Effects of macrophyte-specific olfactory cues on fish preference patterns

Vegetated habitats provide numerous benefits to nekton, including structural refuge from predators and food sources. However, the sensory mechanisms by which fishes locate these habitats remain unclear for many species, especially when environmental conditions (such as increased turbidity) are unfav...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Aquatic ecology 2017-03, Vol.51 (1), p.159-165
1. Verfasser: Martin, Charles W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 165
container_issue 1
container_start_page 159
container_title Aquatic ecology
container_volume 51
creator Martin, Charles W.
description Vegetated habitats provide numerous benefits to nekton, including structural refuge from predators and food sources. However, the sensory mechanisms by which fishes locate these habitats remain unclear for many species, especially when environmental conditions (such as increased turbidity) are unfavorable for visual identification of habitats. Here, a series of laboratory experiments test whether three species of adult fish (golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus Günther 1866, sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna Lesueur 1821, and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Baird and Girard 1853) use plant chemical cues to orient to one of two habitats [hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle or water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms]. First, experiments in aquaria were conducted offering fish a choice of the two habitats to determine preference patterns. Next, a two-channel flume, with each side containing flow originating in one of the two habitats, was used to determine whether preferences were still exhibited when fish could only detect habitats through olfactory means. While patterns among the three fish species tested here were variable, results did indicate consistent habitat preferences despite the lack of cues other than olfactory, suggesting that these organisms are capable of discriminating habitats via chemical exudates from plants. As such, olfactory mechanisms likely provide vital information about the surrounding environment and future work should be directed at determining how anthropogenic inputs such as eutrophication and sediment runoff affect the physiology of these sensory capabilities.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10452-016-9606-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1869487133</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A551028886</galeid><sourcerecordid>A551028886</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-8e173042f3be01d9472f7b17c73c24bfbe8f42a36cb2cc84854044fa8b04d0543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhiMEEqXwA9giMRvOX7EzVlWBSpVYYLYc99ymauNgp0P763EVBhbkwdbpfXx3T1E8UnimAOolURCSEaAVqSuoyPmqmFCpOJGUyev85roiTGp9W9yltAOAGhSbFMuF9-iGVAZfHqyLod-eBiSpR9f61pVh760bQjyV7og51ZW-Tduyj-gxYuew7O0wYOzSfXHj7T7hw-89Lb5eF5_zd7L6eFvOZyviuJQD0UgVB8E8bxDouhaKedVQ5RR3TDS-Qe0Fs7xyDXNOCy0FCOGtbkCsQQo-LZ7Gf_sYvvNMg9mFY-xyS0N1VQutKOc59TymNnaPpu18GKJ1-azx0LrQoW9zfSYlBaa1rjJARyA7SCmvZ_rYHmw8GQrmotiMik1WbC6KzTkzbGRSznYbjH9G-Rf6AU3yfqc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1869487133</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of macrophyte-specific olfactory cues on fish preference patterns</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Martin, Charles W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Martin, Charles W.</creatorcontrib><description>Vegetated habitats provide numerous benefits to nekton, including structural refuge from predators and food sources. However, the sensory mechanisms by which fishes locate these habitats remain unclear for many species, especially when environmental conditions (such as increased turbidity) are unfavorable for visual identification of habitats. Here, a series of laboratory experiments test whether three species of adult fish (golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus Günther 1866, sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna Lesueur 1821, and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Baird and Girard 1853) use plant chemical cues to orient to one of two habitats [hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle or water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms]. First, experiments in aquaria were conducted offering fish a choice of the two habitats to determine preference patterns. Next, a two-channel flume, with each side containing flow originating in one of the two habitats, was used to determine whether preferences were still exhibited when fish could only detect habitats through olfactory means. While patterns among the three fish species tested here were variable, results did indicate consistent habitat preferences despite the lack of cues other than olfactory, suggesting that these organisms are capable of discriminating habitats via chemical exudates from plants. As such, olfactory mechanisms likely provide vital information about the surrounding environment and future work should be directed at determining how anthropogenic inputs such as eutrophication and sediment runoff affect the physiology of these sensory capabilities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1386-2588</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5125</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10452-016-9606-z</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Anthropogenic factors ; Aquariums ; Aquatic ecology ; Aquatic plants ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Ecosystems ; Environmental conditions ; Environmental quality ; Eutrophication ; Fish ; Fishes ; Floating plants ; Freshwater &amp; Marine Ecology ; Habitat preferences ; Habitats ; Life Sciences ; Predators ; Turbidity</subject><ispartof>Aquatic ecology, 2017-03, Vol.51 (1), p.159-165</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Springer</rights><rights>Aquatic Ecology is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-8e173042f3be01d9472f7b17c73c24bfbe8f42a36cb2cc84854044fa8b04d0543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-8e173042f3be01d9472f7b17c73c24bfbe8f42a36cb2cc84854044fa8b04d0543</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10452-016-9606-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10452-016-9606-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930,41493,42562,51324</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Martin, Charles W.