scholarly journals Microhabitat complexity influences fear acquisition in fathead minnows

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam L Crane ◽  
Maud C O Ferrari ◽  
Ita A E Rivera-Hernández ◽  
Grant E Brown
Keyword(s):  
Predation Risk ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Background Risk ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Plant Structure ◽  
Water Control ◽  
Chemical Alarm Cues ◽  
Microhabitat Complexity ◽  
Novel Habitat ◽  
Complex Habitat

Abstract Habitat varies in structure, with animals often preferring a certain degree of microhabitat complexity that facilitates fitness-related activities such as predator avoidance. Environments with high predation risk can induce elevated baseline fear and neophobia in prey, but whether microhabitat complexity influences the acquisition of neophobia has yet to be reported. Here, we tested whether exposure to predation risk induces different levels of fear in microhabitats that differed in complexity. We exposed fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, to predation risk repeatedly (12 times over 4 days) in the form of damage-released chemical alarm cues (compared to water control) in tanks with vertical plant structure distributed either throughout the tank (complex habitat) or clumped together (simple habitat). Then, we tested minnows before and after exposure to a novel odor in tanks with either the same microhabitat complexity (i.e., familiar habitats) or in tanks with novel habitat that had different substrate structure and no vertical structure. Minnows in the complex habitat showed less overall movement one day after the background risk period, whereas individuals in the simple habitat showed reduced movement regardless of prior risk exposure. We observed stronger effects in the novel habitat, where background risk in both simple and complex habitats caused neophobia. However, individuals from the simple background habitat showed higher baseline fear behaviors. Hence, for minnows, low microhabitat complexity appears to lead to elevated fear, which remains even after a habitat change.

Does habitat complexity influence the ability of fathead minnows to learn heterospecific chemical alarm cues?

2003 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 923-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
M S Pollock ◽  
D P Chivers
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Complexity ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Ecological Factors ◽  
Habitat Characteristics ◽  
Predatory Fish ◽  
Skin Extract ◽  
Alarm Cues ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Chemical Alarm Cues

Numerous aquatic animals release chemical cues when attacked by a predator. These cues "warn" other individuals of danger and have been termed alarm cues. Cross-species responses to alarm cues are common and in some cases result from learned recognition. However, little is known about the ecological factors that could influence this learned recognition. The current study focuses on the role of habitat complexity in the learning of heterospecific alarm cues. We introduced brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) into outdoor pools containing fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) naïve to stickleback. The pools all contained a predatory fish (northern pike, Esox lucius) but varied in habitat characteristics. Pools representing high-complexity habitats had a large amount of structure to obscure the visual environment, while pools representing low-complexity habitats had minimal structure. After 8 days, fish were removed from the pools and behavioural assays were conducted in the laboratory. We tested the minnows for a response to either stickleback skin extract (experimental) or swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) skin extract (control) and found that minnows conditioned in pools with little structure had learned to recognize stickleback alarm cues, while those from pools with complex structure did not recognize stickleback alarm cues.

scholarly journals Fathead minnows learn to recognize predator odour when exposed to concentrations of artificial alarm pheromone below their behavioural-response threshold

2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (12) ◽  
pp. 2239-2245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant E Brown ◽  
James C Adrian, Jr. ◽  
Todd Patton ◽  
Douglas P Chivers
Keyword(s):  
Yellow Perch ◽  
Alarm Pheromone ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Behavioural Response ◽  
Response Threshold ◽  
Antipredator Behaviour ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Water Control ◽  
Ostariophysan Fishes

Hypoxanthine-3-N-oxide (H3NO) has been identified as the putative alarm pheromone of ostariophysan fishes. Previously we demonstrated a population-specific minimum behavioural-response threshold in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) to a H3NO concentration of approximately 0.4 nM. Minnows may, however, perceive low concentrations of H3NO as a predation threat, even though they do not exhibit an overt behavioural response. We conducted a series of laboratory trials to test the hypothesis that minnows can detect the alarm pheromone at concentrations below the minimum behavioural-response threshold. We exposed predator-naïve fathead minnows to H3NO at concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 0.05 nM paired with the odour of a novel predator (yellow perch, Perca flavescens) or distilled water paired with perch odour. We observed significant increases in antipredator behaviour (increased shoal cohesion, movement towards the substrate, a reduction in feeding, and an increase in the occurrence of dashing and freezing behaviour) in shoals of minnows exposed to a combined cue of 0.4 nM H3NO and perch odour (compared with a distilled-water control), but not by shoals exposed to lower concentrations of H3NO paired with perch odour or those exposed to distilled water paired with perch odour. When exposed to perch odour alone 4 days later, minnows initially conditioned to H3NO at concentrations of 0.4–0.1 nM exhibited significant increases in antipredator behaviour. These data demonstrate that minnows attend to the alarm pheromone at concentrations below the minimum behavioural-response threshold and are able to acquire the ability to recognize a novel predator even though they do not exhibit an overt behavioural response.

