments, respectively, and positively correlates with the palatability of pellets. The maximum total duration of pellet handling reaches 55 s in dace, 109 s in roach, and 53 s in common carp. When consuming pellets, fish manipulate them many times longer than when not consuming: up to 13 times in dace, 12–15 times in common carp, and up to 20–30 times in roach. Differences in manipulation activity are less pronounced, no more than 1.5–2.0 times. Fish show stereotypic reactions when testing pellets of any taste quality, the differences between stereotypes are stronger the higher the taste attractiveness of pellets. The relationship between the manifestation of behavior during orosensory food testing and peculiarities of fish biology is discussed.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Исследовано пищевое поведение ельца <italic>Leuciscus leuciscus</italic>, плотвы <italic>Rutilus rutilus</italic> и карпа <italic>Cyprinus carpio</italic> при оросенсорном тестировании агар-агаровых гранул, содержащих карбоновые кислоты и некоторые другие вещества (10<sup>−1</sup> М). Выяснено, что поведение при тестировании характеризуется видоспецифическими особенностями и общими для рыб чертами. Елец и карп примерно в 10% опытов отвергают гранулы для повторных схватываний, число которых достигает соответственно восьми и шести. Плотва более склонна к манипулированию и совершает повторные схватывания гранул в &gt;45% опытов, максимальное число схватываний — 14. Число повторных схватываний не коррелирует со вкусовой привлекательностью гранул и не влияет на суммарную длительность их удержания в ротовой полости, которая у ельца, плотвы и карпа не превышает 1 с в 20, 30 и 60% опытах соответственно и положительно коррелирует со вкусовой привлекательностью гранул. Максимальная суммарная длительность удержания гранул достигает у ельца 55 с, у плотвы — 109 с, у карпа — 53 с. В случае потребления рыбы удерживают гранулы многократно дольше, чем при отказе от потребления, — до 13 раз у ельца, 12–15 раз у карпа и до 20–30 раз у плотвы. Различия по манипуляционной активности менее выражены — не более чем в 1.5–2.0 раза. Рыбы проявляют стереотипные реакции при тестировании гранул любого вкусового качества, различия между стереотипами тем сильнее, чем выше вкусовая привлекательность гранул. Обсуждается связь между проявлением поведения при оросенсорном тестировании пищи и особенностями биологии рыб.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>carp fishes</kwd><kwd>Cyprinidae</kwd><kwd>taste system</kwd><kwd>taste perception</kwd><kwd>food behavior</kwd><kwd>grasping</kwd><kwd>food rejection</kwd><kwd>carboxylic acids</kwd><kwd>dace Leuciscus leuciscus</kwd><kwd>roach Rutilus rutilus</kwd><kwd>common carp Cyprinus carpio</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>карповые рыбы</kwd><kwd>Cyprinidae</kwd><kwd>вкусовая система</kwd><kwd>вкусовая рецепция</kwd><kwd>пищевое поведение</kwd><kwd>схватывания</kwd><kwd>отвергание пищи</kwd><kwd>карбоновые кислоты</kwd><kwd>елец Leuciscus leuciscus</kwd><kwd>плотва Rutilus rutilus</kwd><kwd>карп Cyprinus carpio</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution xml:lang="ru">Российский научный фонд</institution></institution-wrap><institution-wrap><institution xml:lang="en">Russian Science Foundation</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>24-24-00009</award-id></award-group></funding-group></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Андрияшев А.П., Арнольди Л.В. 1945. О биологии питания некоторых донных рыб Черного моря // Журн. общ. биологии. Т. 6. № 1. С. 53–62.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Виноградская М.И., Михайлова Е.С., Касумян А.О. 2017. Вкусовые предпочтения, оросенсорное тестирование и генерация звуков при питании жемчужного гурами Trichopodus leerii (Osphronemidae) // Вопр. ихтиологии. Т. 57. № 3. С. 324–337. https://doi.org/10.7868/S004287521703016X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Касумян А.О., Исаева О.М. 2023. Вкусовые предпочтения карповых рыб (Cyprinidae). Сравнительное исследование // Там же. Т. 63. № 1. С. 81–109. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0042875223010071</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Касумян А.О., Михайлова Е.С. 2025. Вкусовые ответы карповых рыб (Cyprinidae) на карбоновые кислоты. 1. Вкусовые предпочтения // Там же. Т. 65. №2. С. 227–240. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0042875225020096</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Касумян А.О., Сидоров С.С. 2012. Влияние длительной аносмии, совмещённой со зрительной депривацией, на вкусовую чувствительность и пищевое поведение радужной форели Parasalmo (= Oncorhynchus) mykiss // Там же. Т. 52. № 1. С. 116–126.