Next Article in Journal
Isolation, Identification, and Virulence Properties of Enterobacter bugandensis Pathogen from Big-Belly Seahorse Hippocampus abdominalis
Previous Article in Journal
Rutin Inhibits Histamine-Induced Cytotoxicity of Zebrafish Liver Cells via Enhancing Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Properties
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impacts of Low-Order Stream Connectivity Restoration Projects on Aquatic Habitat and Fish Diversity
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Diel Catch Variation of the Primary Fish Species Captured by Trammel Nets in a Shallow Eutrophic Lake in Jiangsu Province, China

by
Jiyang Dong
1,2,
Xiumiao Song
1,2,
Yong Zhu
3,
Qigen Liu
1,2,* and
Zhongjun Hu
1,2,*
1
Research Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs on Environmental Ecology and Fish Nutrition, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China
2
Key Laboratory of Freshwater Aquatic Genetic Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China
3
Shanghai Investigation, Design & Research Institute Co, Ltd., Shanghai 200434, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2025, 10(8), 409; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10080409
Submission received: 22 June 2025 / Revised: 3 August 2025 / Accepted: 11 August 2025 / Published: 14 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Spatial Distribution of Fishes, Second Edition)

Abstract

Fish diel activity can affect the catch of fishing gear, such as gill nets, thereby influencing fishery resource assessment and management. This study investigated diel catch variations of primary fish species in Gehu Lake using monofilament trammel nets from April to November of 2016. Fish sampling occurred monthly, with nets set and fish caught at four-hour intervals in each month. The results showed that significant diel effects and diel × month interaction were found on Chinese silver carp (SC) and diel × month interaction on common carp (CC). Topmouth, humpback, and Wuchang bream (WB) displayed significantly higher catch per unit effort (CPUE) during twilight or daytime than at night, and no diel × month interactions were detected. For Chinese bighead carp (BC), Mongolian redfin (MR), Japanese grenadier anchovy (JGA), and crucian carp, no diel effect and diel × month interaction were observed. The study suggested that most activities occurring in daytime and at twilight were caused by visual orientation to prey for topmouth and humpback, and by the herbivorous feeding habitat of WB. Food competition between BC and JGA may drive a pronounced temporal partitioning of their diel activity. Overnight gillnet fishing could underestimate the population sizes of herbivores, such as WB, and visually oriented predators, for example, humpback, and might not influence the estimation for BC, JGA, and crucian carp. However, its effects on the stock estimation of SC and CC would vary with months. Notably, future winter investigations into diel catch in this lake could potentially augment the conclusions of the present study.
Key Contribution: This study firstly reports the diel variations in catch per unit effort (CPUE) of nine fish species, including silver carp, bighead carp, and Japanese grenadier anchovy in Gehu Lake, revealing the plasticity of their diel activity rhythms and emphasizing the necessity to consider diel dynamics in fishery resource assessments.

1. Introduction

Assessment of fish resources serves as the cornerstone for the sustainable management of fishery resources. The most commonly used gear in fishery resource assessment is the gill net [1,2]. Compared to other gear such as trawls, purse seines, and beach seines, gill nets are easy to operate and cost-effective [3]. This dual benefit has driven their extensive utilization in fish surveys across inland waters [4]. However, their catch and species composition are affected by fish activity since they represent a passive capture method [3]. There are significant differences that exist in the diel rhythms of fish activities due to various reasons, such as seasonal changes, feeding behavior, heterogeneous habitat utilization, predator–prey dynamics, temperature and light conditions, reproductive activities, and human disturbances [5,6]. The accuracy of fish resource assessment can be affected by significant changes in gill net catches, caused by the diurnal changes in fish activity [7]. Therefore, deciphering the diel patterns of fish activity and catch is pivotal for formulating sustainable fishing strategies [8].
Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the effects of diel rhythms of fish catch in Europe and the United States of America. However, these investigations have predominantly focused on marine ecosystems, with limited attention given to freshwater lakes [3,6,9,10,11,12]. Similarly, research conducted in China has largely concentrated on marine fish, neglecting the specific context of freshwater lakes and drinking water reservoirs [8,13,14,15]. While some studies have examined the diurnal variation in catches of freshwater fish eggs or larvae using nets, as well as assessed diel fluctuation of fisheries resources via acoustic methods [16,17,18,19], these findings fail to capture the diel activity patterns of adult fish or individual fish species. Furthermore, although many reports have documented the circadian rhythms of feeding behavior in cultured freshwater fish, such as silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis) [20], their activity rhythm in wild populations may not consistently align with the feeding rhythm observed in these studies [21,22]. Collectively, these knowledge gaps emphasize the need for additional research to improve our understanding of fish diel rhythms in China, particularly for specific freshwater fish species.
Silver carp (SC) and bighead carp (BC) are commonly used as tool species in non-classical biomanipulation techniques to control cyanobacterial blooms [23]. Meanwhile, they are stocked into freshwater ecosystems of China for economic benefits [24]. This study investigated the monthly variations of diel activities of the above two carps in Gehu Lake of China, as well as the main bycatch species that are also caught in the process of fishing. We hypothesized that catch rates may vary diurnally, seasonally, and across species with distinct dietary habits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Gehu Lake (119°44′15″ E119°52′56″ E, 31°43′04″ N31°28′19″ N) is located in the southern part of Jiangsu Province and the Taihu Lake Basin in southeastern China (Figure 1). It is a shallow and eutrophic lake, with an average water depth of 1.25 m and a total surface area of 164 km2. It fulfills a variety of functions, such as supplying drinking water, providing irrigation, developing tourism, facilitating aquaculture, and conserving genetic resources. With rapid economic development and the resulting increase in pollution, the lake has undergone a complete transition from being dominated by macrophytes to being dominated by algae in the early years of this century [25].

