Synergistic Interactions between Chemical Alarm Cues and the Presence of Conspecific and Heterospecific Fish Shoals
Chemical and visual sources of information are used by aquatic prey during risk assessment. Here, we test the behavioral response of littoral prey fish to combinations of chemical alarm cues (skin extract) and the visual presence of a fish shoal. We scented minnow traps with either alarm cues or wat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 2003-09, Vol.54 (5), p.485-490 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 490 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 485 |
| container_title | Behavioral ecology and sociobiology |
| container_volume | 54 |
| creator | Wisenden, Brian D. Pollock, Mike S. Tremaine, Robyn J. Webb, Jeff M. Wismer, Monique E. Chivers, Douglas P. |
| description | Chemical and visual sources of information are used by aquatic prey during risk assessment. Here, we test the behavioral response of littoral prey fish to combinations of chemical alarm cues (skin extract) and the visual presence of a fish shoal. We scented minnow traps with either alarm cues or water (control) placed inside the trap, a jar that contained either a fish shoal or nothing (control), and recorded the number and species of fish captured. We predicted that chemical alarm cues would reduce the number of fish captured and that a fish shoal would increase the number of fish captured. The predicted effect of chemical and visual cues combined depended on the nature of the interaction. We found that the lowest catch rate was for the combination of alarm cue + no shoal, but the highest catch rate occurred for the combination of alarm cue + shoal. Fish shoal + water had the second highest catch rate and no shoal + water had the second lowest catch rate. We conclude that chemical alarm cues induce area avoidance in the absence of a shoal, but a strong behavioral proclivity to increase shoal cohesion in the presence of a shoal. The presence of a shoal in the traps induced alarmed fish to shoal with them and thus, enter the traps. This occurred even though traps were the source of the alarm cue. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00265-003-0653-9 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16161015</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25063294</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25063294</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-e09374745e3ab5ac84a043f49ad450c09bd59b5dfbbedcc5d8e5ba46618d40783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUU1LAzEUDKJgrf4AD0Lw4G31ZZPsx7EsVgsFheo5ZLNv3S37UZMU6b83ZaUHeYcH780MMwwhtwweGUD65ADiREYAPIJE8ig_IzMmeBxBmsTnZAZcQCSF4JfkyrktACQsy2bEbQ4D2q_W-dbQ1eDRauPbcXC0RP-DONCiwb41uqOLTtueFnt0VA8V9Q3Sd4sOB4N0rGkRSDs0bR2Ejv9XDGLj6bRsXUM3zag7d00u6rDw5m_Pyefy-aN4jdZvL6tisY4Mj7mPEHKeilRI5LqU2mRCg-C1yHUlJBjIy0rmpazqssTKGFllKEstkhCsEpBmfE4eJt2dHb-Dba_61hnsOj3guHeKJWGAyQC8_wfcjns7BG8qYYJJyYEHEJtAJqRyFmu1s22v7UExUMcO1NSBCh2oYwcqD5y7ibN1frQnQiwh4XEu-C8Ra4RL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614155303</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Synergistic Interactions between Chemical Alarm Cues and the Presence of Conspecific and Heterospecific Fish Shoals</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Wisenden, Brian D. ; Pollock, Mike S. ; Tremaine, Robyn J. ; Webb, Jeff M. ; Wismer, Monique E. ; Chivers, Douglas P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wisenden, Brian D. ; Pollock, Mike S. ; Tremaine, Robyn J. ; Webb, Jeff M. ; Wismer, Monique E. ; Chivers, Douglas P.</creatorcontrib><description>Chemical and visual sources of information are used by aquatic prey during risk assessment. Here, we test the behavioral response of littoral prey fish to combinations of chemical alarm cues (skin extract) and the visual presence of a fish shoal. We scented minnow traps with either alarm cues or water (control) placed inside the trap, a jar that contained either a fish shoal or nothing (control), and recorded the number and species of fish captured. We predicted that chemical alarm cues would reduce the number of fish captured and that a fish shoal would increase the number of fish captured. The predicted effect of chemical and visual cues combined depended on the nature of the interaction. We found that the lowest catch rate was for the combination of alarm cue + no shoal, but the highest catch rate occurred for the combination of alarm cue + shoal. Fish shoal + water had the second highest catch rate and no shoal + water had the second lowest catch rate. We conclude that chemical alarm cues induce area avoidance in the absence of a shoal, but a strong behavioral proclivity to increase shoal cohesion in the presence of a shoal. The presence of a shoal in the traps induced alarmed fish to shoal with them and thus, enter the traps. This occurred even though traps were the source of the alarm cue.