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Михайлова Е.С., Касумян А.О. 2016. Оросенсорное тестирование пищи у рыб: хронология поведения // Изв. РАН. Сер. биол. № 4. С. 377–388. https://doi.org/10.7868/S000233291604010X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Михайлова Е.С., Касумян А.О. 2018. Вкусовые свойства карбоновых кислот для девятииглой колюшки Pungitius pungitius // Вопр. ихтиологии. Т. 58. № 4. С. 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0042875218040124</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Михайлова Е.С., Касумян А.О. 2021. Вкусовые предпочтения и оросенсорное тестирование пищи у мраморного гурами Trichopodus trichopterus (Osphronemidae) // Там же. Т. 61. № 6. С. 697–712. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0042875221060126</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Михеев В.Н. 2006. Неоднородность среды и трофические отношения у рыб. М.: Наука, 191 с.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Павлов Д.С. 1979. Биологические основы управления поведением рыб в потоке воды. М.: Наука, 319 с.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Павлов Д.С., Касумян А.О. 1998. Структура пищевого поведения рыб // Вопр. ихтиологии. Т. 38. № 1. С. 123–136.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Шустов Ю.А. 1995. Экологические аспекты поведения молоди лососевых рыб в речных условиях. СПб.: Наука, 161 с.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Adámek Z., Sukop I. 2001. The role of supplementary feeding in food competition between common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and perch (Perca fluviatilis) in a pond culture // Krmiva. V. 43. № 4. P. 175–184.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Amorim M.C.P., Hawkins A.D. 2000. Growling for food: acoustic emission during competitive feeding of the streaked gurnard // J. Fish Biol. V. 57. № 4. P. 895–907. https://doi.org/10.1006/jfbi.2000.1356</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Andrew J.E., Bégout Anras M.L., Kadri S. et al. 2003. Feeding responses of hatchery-reared gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) to a commercial diet and natural prey items // Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. V. 36. № 2. P. 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/1023624031000109864</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Andrew J.E., Holm J., Kadri S., Huntingford F.A. 2004. The effect of competition on the feeding efficiency and feed handling behaviour in gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) held in tanks // Aquaculture. V. 232. № 1–4. P. 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00528-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Asaeda T., Priyadarshana T., Manatunge J. 2001. Effects of satiation on feeding and swimming behaviour of planktivores // Hydrobiologia. V. 443. № 1–3. P. 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017560524056</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Bateson W. 1890. The sense-organs and perceptions of fishes; with remarks on the supply of bait // J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. V. 1. № 3. P. 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400072118</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Batty R.S., Hoyt R.D. 1995. The role of sense organs in the feeding behaviour of juvenile sole and plaice // J. Fish Biol. V. 47. № 6. P. 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1995.tb06019.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Bentzen P., McPhail J.D. 1984. Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticklebacks (Gasterosteus): specialization for alternative trophic niches in the Enos Lake species pair // Can. J. Zool. V. 62. № 11. P. 2280–2286. https://doi.org/10.1139/z84-331</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Binoy V.V., Thomas K.J. 2008. The influence of hunger on food-stocking behaviour of climbing perch Anabas testudineus // J. Fish Biol. V. 73. № 4. P. 1053–1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.01987.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Boikova O.S. 1986. Feeding of fish in Lake Glubokoe // Hydrobiologia. V. 141. № 1–2. P. 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00007483</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Brawn V.M. 1969. Feeding behaviour of cod (Gadus morhua) // J. Fish. Res. Board Can. V. 26. № 3. P. 583–596. https://doi.org/10.1139/f69-054</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Browman H.I., Marcotte B.M. 1987. The effect of zooplankton abundance on feeding behaviour and prey size selection in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, alevins // Holarctic Ecol. V. 10. № 3. P. 