2.2. Fish Sampling

To our best knowledge, most diel-catch studies have been confined to one or a few seasons [3,26,27,28,29]; those conducted year-round typically dichotomize the day into daytime versus nighttime [30,31,32,33]. According to the monthly survey results conducted in Dianshan Lake, near Gehu Lake, the capture rate by gillnet in the winter months was very low due to the reduced activity [4]. Therefore, the survey period of the present study only covered the warm seasons and did not include the cold winter. Fish sampling was conducted monthly with a monofilament trammel net from April to November 2016 at the National Aquatic Germplasm Resource Reserve, located in the central part of the lake. Sampling was suspended in June, however, as heavy rains or thunderstorms persisted for several consecutive days or wind gusts occurred during the expected sampling window, rendering net deployment and retrieval unsafe. This gap may affect our understanding of early summer dynamics, but the multi-month dataset still provides robust insights for the warmer months.
The trammel net is a specially designed gill net and was constructed by joining three parallel sheets of netting. Each trammel net had a length of 67 m and a height of 1.5 m, with a mesh size of 9.38 cm for the inner panel and 39.3 cm for the outer panel. It is commonly used by local fishermen to fish for silver and bighead carp. Each month, three sets of trammel nets, each consisting of 5 nets, were set at approximately 2:00, 6:00, 10:00, 14:00, 18:00, and 22:00 time intervals at the sampling site, depending on the weather at that time, and lifted after 1 h. Fishes were collected separately for each set of nets. All captured fish were classified and their body length and weight measured to the nearest centimeter and gram, respectively. All fishes caught were identified according to previous taxonomic descriptions [34,35].

2.3. Data Analysis

Catch per unit effort (CPUE, ind·1000 m−2·h−1) was calculated using the total number of fish captured divided by the total area of the nets and the sampling duration. Using official sunrise and sunset times for Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province (Gehu Lake’s locale) and adopting the scheme of Vašek et al. [3], we assigned each 1 h sampling interval to one of three diel phases. Intervals that included sunrise or sunset were classified as twilight (dawn or dusk). Intervals lying strictly between sunrise and sunset (excluding the twilight bins) were designated daytime, whereas those between sunset and the following sunrise (again excluding twilight) were defined as nighttime [3].
The Shapiro–Wilk test, conducted using the shapiro.test function from R’s base stats package, indicated that none of the data were normally distributed. Therefore, a Scheirer–Ray–Hare two-way ANOVA (SRH ANOVA) implemented in the scheirerRayHare function from the rcompanion package in R was used to evaluate the effects of diel period and month and their interaction. Subsequent analyses followed a two-step strategy: (1) if a significant diel effect was detected and the diel × month interaction was non-significant, Dunn’s multiple comparisons were performed across diel levels with Bonferroni-corrected p-values using the dunnTest function from the FSA package in R; (2) whenever a significant diel × month interaction was present—regardless of the significance of the overall diel effect—the diel effect was examined month by month. When examining the diel effect within each month, the following sequential procedure was applied independently to the data of that month: (i) normality was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and homogeneity of variances was assessed using Levene’s test with the leveneTest function from the car package; (ii) if both assumptions were met, a one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test was conducted using the aov and TukeyHSD functions from the stats package; (iii) if normality was met but variances were unequal, we applied Welch’s ANOVA via oneway.test function (stats package, base R) and conducted Games–Howell post-hoc comparisons with gamesHowellTest function from PMCMRplus package; (iv) when normality was violated, we conducted a Kruskal–Wallis test with kruskal.test (stats package) and applied Dunn’s all-pairs post hoc comparisons using the kwAllPairsDunnTest (PMCMRplus package) with Bonferroni correction.
For each species, the three replicate CPUE collected at each of the six 1 h intervals were first averaged within every month. Pearson correlation coefficients were then computed among all pairwise species combinations using these monthly, interval-averaged values with cor.test (stats package). The resulting p-values were adjusted for multiple testing via the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure using p. adjust (stats package), ensuring robust control of the false discovery rate.