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0340-5443</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0762</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00265-003-0653-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Animal traps ; Feedlots ; Fish ; Fish trapping ; Freshwater ; Freshwater fishes ; Minnows ; Pisces ; Predators ; Prey ; Risk assessment ; Shoals ; Sponges ; Sunfish</subject><ispartof>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 2003-09, Vol.54 (5), p.485-490</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2003 Springer-Verlag</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-e09374745e3ab5ac84a043f49ad450c09bd59b5dfbbedcc5d8e5ba46618d40783</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25063294$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25063294$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wisenden, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pollock, Mike S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tremaine, Robyn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webb, Jeff M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wismer, Monique E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chivers, Douglas P.</creatorcontrib><title>Synergistic Interactions between Chemical Alarm Cues and the Presence of Conspecific and Heterospecific Fish Shoals</title><title>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology</title><description>Chemical and visual sources of information are used by aquatic prey during risk assessment. Here, we test the behavioral response of littoral prey fish to combinations of chemical alarm cues (skin extract) and the visual presence of a fish shoal. We scented minnow traps with either alarm cues or water (control) placed inside the trap, a jar that contained either a fish shoal or nothing (control), and recorded the number and species of fish captured. We predicted that chemical alarm cues would reduce the number of fish captured and that a fish shoal would increase the number of fish captured. The predicted effect of chemical and visual cues combined depended on the nature of the interaction. We found that the lowest catch rate was for the combination of alarm cue + no shoal, but the highest catch rate occurred for the combination of alarm cue + shoal. Fish shoal + water had the second highest catch rate and no shoal + water had the second lowest catch rate. We conclude that chemical alarm cues induce area avoidance in the absence of a shoal, but a strong behavioral proclivity to increase shoal cohesion in the presence of a shoal. The presence of a shoal in the traps induced alarmed fish to shoal with them and thus, enter the traps. This occurred even though traps were the source of the alarm cue.</description><subject>Animal traps</subject><subject>Feedlots</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fish trapping</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Freshwater fishes</subject><subject>Minnows</subject><subject>Pisces</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Shoals</subject><subject>Sponges</subject><subject>Sunfish</subject><issn>0340-5443</issn><issn>1432-0762</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUU1LAzEUDKJgrf4AD0Lw4G31ZZPsx7EsVgsFheo5ZLNv3S37UZMU6b83ZaUHeYcH780MMwwhtwweGUD65ADiREYAPIJE8ig_IzMmeBxBmsTnZAZcQCSF4JfkyrktACQsy2bEbQ4D2q_W-dbQ1eDRauPbcXC0RP-DONCiwb41uqOLTtueFnt0VA8V9Q3Sd4sOB4N0rGkRSDs0bR2Ejv9XDGLj6bRsXUM3zag7d00u6rDw5m_Pyefy-aN4jdZvL6tisY4Mj7mPEHKeilRI5LqU2mRCg-C1yHUlJBjIy0rmpazqssTKGFllKEstkhCsEpBmfE4eJt2dHb-Dba_61hnsOj3guHeKJWGAyQC8_wfcjns7BG8qYYJJyYEHEJtAJqRyFmu1s22v7UExUMcO1NSBCh2oYwcqD5y7ibN1frQnQiwh4XEu-C8Ra4RL</recordid><startdate>20030901</startdate><enddate>20030901</enddate><creator>Wisenden, Brian D.</creator><creator>Pollock, Mike S.</creator><creator>Tremaine, Robyn J.</creator><creator>Webb, Jeff M.</creator><creator>Wismer, Monique E.</creator><creator>Chivers, Douglas P.