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1987.tb00754.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Brown C. 2012. Tool use in fishes // Fish Fish. V. 13. № 1. P. 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00451.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Callan W.T., Sanderson S.L. 2003. Feeding mechanisms in carp: crossflow filtration, palatal protrusions and flow reversals // J. Exp. Biol. V. 206. № 5. P. 883–892. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00195</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Coyer J.A. 1995. Use of a rock as an anvil for breaking scallops by the yellowhead wrasse, Halichoeres garnoti (Labridae) // Bull. Mar. Sci. V. 57. № 2. P. 548–549.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Dill L.M. 1983. Adaptive flexibility in the foraging behavior of fishes // Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. V. 40. № 4. P. 398–408. https://doi.org/10.1139/f83-058</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Finger T.E. 1997. Feeding patterns and brain evolution in ostariophysean fishes // Acta Physiol. Scand. Suppl. V. 161. № 638. P. 59–66.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Finger T.E. 2008. Sorting food from stones: the vagal taste system in goldfish, Carassius auratus // J. Comp. Physiol. A. V. 194. № 2. P. 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-007-0276-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Froese R., Pauly D. (eds.). 2024. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication (www.fishbase.org. Version 10/2024).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>Genner M.J., Seehausen O., Lunt D.H. et al. 2007. Age of cichlids: new dates for ancient lake fish radiations // Mol. Biol. Evol. V. 24. № 5. P. 1269–1282. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm050</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Giles N., Street M., Wright R.M. 1990. Diet composition and prey preference of tench, Tinca tinca (L.), common bream, Abramis brama (L.), perch, Perca fluviatilis L. and roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), in two contrasting gravel pit lakes: potential trophic overlap with wildfowl // J. Fish Biol. V. 37. № 6. P. 945–947. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb03598.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Gill A.B. 2003. The dynamics of prey choice in fish: the importance of prey size and satiation // Ibid. V. 63. № s1. P. 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.00214.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Gill A.B., Hart P.J.B. 1994. Feeding behavior and prey choice of the threespine stickleback: the interacting effects of prey size, fish size and stomach fullness // Anim. Behav. V. 47. № 4. P. 921–932. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1124</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation>Gill A.B., Hart P.J.B. 1996. Unequal competition between three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L., encountering sequential prey // Ibid. V. 51. № 3. P. 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0072</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B37"><label>37.</label><mixed-citation>Gill A.B., Hart P.J.B. 1998. Stomach capacity as a directing factor in prey size selection of three-spined stickleback // J. Fish Biol. V. 53. № 4. P. 897–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01844.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B38"><label>38.</label><mixed-citation>Hara T.J. 2007. Gustation // Sensory systems neuroscience. N.Y.: Acad. Press. P. 45–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1546-5098(06)25002-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B39"><label>39.</label><mixed-citation>Hart P.J.B. 1997. Foraging tactics // Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. P. 104–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198547846.003.0005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B40"><label>40.</label><mixed-citation>Hart P.J.B., Ison S. 1991. The influence the prey size and abundance, and individual phenotype on prey choice by the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. // J. Fish Biol. V. 38. № 3. P. 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1991.tb03126.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B41"><label>41.</label><mixed-citation>Hellawell J.M. 1972. The growth, reproduction and food of the roach Rutilus rutilus (L.), of the River Lugg, Herefordshire // Ibid. V. 4. № 4. P. 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1972.tb05696.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B42"><label>42.