3. Results

3.1. Diel Variations of Monthly Catches of Silver Carp and Bighead Carp

There was a substantial monthly variation in the diel pattern of CPUE of silver carp and bighead carp. The CPUE of silver carp was the highest at the time interval of 6:00–7:00 in April, October, and November. The highest CPUE for May and August, however, occurred at the time intervals of 18:00–19:00 and 22:00–23:00, respectively. Conversely, July and September had their highest CPUE occurring at the time interval of 2:00–3:00 (Figure 2).
Bighead carp had its peak CPUE occurring between 10:00 and 11:00 in April with a sub-peak occurring between 6:00 and 7:00. The peak CPUE recorded for the months of May, July, and August occurred at the intervals of 18:00–19:00, 14:00–15:00, and 22:00–23:00, respectively, whereas that of September and November occurred from 6:00 to 7:00. During September, two sub-peaks also appeared at the intervals of 6:00–7:00 and 14:00–15:00, respectively. October had its peaks at the intervals of 6:00–7:00 and 18:00–19:00 (Figure 2).

3.2. Diurnal Differences in Catches for the Two Carps and By-Catch Species

There were significant differences in the diurnal changes in the CPUE of silver carp, topmouth (Culter alburnus), humpback (Chanodichthys dabryi), and Wuchang bream (Megalobrama amblycephala) (p < 0.05). However, a significant diel × month interaction was detected only for silver carp (Table 1 and Table 2), indicating that the diurnal rhythms of silver carp changed according to month. The CPUE varied significantly with the time of day for silver carp in May, October, and November, being higher during twilight and/or at night than in daytime (Table 3 and Figure 3). The CPUEs of humpback and Wuchang bream recorded in the daytime were significantly higher than those at night, whereas the CPUE of topmouth was significantly higher during twilight than at night (Table 2).
The CPUEs of bighead carp, Mongolian redfin (Culter mongolicus), crucian carp (Carassius auratus), and Japanese grenadier anchovy (Coilia nasus) did not vary with time of day, and no interactions between the diel effect and monthly effect were observed (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 4).
Although the overall diel effect was not significant when averaged across months, both month and the diel × month interaction significantly influenced the CPUE of common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Further Kruskal–Wallis tests conducted for April, May, and September showed significant within-month diel differences (Table 3). In April, daytime CPUE was significantly higher than nighttime; in May and September, twilight CPUE was significantly higher than daytime and/or nighttime (Table 1 and Figure 5).