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030901</creationdate><title>Synergistic Interactions between Chemical Alarm Cues and the Presence of Conspecific and Heterospecific Fish Shoals</title><author>Wisenden, Brian D. ; Pollock, Mike S. ; Tremaine, Robyn J. ; Webb, Jeff M. ; Wismer, Monique E. ; Chivers, Douglas P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-e09374745e3ab5ac84a043f49ad450c09bd59b5dfbbedcc5d8e5ba46618d40783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Animal traps</topic><topic>Feedlots</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fish trapping</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Freshwater fishes</topic><topic>Minnows</topic><topic>Pisces</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Shoals</topic><topic>Sponges</topic><topic>Sunfish</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wisenden, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pollock, Mike S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tremaine, Robyn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webb, Jeff M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wismer, Monique E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chivers, Douglas P.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental 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>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wisenden, Brian D.</au><au>Pollock, Mike S.</au><au>Tremaine, Robyn J.</au><au>Webb, Jeff M.</au><au>Wismer, Monique E.</au><au>Chivers, Douglas P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Synergistic Interactions between Chemical Alarm Cues and the Presence of Conspecific and Heterospecific Fish Shoals</atitle><jtitle>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology</jtitle><date>2003-09-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>485</spage><epage>490</epage><pages>485-490</pages><issn>0340-5443</issn><eissn>1432-0762</eissn><abstract>Chemical and visual sources of information are used by aquatic prey during risk assessment. Here, we test the behavioral response of littoral prey fish to combinations of chemical alarm cues (skin extract) and the visual presence of a fish shoal. We scented minnow traps with either alarm cues or water (control) placed inside the trap, a jar that contained either a fish shoal or nothing (control), and recorded the number and species of fish captured. We predicted that chemical alarm cues would reduce the number of fish captured and that a fish shoal would increase the number of fish captured. The predicted effect of chemical and visual cues combined depended on the nature of the interaction. We found that the lowest catch rate was for the combination of alarm cue + no shoal, but the highest catch rate occurred for the combination of alarm cue + shoal. Fish shoal + water had the second highest catch rate and no shoal + water had the second lowest catch rate. We conclude that chemical alarm cues induce area avoidance in the absence of a shoal, but a strong behavioral proclivity to increase shoal cohesion in the presence of a shoal. The presence of a shoal in the traps induced alarmed fish to shoal with them and thus, enter the traps. This occurred even though traps were the source of the alarm cue.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s00265-003-0653-9</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0340-5443 |
| ispartof | Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 2003-09, Vol.54 (5), p.485-490 |
| issn | 0340-5443 1432-0762 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16161015 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Animal traps Feedlots Fish Fish trapping Freshwater Freshwater fishes Minnows Pisces Predators Prey Risk assessment Shoals Sponges Sunfish |
| title | Synergistic Interactions between Chemical Alarm Cues and the Presence of Conspecific and Heterospecific Fish Shoals |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T14%3A55%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Synergistic%20Interactions%20between%20Chemical%20Alarm%20Cues%20and%20the%20Presence%20of%20Conspecific%20and%20Heterospecific%20Fish%20Shoals&rft.jtitle=Behavioral%20ecology%20and%20sociobiology&rft.au=Wisenden,%20Brian%20D.&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=485&rft.epage=490&rft.pages=485-490&rft.issn=0340-5443&rft.eissn=1432-0762&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00265-003-0653-9&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E25063294%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614155303&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=25063294&rfr_iscdi=true |