</label><mixed-citation>Horppila J. 1994. The diet and growth of roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.)) in Lake Vesijärvi and possible changes in the course of biomanipulation // Hydrobiologia. V. 294. № 1. P. 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00017623</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B43"><label>43.</label><mixed-citation>Huser B., Bartels P. 2015. Feeding ecology of carp // Biology and ecology of carp. Boca Raton: CRC Press. P. 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18547-17</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B44"><label>44.</label><mixed-citation>Ibrahim A.A., Huntingford F.A. 1992. Experience of natural prey and feeding efficiency in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) // J. Fish Biol. V. 41. № 4. P. 619–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02688.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B45"><label>45.</label><mixed-citation>Ikenaga T., Ogura T., Finger T.E. 2009. Vagal gustatory reflex circuits for intraoral food sorting behavior in the goldfish: cellular organization and neurotransmitters // J. Comp. Neurol. V. 516. № 3. P. 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22097</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B46"><label>46.</label><mixed-citation>Jackson L.A., Rakocinski C.F., Blaylock R.B. 2013. Feeding performance of juvenile hatchery-reared spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus // J. Fish Biol. V. 82. № 3. P. 1032–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12052</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B47"><label>47.</label><mixed-citation>Janssen J. 1978. Feeding-behavior repertoire of the alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and the ciscoes Coregonus hoyi and C. artedii // J. Fish. Res. Board Can. V. 35. № 2. P. 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1139/f78-040</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B48"><label>48.</label><mixed-citation>Jobling M., Alanärä A., Kadri S., Huntingford F. 2012. Feeding biology and foraging // Aquaculture and behavior. Hoboken: Blackwell Publ. Ltd. P. 121–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444354614.ch5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B49"><label>49.</label><mixed-citation>Kasumyan А.О. 2014. Behavior and gustatory reception of air-breathing catfishes (Clariidae) // J. Ichthyol. V. 54. № 10. P. 934–943. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032945214100075</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B50"><label>50.</label><mixed-citation>Kasumyan A.O., Isaeva O.M. 2022. Timeline of orosensory food testing in carp fish (Cyprinidae) // Ibid. V. 62. № 6. P. 1170–1189. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032945222060133</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B51"><label>51.</label><mixed-citation>Kasumyan A., Levina A. 2023. Are the taste preferences similar in closely related fish of the same trophic category? A case of Nile and Mozambique tilapias // Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. V. 33. № 4. P. 1371–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-023-09763-w</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B52"><label>52.</label><mixed-citation>Kasumyan A.O., Mikhailova E.S. 2018. Rapid gustatory food evaluation in fish // J. Ichthyol. V. 58. № 6. P. 916–926. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032945218060073</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B53"><label>53.</label><mixed-citation>Kasumyan A.O., Isaeva O.M., Oanh L.T.K. 2022. Taste preferences and orosensory feed testing behavior in barramundi Lates calcarifer (Latidae, Perciformes) // J. Mar. Sci. Eng. V. 10. № 9. Article 1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10091213</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B54"><label>54.</label><mixed-citation>Kislalioglu M., Gibson R.N. 1976. Prey ‘handling time’ and its importance in food selection by the 15-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia (L.) // J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. V. 25. № 2. P. 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(76)90016-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B55"><label>55.</label><mixed-citation>Kottelat M., Freyhof J. 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Cornol; Berlin: Kottelat and Freyhof, 646 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B56"><label>56.</label><mixed-citation>L’Abée-Lund J.H., Aass P., Sægrov H. 1996. Prey orientation in piscivorous brown trout // J. Fish Biol. V. 48. № 5. P. 871–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb01482.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B57"><label>57.