3.3. CPUE Correlation Between Fishes

A significant negative correlation was found between the CPUE of bighead carp and that of Japanese grenadier anchovy. In contrast, the CPUE of bighead carp exhibited positive correlations with those of silver carp and topmouth (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The diel rhythm of fish activity, which varied according to species, could be classified into diurnal, nocturnal, crepuscular, and aphasic (arrhythmic) patterns [36]. The diel rhythm of a single fish species also has strong plasticity and changes with season, stage of life history, social interactions, trophic level, habitat utilization, and environmental conditions [37,38]. The plasticity of a specific species can even be observed in specific times and places [39]. White suckers (Catostomus commersonii) have been documented by various authors to exhibit diurnal, nocturnal, or crepuscular activity patterns [40]. By contrast, dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), bleak (Alburnus alburnus), and roach (Rutilus rutilus) demonstrated a habitat-scale shift in diel activity [6].
In the present study, plasticity in diel activity was evident in silver carp, whose diel catch efficiency varied monthly, and in common carp, which displayed altered diel patterns in April, May, and September. However, this plasticity in common carp was restricted to these three months, precluding generalization to other periods. Despite such variability, certain species maintained consistent diel rhythms. For instance, whitefin gudgeon (Romanogobio albipinnatus) remains strictly nocturnal across contexts, and pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) retains a diurnal pattern year-round [6,39]. Similarly, seven species in our study—topmouth culter, humpback, Wuchang bream, Mongolian redfin, bighead carp, Japanese grenadier anchovy, and crucian carp—exhibited month-independent diel rhythms. Specifically, topmouth culter was primarily captured during twilight, humpback and Wuchang bream showed daytime activity dominance, and the remaining four species displayed no significant diel variation in catches across all months.
While the seven focal warm-water species in Gehu Lake maintained stable diel rhythms from April to November, contrasting patterns have been reported elsewhere. In Azorean coastal waters, several dominant species switch between diurnal, nocturnal, and crepuscular phases monthly [6], and asp (Leuciscus aspius) exhibits pronounced seasonal variation in movement, with significant shifts in 9 out of 12 months [41]. These discrepancies suggest temperature may modulate daily activity schedules; however, direct evidence remains limited [39]. Experimental studies support this potential: sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) suppress nocturnal activity peaks and increase daytime activity at temperatures ≥20 °C [42], whereas European minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) and asp show opposing responses to low temperatures [41,43]. Collectively, these findings indicate that the direction and magnitude of temperature-induced rhythmic shifts are species-specific and context-dependent.
In our study, mean water temperatures reached 32.9 °C in July and August, marginally exceeding the optimal range (20–32 °C) for warm-water fishes [44]. Nevertheless, silver carp (consistent with cooler months [April–May]) and common carp (consistent with cooler months [October–November]) showed no diel variation in CPUE, and the other seven species maintained stable activity patterns across the seven-month study period. This apparent thermal insensitivity may stem from the modest temperature excursion above the optimal range during sampling. Alternatively, our narrow seasonal window (April–November) may have masked thermal effects that could emerge under more extreme winter conditions.
Notably, for the seven species with no clear monthly trends in diel activity, missing June records are unlikely to bias their characterization. In contrast, the irregular monthly variation in common carp and silver carp means missing June data may compromise evaluations of their diel patterns. Moreover, the absence of winter data prevents a definitive assessment of annual rhythmic constancy. Future winter surveys are therefore necessary to determine whether the observed rhythms persist year-round or undergo alteration under low-temperature regimes.
Foraging success and predation risk are the two strong candidates to explain why freshwater fishes are active when they are most likely to encounter optimal feeding conditions, and why they sometimes change their activity patterns [6,22,39,45]. Being active when predators are inactive can reduce the predation risk of prey species [46]. This kind of predator avoidance is a mechanism allowing long-term survival of prey species. For instance, the diurnal inactivity of the three Anchoa species might be related to predator avoidance [47]. In this study, no significant negative correlations were found in CPUE between the three predatory fishes and the other six fish species, suggesting that the prey species did not avoid the activity peaks of predators. However, the insufficient collection of small individuals, likely due to the relatively large mesh size of the trammel net used, may have obscured any potential negative correlations.
Foraging success is modulated by food availability, competition, and ease of food detection, depending on the lighting conditions. According to Reebs (2002) [37], interspecific and intraspecific competition could be reduced by different diel rhythms. The Japanese grenadier anchovy is zooplanktivorous, while bighead carp are planktivorous with a preference for zooplankton [48,49]. A significant negative correlation in CPUE was observed between the two species, likely driven by zooplankton resource competition. Silver carp reached its activity peak at twilight or night. Significant diel variations in its catches only occurred in a few months (Figure 3). Similar results were also reported by previous studies, which suggested that it feeds actively in daytime, at twilight, or at night [20,50,51].
Visually oriented predators are more active during twilight or daytime [3,12,52]. For example, the European perch (Perca fluviatilis) was mostly captured at twilight and in daytime and rarely at night [3,53]. Yousif (2003) [26] found that the catch rates of Brushtooth lizardfish (Saurida undosquamis) and Japanese threadfin bream (Nemipterus japonicus) were significantly higher during the day compared to nighttime, which further supports the idea that visually oriented predators are more active when the visibility is better. In these studies, the results of topmouth and humpback supported the findings and conclusions of the above-mentioned literature. Moreover, daytime catch rates for the two species and for Mongolian redfin were 3.7-, 3.0-, and 4.0-fold higher, respectively, than their corresponding nighttime rates, while twilight-to-night ratios reached 7.0, 2.0, and 14.0. The lack of significant diel variation in Mongolian redfin catches can be attributed to the limited sample size. Small fish and shrimp are the main food sources of topmouth and humpback [54]. The adult Mongolian redfin has a trophic level reaching up to 3.9 (fishbase) and can be considered a carnivore with a preference for decapods and fish. The diel variations of catches of these three species may therefore be related to their feeding habits, depending on visual orientation for detection of their prey. Gehu Lake is a eutrophic lake, where cyanobacterial blooms during high-temperature seasons reduce water transparency. This condition might be expected to promote diurnal activity in visually oriented predatory fishes. However, the observations in this study are not entirely consistent with this expectation: humpback exhibited a greater tendency for diurnal activity, whereas topmouth was more active during crepuscular periods.
Most herbivorous and omnivorous fish are primarily active during the day [55]. Furthermore, it was argued that among the five functional groups, herbivores and cleaners are inactive during the night [36]. Herbivorous Wuchang bream was active mostly during the day and twilight, which was consistent during the study months. This result supported the findings of both Hobson (1965) [55] and Helfman (1986) [36]. Common carp and crucian carp are omnivorous fish. Individuals of common carp cultured in ponds or aquariums mainly fed between 14:00 and 18:00 or displayed no obvious diel feeding variation [56,57]. Common carp in Gehu Lake exhibited markedly higher activity during daylight and twilight hours in three of the sampled months but showed no significant diel variation in the remaining months. Similar results were also reported by other researchers [45], but contrary to those of Říha et al. (2011) [58]. Crucian carp have been reported to be active during the day, night, or twilight, or to be aphasic [37]. In the Murray River, catches of crucian carp were significantly higher at night than in daytime [45]. No significant diel variations of crucian carp catches were observed in Gehu Lake, which may be attributed to its non-preference for light during the time of day [59].