The interaction between antipredator behaviour and antipredator morphology: experiments with fathead minnows and brook sticklebacks

1995 ◽  
Vol 73 (12) ◽  
pp. 2209-2215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark V. Abrahams
Keyword(s):  
Predation Risk ◽  
Yellow Perch ◽  
Prey Species ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Antipredator Behaviour ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Behavioural Modification ◽  
Reactive Distance ◽  
Habitat Avoidance ◽  
Morphological Defenses

Prey species have two fundamental strategies for reducing their probability of being killed by a predator: behavioural modification and morphological defenses. It is hypothesized that prey species which possess morphological defenses should exhibit less behavioural modification in response to predation risk than species lacking such defenses. Experiments were conducted to examine behavioural modification by armoured (brook sticklebacks, Culea inconstans) and unarmoured (fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas) prey species foraging in the presence of a predator (yellow perch, Perca flavescens). Two experiments measured habitat avoidance and reactive distance to an approaching predator. The results of these experiments were consistent with the hypothesis. Compared with fathead minnows, brook sticklebacks exhibited relatively little behavioural modification in response to the presence of a predator, both in terms of avoiding dangerous areas and in their reactive distance to an approaching predator. Sticklebacks, however, graded their reactive distance to an approaching predator in relation to both their body size and group size. These data suggest that the morphology of brook sticklebacks and their behavioural sensitivity to predation risk may allow them to efficiently exploit habitats that contain predators.

LEARNED RECOGNITION OF HETEROSPECIFIC ALARM CUES ENHANCES SURVIVAL DURING ENCOUNTERS WITH PREDATORS

Behaviour ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 139 (7) ◽  
pp. 929-938 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Chivers ◽  
Reehan Mirza ◽  
Jeffery Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Yellow Perch ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Mixed Diet ◽  
Alarm Cues ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Culaea Inconstans ◽  
Alarm Cue ◽  
Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus Mykiss ◽  
Chemical Alarm Cues ◽  
Chemical Stimuli

AbstractNumerous species of aquatic animals release chemical cues when attacked by a predator. These chemicals serve to warn other conspecifics, and in some cases heterospecifics, of danger, and hence have been termed alarm cues. Responses of animals to alarm cues produced by other species often need to be learned, yet mechanisms of learned recognition of heterospecific cues are not well understood. In this study, we tested whether fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) could learn to recognize a heterospecific alarm cue when it was combined with conspecific alarm cue in the diet of a predator. We exposed fathead minnows to chemical stimuli collected from rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, fed a mixed diet of minnows and brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans, or trout fed a mixed diet of swordtails, Xiphophorous helleri, and stickleback. To test if the minnows had acquired recognition of the heterospecific alarm cues, we exposed them to stickleback alarm cues and introduced an unknown predator, yellow perch (Perca flavescens) or northern pike (Esox lucius). Both perch and pike took longer to initiate an attack on minnows that were previously exposed to trout fed minnows and stickleback than those previously exposed to trout fed swordtails and stickleback. These results demonstrate that minnows can learn to recognize heterospecific alarm cues based on detecting the heterospecific cue in combination with minnow alarm cues in the diet of the predator. Ours is the first study to demonstrate that behavioural responses to heterospecific chemical alarm cues decreases the probability that the prey will be attacked and captured during an encounter with a predator.

Active space of chemical alarm cue in natural fish populations

Behaviour ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 145 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Wisenden
Keyword(s):  
Skin Extract ◽  
Alarm Cues ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Water Control ◽  
Active Space ◽  
Chemical Alarm Cue ◽  
Alarm Cue ◽  
Predator Attack ◽  
Water Traps ◽  
Chemical Alarm Cues

AbstractChemical cues released from injured fish skin during a predator attack provide reliable information about the presence of predation risk. Here, I report estimates of the area avoided by littoral fishes after experimental release of chemical alarm cues in two small lakes in northern Minnesota. Minnow traps were labeled chemically with either water (control) or skin extract (chemical alarm cue) made from 2 cm2 of cyprinid skin (redbelly dace in experiment 1, fathead minnows in experiment 2). Traps labeled with water were placed 1, 2, or 8 m from traps labeled with alarm cue. After 2 h, water-traps that were either 1 or 2 m distant from an alarm-trap caught significantly fewer fish than water-traps 8 m distant from alarm-traps. Conspecific and heterospecific skin extract produced similar area avoidance by fathead minnows. Redbelly dace showed a larger active space in response to conspecific than heterospecific alarm cues. Brook stickleback showed reduced catches within 2 m of skin extract of fathead minnows. Overall, the radius of active space was between 2 and 8 m under lake conditions with average subsurface currents of 0.82 cm/s. These data are the first field estimates of active space of ostariophysan chemical alarm cues.

Development of apical pits in chloride cells of the gills of Pimephales promelas after chronic exposure to acid water

1983 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 462-463
Author(s):  
Richard L. Leino ◽  
Jon G. Anderson ◽  
J. Howard McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Chronic Exposure ◽  
Lake Superior ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Chloride Cells ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Secondary Lamellae ◽  
Untreated Water ◽  
Water Ph ◽  
Flow Through

Groups of 12 fathead minnows were exposed for 129 days to Lake Superior water acidified (pH 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 or 6.5) with reagent grade H2SO4 by means of a multichannel toxicant system for flow-through bioassays. Untreated water (pH 7.5) had the following properties: hardness 45.3 ± 0.3 (95% confidence interval) mg/1 as CaCO3; alkalinity 42.6 ± 0.2 mg/1; Cl- 0.03 meq/1; Na+ 0.05 meq/1; K+ 0.01 meq/1; Ca2+ 0.68 meq/1; Mg2+ 0.26 meq/1; dissolved O2 5.8 ± 0.3 mg/1; free CO2 3.2 ± 0.4 mg/1; T= 24.3 ± 0.1°C. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd gills were subsequently processed for LM (methacrylate), TEM and SEM respectively.Three changes involving chloride cells were correlated with increasing acidity: 1) the appearance of apical pits (figs. 2,5 as compared to figs. 1, 3,4) in chloride cells (about 22% of the chloride cells had pits at pH 5.0); 2) increases in their numbers and 3) increases in the % of these cells in the epithelium of the secondary lamellae.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document