</label><mixed-citation>Lammens E.H.R.R., Hoogenboezem W. 1991. Diets and feeding behavior // Cyprinid fishes. Dordrecht: Springer. P. 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3092-9_12</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B58"><label>58.</label><mixed-citation>Lappalainen A., Westerbom M., Vesala S. 2004. Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) in the diet of roach (Rutilus rutilus) in outer archipelago areas of the western Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea // Hydrobiologia. V. 514. № 1–3. P. 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:hydr.0000018209.10032.0c</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B59"><label>59.</label><mixed-citation>Mann R.H.K. 1973. Observations on the age, growth, reproduction and food of the roach Rutilus rutilus (L.) in two rivers in southern England // J. Fish Biol. V. 5. № 6. P. 707–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1973.tb04506.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B60"><label>60.</label><mixed-citation>Mann R.H.K. 1974. Observations on the age, growth, reproduction and food of the dace Leuciscus leuciscus (L.) in two rivers in Southern England // Ibid. V. 6. № 3. P. 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1974.tb04542.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B61"><label>61.</label><mixed-citation>McLaughlin R.L., Grant J.W.A., Noakes D.L.G. 2000. Living with failure: the prey capture success of young brook charr in streams // Ecol. Freshw. Fish. V. 9. № 1–2. P. 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0633.2000.90109.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B62"><label>62.</label><mixed-citation>Mikheev V.N. 2000. Foraging behavior of fishes and habitat complexity: searching, prey selection, and conflict of motivations // J. Ichthyol. V. 40. Suppl. 2. P. S262–S270.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B63"><label>63.</label><mixed-citation>Nagelkerke L.A.J., Sibbing F.A. 1996. Efficiency of feeding on zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) by common bream (Abramis brama), white bream (Blicca bjoerkna), and roach (Rutilus rutilus): the effects of morphology and behavior // Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. V. 53. № 12. P. 2847–2861. https://doi.org/10.1139/f96-229</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B64"><label>64.</label><mixed-citation>O’Brien W.J., Evans B.I., Browman H.I. 1989. Flexible search tactics and efficient foraging in saltatory searching animals // Oecologia. V. 80. № 1. P. 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00789938</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B65"><label>65.</label><mixed-citation>Paśko Ł. 2010. Tool-like behavior in the sixbar wrasse, Thalassoma hardwicke (Bennett, 1830) // Zoo Biol. V. 29. № 6. P. 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20307</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B66"><label>66.</label><mixed-citation>Paszkowski C.A., Tonn W.M., Holopainen I.J. 1989. An experimental study of body size and food size relations in crucian carp, Carassius carassius // Environ. Biol. Fish. V. 24. № 4. P. 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00001401</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B67"><label>67.</label><mixed-citation>Pavlov D.S., Kasumyan A.O. 2002. Feeding diversity in fishes: trophic classification of fish // J. Ichthyol. V. 42. Suppl. 2. P. S137–S159.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B68"><label>68.</label><mixed-citation>Persson L. 1983. Food consumption and the significance of detritus and algae to intraspecific competition in roach Rutilus rutilus in a shallow eutrophic lake // Oikos. V. 41. № 1. P. 118–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544353</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B69"><label>69.</label><mixed-citation>Prejs A. 1984. Herbivory by temperate freshwater fishes and its consequences // Environ. Biol. Fish. V. 10. № 4. P. 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00001481</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B70"><label>70.</label><mixed-citation>Pryor K.J. 2022. Tool use by the orange wrasse Pseudolabrus luculentus and doubleheader Coris bulbifrons // Mar. Ecol. V. 43. № 6. Article e12727. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12727</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B71"><label>71.</label><mixed-citation>Rahman M.M., Kadowaki S., Balcombe S.R., Wahab M.A. 2010. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) alters its feeding niche in response to changing food resources: direct observations in simulated ponds // Ecol. Res. V. 25. № 2. P. 