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

To the best of our knowledge, this study provides the first report on diel variation of CPUE for silver carp, bighead carp, Wuchang bream, Japanese grenadier anchovy, and the three culters (topmouth, humpback, and Mongolian redfin). Humpback and Wuchang bream exhibited significantly higher diurnal activity than nocturnal activity, whereas silver carp and common carp displayed month-dependent diel rhythms. Consequently, overnight sampling methods can markedly bias stock assessments for these species. Given the highly similar thermal and light regimes among lakes in the middle and lower Yangtze River Basin, and because Gehu Lake is a representative shallow, eutrophic lake within this region, our findings should be broadly applicable to comparable freshwater ecosystems. To ensure the robustness of these findings across seasons, we therefore recommend additional winter surveys in Gehu Lake to test the generality of our warm-season conclusions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.L. and Z.H.; data curation, J.D., X.S., and Y.Z.; funding acquisition, Z.H.; investigation, Z.H.; methodology, Q.L. and Z.H.; project administration, Z.H.; supervision, Q.L. and Z.H.; writing—original draft, J.D. and X.S.; writing—review and editing, J.D., Y.Z., and Z.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFD2400901), Three New Aquaculture Project of Jiangsu Province (Item Number Y2017-23), and Aquaculture and Environmental Management Technology Research and Demonstration (Item Number 2015BAD13B00).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was authorized by Shanghai Ocean University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUS) (Shanghai, China). Approval Code: SHOW-DW-2016-001. Approval Date: 1 March 2016.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Yong Zhu was employed by the company Shanghai Investigation, Design & Research Institute Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jackson, D.A.; Harvey, H.H. Qualitative and quantitative sampling of lake fish communities. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1997, 54, 2807–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ye, S.W.; Zhang, T.L.; Li, Z.J.; Liu, J.-S. Relationships between spatial distribution of two dominant small-sized fishes and submerged macrophyte cover in Niushan Lake of China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 23, 2566–2572. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vašek, M.; Kubečka, J.; Čech, M.; Draštík, V.; Matěna, J.; Mrkvička, T.; Peterka, J.; Prchalová, M. Diel variation in gillnet catches and vertical distribution of pelagic fishes in a stratified European reservoir. Fish. Res. 2009, 96, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, Y.L.; Liu, Q.G.; Chen, L.P.; Zhao, L.J.; Wu, H.; Chen, L.Q.; Hu, Z.J. A comparison between benthic gillnet and bottom trawl for assessing fish assemblages in a shallow eutrophic lake near the Changjiang River estuary. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2018, 36, 572–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bohl, E. Diel pattern of pelagic distribution and feeding in planktivorous fish. Oecologia 1980, 44, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Nowak, M.; Klaczak, A.; Koščo, J.; Szczerbik, P.; Fedorčák, J.; Hajdú, J.; Popek, W. Diel changeover of fish assemblages in shallow sandy habitats of lowland rivers of different sizes. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2019, 420, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Olin, M.; Malinen, T. Comparison of gillnet and trawl in diurnal fish community sampling. Hydrobiologia 2003, 506–509, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liang, J.; Wang, W.D.; Xu, H.X.; Zhou, Y.D.; Xu, K.D.; Zhang, H.L.; Lu, K.K. Diel and seasonal variation in fish communities in the Zhongjieshan marine island reef reserve. Fish. Res. 2020, 227, 105549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pillar, S.C.; Barange, M. Diel variability in bottom trawl catches and feeding activity of the Cape hakes of the west coast of South Africa. Ices J. Mar. Sci. 1997, 54, 485–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hjellvik, V.; Godø, O.R.; Tjøstheim, D. Diurnal variation in bottom trawl survey catches: Does it pay to adjust? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2002, 59, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Toobaie, A.; Kim, J.W.; Dolinsek, I.J.; Grant, J.W.A. Diel activity patterns of the fish community in a temperate stream. J. Fish Biol. 2013, 82, 1700–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Amaral, L.D.S.; Bastos, A.S.A.; de Carvalho-Junior, L.; Maciel, M.D.R.; Teixeira-Neves, T.P.; Araújo, F.G.; Neves, L.M. Diel changes in fish assemblages of Southwest Atlantic rocky reefs. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2023, 106, 627–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fang, Y.Q.; Zhong, J.S.; Mao, C.Z.; Ge, C.G.; Yang, P.H.; Chen, Y.G. Diurnal variation of larval and juvenile fish species composition in surf zone of sandy beach in Tian’ao Sijiao Island. J. Shanghai Ocean. Univ. 2012, 21, 598–602. [Google Scholar]
  14. Yan, L.P.; Zhang, H.Y.; Cheng, J.H.; Yuan, X.W. Statistic analysis on circadian difference of catch rate of hairtail in the East China Sea. Mar. Fish. 2008, 71, 279–296. [Google Scholar]