</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of macrophyte-specific olfactory cues on fish preference patterns</title><title>Aquatic ecology</title><addtitle>Aquat Ecol</addtitle><description>Vegetated habitats provide numerous benefits to nekton, including structural refuge from predators and food sources. However, the sensory mechanisms by which fishes locate these habitats remain unclear for many species, especially when environmental conditions (such as increased turbidity) are unfavorable for visual identification of habitats. Here, a series of laboratory experiments test whether three species of adult fish (golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus Günther 1866, sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna Lesueur 1821, and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Baird and Girard 1853) use plant chemical cues to orient to one of two habitats [hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle or water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms]. First, experiments in aquaria were conducted offering fish a choice of the two habitats to determine preference patterns. Next, a two-channel flume, with each side containing flow originating in one of the two habitats, was used to determine whether preferences were still exhibited when fish could only detect habitats through olfactory means. While patterns among the three fish species tested here were variable, results did indicate consistent habitat preferences despite the lack of cues other than olfactory, suggesting that these organisms are capable of discriminating habitats via chemical exudates from plants. As such, olfactory mechanisms likely provide vital information about the surrounding environment and future work should be directed at determining how anthropogenic inputs such as eutrophication and sediment runoff affect the physiology of these sensory capabilities.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Anthropogenic factors</subject><subject>Aquariums</subject><subject>Aquatic ecology</subject><subject>Aquatic plants</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental conditions</subject><subject>Environmental quality</subject><subject>Eutrophication</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fishes</subject><subject>Floating plants</subject><subject>Freshwater &amp; Marine Ecology</subject><subject>Habitat preferences</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Turbidity</subject><issn>1386-2588</issn><issn>1573-5125</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhiMEEqXwA9giMRvOX7EzVlWBSpVYYLYc99ymauNgp0P763EVBhbkwdbpfXx3T1E8UnimAOolURCSEaAVqSuoyPmqmFCpOJGUyev85roiTGp9W9yltAOAGhSbFMuF9-iGVAZfHqyLod-eBiSpR9f61pVh760bQjyV7og51ZW-Tduyj-gxYuew7O0wYOzSfXHj7T7hw-89Lb5eF5_zd7L6eFvOZyviuJQD0UgVB8E8bxDouhaKedVQ5RR3TDS-Qe0Fs7xyDXNOCy0FCOGtbkCsQQo-LZ7Gf_sYvvNMg9mFY-xyS0N1VQutKOc59TymNnaPpu18GKJ1-azx0LrQoW9zfSYlBaa1rjJARyA7SCmvZ_rYHmw8GQrmotiMik1WbC6KzTkzbGRSznYbjH9G-Rf6AU3yfqc</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Martin, Charles W.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>Effects of macrophyte-specific olfactory cues on fish preference patterns</title><author>Martin, Charles W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-8e173042f3be01d9472f7b17c73c24bfbe8f42a36cb2cc84854044fa8b04d0543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Anthropogenic factors</topic><topic>Aquariums</topic><topic>Aquatic ecology</topic><topic>Aquatic plants</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental conditions</topic><topic>Environmental quality</topic><topic>Eutrophication</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fishes</topic><topic>Floating plants</topic><topic>Freshwater &amp; Marine Ecology</topic><topic>Habitat preferences</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Turbidity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martin, Charles W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Aquatic ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martin, Charles W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of macrophyte-specific olfactory cues on fish preference patterns</atitle><jtitle>Aquatic ecology</jtitle><stitle>Aquat Ecol</stitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>159</spage><epage>165</epage><pages>159-165</pages><issn>1386-2588</issn><eissn>1573-5125</eissn><abstract>Vegetated habitats provide numerous benefits to nekton, including structural refuge from predators and food sources. However, the sensory mechanisms by which fishes locate these habitats remain unclear for many species, especially when environmental conditions (such as increased turbidity) are unfavorable for visual identification of habitats. Here, a series of laboratory experiments test whether three species of adult fish (golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus Günther 1866, sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna Lesueur 1821, and western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Baird and Girard 1853) use plant chemical cues to orient to one of two habitats [hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle or water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms]. First, experiments in aquaria were conducted offering fish a choice of the two habitats to determine preference patterns. Next, a two-channel flume, with each side containing flow originating in one of the two habitats, was used to determine whether preferences were still exhibited when fish could only detect habitats through olfactory means. While patterns among the three fish species tested here were variable, results did indicate consistent habitat preferences despite the lack of cues other than olfactory, suggesting that these organisms are capable of discriminating habitats via chemical exudates from plants. As such, olfactory mechanisms likely provide vital information about the surrounding environment and future work should be directed at determining how anthropogenic inputs such as eutrophication and sediment runoff affect the physiology of these sensory capabilities.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10452-016-9606-z</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1386-2588
ispartof Aquatic ecology, 2017-03, Vol.51 (1), p.159-165
issn 1386-2588
1573-5125
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1869487133
source SpringerNature Journals
subjects Analysis
Anthropogenic factors
Aquariums
Aquatic ecology
Aquatic plants
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Ecosystems
Environmental conditions
Environmental quality
Eutrophication
Fish
Fishes
Floating plants
Freshwater & Marine Ecology
Habitat preferences
Habitats
Life Sciences
Predators
Turbidity
title Effects of macrophyte-specific olfactory cues on fish preference patterns
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-11T12%3A33%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20macrophyte-specific%20olfactory%20cues%20on%20fish%20preference%20patterns&rft.jtitle=Aquatic%20ecology&rft.au=Martin,%20Charles%20W.&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=159&rft.epage=165&rft.pages=159-165&rft.issn=1386-2588&rft.eissn=1573-5125&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10452-016-9606-z&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA551028886%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1869487133&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A551028886&rfr_iscdi=true