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-009-0657-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B72"><label>72.</label><mixed-citation>Sakata Y., Tsukahara J., Kiyohara S. 2001. Distribution of nerve fibers in the barbels of sea catfish Plotosus lineatus // Fish. Sci. V. 67. № 6. P. 1136–1144. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1444-2906.2001.00371.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B73"><label>73.</label><mixed-citation>Sataeva V.V., Kasumyan A.O. 2022. Orosensory preferences and feeding behavior of Cladistia: a comparison of gray bichir Polypterus senegalus and saddle bichir P. endlicherii (Polypteridae) // J. Ichthyol. V. 62. № 7. Р. 1501–1520. https://doi.org/10.1134/S003294522204021X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B74"><label>74.</label><mixed-citation>Sibbing F.A., Osse J.W.M., Terlouw A. 1986. Food handling in the carp (Cyprinus carpio): its movement patterns, mechanisms and limitations // J. Zool. V. 210. № 2. P. 161–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1986.tb03629.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B75"><label>75.</label><mixed-citation>Sundström L.F., Lõhmus M., Devlin R.H. et al. 2004. Feeding on profitable and unprofitable prey: comparing behaviour of growth-enhanced transgenic and normal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) // Ethology. V. 110. № 5. P. 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.00985.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B76"><label>76.</label><mixed-citation>Tan M., Armbruster J.W. 2018. Phylogenetic classification of extant genera of fishes of the order Cypriniformes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi) // Zootaxa. V. 4476. № 1. P. 6–39. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4476.1.4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B77"><label>77.</label><mixed-citation>Vandewalle P., Saintin P., Chardon M. 1995. Structures and movements of the buccal and pharyngeal jaws in relation to feeding in Diplodus sargus // J. Fish Biol. V. 46. № 4. P. 623–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1995.tb01101.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B78"><label>78.</label><mixed-citation>Wanzenböck J. 1995. Changing handling times during feeding and consequences for prey size selection of 0+ zooplanktivorous fish // Oecologia. V. 104. № 3. P. 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00328373</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B79"><label>79.</label><mixed-citation>Ware D.M. 1972. Predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri): the influence of hunger, prey density, and prey size // J. Fish. Res. Board Can. V. 29. № 8. P. 1193–1201. https://doi.org/10.1139/f72-175</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B80"><label>80.</label><mixed-citation>Weatherley N.S. 1987. The diet and growth of 0-group dace, Leuciscus leuciscus (L.), and roach, Rutilus rutilus (L.), in a lowland river // J. Fish Biol. V. 30. № 3. P. 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1987.tb05749.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B81"><label>81.</label><mixed-citation>Welch D.W., Pankhurst P.M. 2001. Visual morphology and feeding behaviour of the daggertooth // Ibid. V. 58. № 5. P. 1427–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02297.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B82"><label>82.</label><mixed-citation>Werner E.E. 1974. The fish size, prey size, handling time relation in several sunfishes and some implications // J. Fish. Res. Board Can. V. 31. № 9. P. 1531–1536. https://doi.org/10.1139/f74-186</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B83"><label>83.</label><mixed-citation>Whitear M. 1971. The free nerve endings if fish epidermis // J. Zool. V. 163. № 2. P. 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1971.tb04532.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B84"><label>84.</label><mixed-citation>Whitear M. 1992. Solitary chemosensory cells // Fish chemoreception. Dordrecht: Springer. P. 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2332-7_6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B85"><label>85.</label><mixed-citation>Wootton R.J. 1998. Ecology of teleost fishes. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Acad. Publ., 386 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B86"><label>86.</label><mixed-citation>Wunder W. 1927. Sinnesphysiologische Untersuchungen über die Nahrungsaufnahme bei verschiedenen Knochenfischarten // Z. Vergl. Physiol. V. 6. № 1. P. 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0033367</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