  15. Yang, Y.Y.; Ying, Y.P.; Zhao, X.Y.; Wang, X.L.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Z.Z.; Tang, Y. Biology of lanternfish Ceratoscopelus warmingii in waters of the northern slope in South China Sea. J. DaLian Ocean. Univ. 2017, 32, 79–85. [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, M.Z.; Duan, Z.H.; Jiang, W.; Liu, H.Z. Preliminary analysis on the diel drifting behavior of fish eggs and larvaes in different sections of main stream of the Yangtze river. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2011, 20, 957–962. [Google Scholar]
  17. Guo, G.Z.; Gao, L.; Duan, X.B.; Liu, S.P.; Chen, D.Q.; Tang, H.Y. Research of diel drifting patterns of fish larvae at Honghu section in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River. Freshw. Fish. 2017, 47, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lian, Y.X.; Ye, S.W.; Godlewska, M.; Huang, G.; Wang, J.Y.; Chen, S.B.; Zhao, X.J.; Du, X.; Liu, J.S.; Li, Z.J. Diurnal, seasonal and inter-annual variability of fish density and distribution in the Three Gorges Reservoir (China) assessed with hydroacoustics. Limnologica 2017, 63, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mei, F.; Zhang, C.S.; Luo, B.; Zhang, D.X.; Hu, S.Q.; Bao, J.H.; Lian, Y.X.; Zhao, D.X.; Duan, M. Effects of season and diel cycle on hydroacoustic estimates of density, Target Strength, and vertical distribution of fish in Yudong Reservoir, a plateau deep water reservoir in southwest China. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 9, 1119410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, S.F.; Yang, H.Q.; Lu, W.M. Prelimin ary research on diurnal feeding rhythm and the daily ration for silver carp, bighead carp and grass carp. J. Fish. China 1980, 4, 275–283. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fortes-Silva, R.; Martínez, F.J.; Villarroel, M.; Sánchez-Vázquez, F.J. Daily rhythms of locomotor activity, feeding behavior and dietary selection in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A: Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2010, 156, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shoup, D.E.; Carlson, R.E.; Heath, R.T. Diel activity levels of centrarchid fishes in a small Ohio lake. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2004, 133, 1264–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, X.; Xie, P.; Huang, X.P. A Review of Nontraditional Biomanipulation. Sci. World J. 2008, 8, 1184–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jia, P.Q.; Zhang, W.B.; Liu, Q.G. Lake fisheries in China: Challenges and opportunities. Fish. Res. 2013, 140, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Y.S. Water environment evolution and its causes in Gehu lake. Water Resour. Plan. Des. 2013, 26, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yousif, A. Diel variability of size and catch rate of three fish species and three penaeid prawns in the NW Red Sea trawl fishery. Fish. Res. 2003, 63, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Newman, S.J.; Williams, D.M. Mesh Size Selection and Diel Variability in catch of fish traps on the central Great Barrier Reef, Australia: A preliminary investigation. Fish. Res. 1995, 23, 237–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Johnson, D.D.; Rotherham, D.; Gray, C.A. Sampling estuarine fish and invertebrates using demersal otter trawls: Effects of net height, tow duration and diel period. Fish. Res. 2008, 93, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Prchalová, M.; Mrkvička, T.; Kubečka, J.; Peterka, J.; Čech, M.; Muška, M.; Kratochvíl, M.; Vašek, M. Fish activity as determined by gillnet catch: A comparison of two reservoirs of different turbidity. Fish. Res. 2010, 102, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nash, R.D.M.; Santos, R.S. Seasonality in diel catch rate of small fishes in a shallow-water fish assemblage at Porto Pim Bay, Faial, Azores. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 1998, 47, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dulčić, J.; Fencil, M.; Matić-Skoko, S.; Kraljević, M.; Glamuzina, B. Diel catch variations in a shallow-water fish assemblage at Duće Glava, eastern Adriatic (Croatian coast). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. United Kingd. 2004, 84, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Loures, R.C.; Pompeu, P.S. Seasonal and diel changes in fish distribution in a tropical hydropower plant tailrace: Evidence from hydroacoustic and gillnet sampling. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2015, 22, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Soldo, A.; Paliska, D. Diel and seasonal changes in the abundance and diversity of the infralittoral fish community in the rastern central adriatic. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ni, Y.; Cheng, D. Fishers Sinica; Technology Press: Shanghai, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  35. Chen, Y.Y. Fauna Sinica; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  36. Helfman, G.S. Fish behaviour by day, night and twilight. In the Behaviour of Teleost Fishes; Pitcher, T.J., Ed.; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1986; pp. 366–387. [Google Scholar]
  37. Reebs, S. Plasticity of diel and circadian rhythms in fishes. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2002, 12, 349–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Arndt, E.; Evans, J. Diel activity of littoral and epipelagic teleost fishes in the Mediterranean Sea. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2022, 32, 497–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Janáč, M.; Jurajda, P. Diel differences in 0+ fish samples: Effect of river size and habitat. River Res. Appl. 2013, 29, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reebs, S.G.; Boudreau, L.; Hardie, P.; Cunjak, R.A. Diel activity patterns of lake chubs and other fishes in a temperate stream. Can. J. Zool. 1995, 73, 1221–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kärgenberg, E.; Sandlund, O.T.; Thorstad, E.B.; Thalfeldt, M.; Økland, F.; Kaasik, A.; Tambets, M. Annual and diel activity cycles of a northern population of the large migratory cyprinid fish asp (Leuciscus aspius). Environ. Biol. Fishes 2022, 105, 1697–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Binder, T.R.; McDonald, D.G. The role of temperature in controlling diel activity in upstream migrant sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2008, 65, 1113–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Greenwood, M.F.D.; Metcalfe, N.B. Minnows become nocturnal at low temperatures. J. Fish Biol. 1998, 53, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hu, S.L.; Tang, J.X. Fish Culture and Enhancement Technology; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Baumgartner, L.J.; Stuart, I.G.; Zampatti, B.P. Determining diel variation in fish assemblages downstream of three weirs in a regulated lowland river. J. Fish Biol. 2008, 72, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kadye, W.T.; Booth, A.J. Alternative responses to predation in two headwater stream minnows is reflected in their contrasting diel activity patterns. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Castillo-Rivera, M.; Moreno, G.; Iniestra, R. Spatial, seasonal, and diel variation in abundance of the bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli (Teleostei: Engraulidae), in a tropical coastal lagoon of Mexico. Southwest Nat. 1994, 39, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Choi, H.C.; Youn, S.H.; Huh, S.H.; Park, J.M. Diet composition and feeding habits of two engraulid fish larvae (Engraulis Japonicus and Coilia Nasus) in the Nakdong River Estuary, Korea. J. Coast. Res. 2018, 85, 346–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ke, Z.; Xie, P.; Guo, L. In situ study on effect of food competition on diet shifts and growth of silver and bighead carps in large biomanipulation fish pens in Meiliang Bay, Lake Taihu. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2008, 24, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, S.L.; Hu, C.L.; Zhang, S.Y. Feeding intensity of silver carp and bighead under natural condition(1) Feeding intensity of fingerlings of silver carp and bighead in summer. Acta Hydrobiol. Sin. 1986, 10, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, F.; Dong, S.L.; Li, D.S.; Bing, X.W. Experimental studies on feeding rates and rhythm of silver carp (Hypophthal michthys molitrix). J. Ocean. Univ. Qingdao 1993, 23, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  52. Helfman, G.S. Twilight activities and temporal structure in a freshwater fish community. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1981, 38, 1405–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zamora, L.; Moreno-Amich, R. Quantifying the activity and movement of perch in a temperate lake by integrating acoustic telemetry and a geographic information system. Hydrobiologia 2002, 483, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yang, R.B.; Xie, C.X.; Yang, X.F. Study on the food composition of six kinds of Fferocious fish in Liangzi Lake. Reserv. Fish. 2002, 22, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hobson, E.S. Diurnal-nocturnal activity of some inshore fishes in the Gulf of California. Copeia 1965, 3, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wright, D.E.; Eastcott, A. Operant conditioning of feeding behaviour and patterns of feeding in thick lipped mullet, Crenimugil labrosus (Risso) and common carp, Cyprinus carpio (L.). J. Fish Biol. 1982, 20, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, J.S. Study on the growth and feeding rhythm of wild carp and hybrid carp. Reserv. Fish. 1989, 3, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
  58. Říha, M.; Kubečka, J.; Prchalová, M.; Mrkvička, T.; Čech, M.; Draštík, V.; Frouzová, J.; Hohausová, E.; Jůza, T.; Kratochvíl, M.; et al. The influence of diel period on fish assemblage in the unstructured littoral of reservoirs. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2011, 18, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Thor, D.H. Schedules of self-lighting behaviour in the yellow canary, goldfish, and Mongolian gerbil. J. Gen. Psychol. 1972, 87, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Map showing Gehu Lake.
Figure 1. Map showing Gehu Lake.
Fishes 10 00409 g001
Figure 2. Diel pattern of CPUE of (AG) silver carp and (HN) bighead carp caught by trammel nets across months: (A,H) April, (B,I) May, (C,J) July, (D,K) August, (E,L) September, (F,M) October, (G,N) November.
Figure 2. Diel pattern of CPUE of (AG) silver carp and (HN) bighead carp caught by trammel nets across months: (A,H) April, (B,I) May, (C,J) July, (D,K) August, (E,L) September, (F,M) October, (G,N) November.
Fishes 10 00409 g002
Figure 3. Change in CPUE of Chinese silver carp between daytime, twilight, and nighttime. Note: The different letters in each month denote significant differences at the level of p < 0.05. The bars represent standard error.
Figure 3. Change in CPUE of Chinese silver carp between daytime, twilight, and nighttime. Note: The different letters in each month denote significant differences at the level of p < 0.05. The bars represent standard error.
Fishes 10 00409 g003
Figure 4. Change in CPUE of Mongolian redfin between daytime, twilight, and nighttime. Note: The different letters in each month denote significant differences at the level of p < 0.05. The bars represent standard error.
Figure 4. Change in CPUE of Mongolian redfin between daytime, twilight, and nighttime. Note: The different letters in each month denote significant differences at the level of p < 0.05. The bars represent standard error.
Fishes 10 00409 g004
Figure 5. The diurnal change in CPUE of common carp. Note: The different letters in each month denote significant differences at the level of p < 0.05. The bars represent standard error.
Figure 5. The diurnal change in CPUE of common carp. Note: The different letters in each month denote significant differences at the level of p < 0.05. The bars represent standard error.
Fishes 10 00409 g005
Table 1. Results of the Scheirer–Ray–Hare two-way analysis of variance (SRH two-way ANOVA) performed on CPUE of different fish species, showing the effects of the factors diel time, month, and their interactions.
Table 1. Results of the Scheirer–Ray–Hare two-way analysis of variance (SRH two-way ANOVA) performed on CPUE of different fish species, showing the effects of the factors diel time, month, and their interactions.
SpeciesDiel EffectMonth EffectInteractions
Silver carp16.626 (<0.001)24.141 (<0.001)22.113 (0.036)
Bighead carp5.074 (0.079)19.490 (0.003)17.982 (0.116)
Topmouth12.609 (0.002)3.895 (0.691)11.829 (0.459)
Humpback5.999 (0.049)26.172 (<0.001)8.463 (0.748)
Mongolian redfin4.789 (0.091)2.953 (0.086)3.180 (0.204)
Common carp4.381 (0.115)15.008 (0.020)23.701 (0.022)
Crucian carp4.158 (0.125)9.741 (0.136)11.494 (0.478)
Wuchang bream8.173 (0.017)5.138 (0.162)1.617 (0.951)
Japanese grenadier anchovy4.290 (0.117)47.805 (<0.001)17.329 (0.138)
Note: The numbers in the table represent H values, with the numbers in parentheses representing p-values.
Table 2. Significance test on CPUE of different fish species among daytime, twilight, and nighttime.
Table 2. Significance test on CPUE of different fish species among daytime, twilight, and nighttime.
SpeciesCPUE (Ind./1000 m2/h−1)
DaytimeTwilightNighttime
Silver carp #43.34 ± 6.22119.47 ± 21.0485.89 ± 9.54
Bighead carp8.85 ± 1.55 a11.58 ± 1.96 a6.18 ± 1.02 a
Topmouth1.22 ± 0.44 ab2.33 ± 0.71 a0.33 ± 0.19 b
Humpback6.19 ± 3.05 a4.09 ± 1.08 ab2.08 ± 0.67 b
Mongolian redfin0.66 ± 0.45 a2.31 ± 0.94 a0.17 ± 0.17 a
Common carp #2.19 ± 0.473.19 ± 0.981.11 ± 0.24
Crucian carp4.95 ± 1.06 a5.37 ± 1.02 a2.87 ± 0.56 a
Wuchang bream3.59 ± 0.70 a2.98 ± 1.17 ab1.19 ± 0.47 b
Japanese grenadier anchovy2.76 ± 0.57 a5.92 ± 1.95 a5.34 ± 1.07 a
Note: The different superscript letters in each column for each species indicate significant differences in CPUE at the level of p < 0.05. #: Given the presence of diel × month interaction effects, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was employed to analyze the diurnal effects for each month in these two species. The results of the monthly diel effects are presented in Table 3. Data in the table are presented as mean ± standard error (SE).
Table 3. Diurnal effect analyses for each month in silver carp and common carp, using one-way ANOVA or the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test.
Table 3. Diurnal effect analyses for each month in silver carp and common carp, using one-way ANOVA or the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test.
MonthSilver CarpCommon Carp
Statistical Valuesp ValueStatistical Valuesp Value
April4.170 #0.1246.770 #0.034
May10.873 $0.0267.804 #0.020
July4.305 $0.0730.240 #0.887
August2.686 %0.1010.298 #0.862
September0.141 $0.8716.832 #0.033
October4.258 %0.0341.417 #0.493
November10.320 %0.0022.208 #0.332
Note: #: Chi-square (×2) value from the Kruskal–Wallis test; $: F value from Welch’s ANOVA; %: F value from one-way ANOVA.
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients between CPUEs of different fish species (df = 41).
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients between CPUEs of different fish species (df = 41).
SpeciesSilver CarpBighead CarpTopmouthHumpbackMongolian RedfinCrucian CarpCommon CarpWuchang Bream
Silver carp1
Bighead carp0.529 **1
Topmouth0.3950.467 *1
Humpback−0.152−0.0720.0271
Mongolian redfin−0.0480.0470.0510.0911
Crucian carp−0.022−0.1120.1240.3500.1071
Common carp0.1170.4080.412−0.0450.2020.1041
Wuchang bream−0.221−0.268−0.009−0.056−0.1570.037−0.1571
Japanese grenadier anchovy−0.262−0.453 *−0.229−0.011−0.1930.102−0.1030.173
Note: Superscript symbols of “*” or “**” indicate a significant correlation between the CPUEs of different fish species at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively. All p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dong, J.; Song, X.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, Q.; Hu, Z. Diel Catch Variation of the Primary Fish Species Captured by Trammel Nets in a Shallow Eutrophic Lake in Jiangsu Province, China. Fishes 2025, 10, 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10080409

AMA Style

Dong J, Song X, Zhu Y, Liu Q, Hu Z. Diel Catch Variation of the Primary Fish Species Captured by Trammel Nets in a Shallow Eutrophic Lake in Jiangsu Province, China. Fishes. 2025; 10(8):409. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10080409

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dong, Jiyang, Xiumiao Song, Yong Zhu, Qigen Liu, and Zhongjun Hu. 2025. "Diel Catch Variation of the Primary Fish Species Captured by Trammel Nets in a Shallow Eutrophic Lake in Jiangsu Province, China" Fishes 10, no. 8: 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10080409

APA Style

Dong, J., Song, X., Zhu, Y., Liu, Q., & Hu, Z. (2025). Diel Catch Variation of the Primary Fish Species Captured by Trammel Nets in a Shallow Eutrophic Lake in Jiangsu Province, China. Fishes, 10(8), 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10080409

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop