Swimming and hiding regardless of the habitat: prey fish do not choose between a native and a non-native macrophyte species as a refuge

The ability to respond to a predation threat may be the key factor influencing prey survival. Thus, small-sized fish may adapt to use macrophyte patches as refugia in ecosystems where they face predators. We evaluated the habitat choices of a small fish species (Serrapinnus notomelas) to determine w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Hydrobiologia 2015-03, Vol.746 (1), p.285-290
Hauptverfasser: Figueiredo, Bruno R. S, Mormul, Roger P, Thomaz, Sidinei M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 290
container_issue 1
container_start_page 285
container_title Hydrobiologia
container_volume 746
creator Figueiredo, Bruno R. S
Mormul, Roger P
Thomaz, Sidinei M
description The ability to respond to a predation threat may be the key factor influencing prey survival. Thus, small-sized fish may adapt to use macrophyte patches as refugia in ecosystems where they face predators. We evaluated the habitat choices of a small fish species (Serrapinnus notomelas) to determine whether these fish prefer native versus recently introduced submerged macrophyte stands in the context of predator avoidance. Specifically, we applied three predator cue treatments: no cue, chemical cue from a hungry predator and presence of a satiated predator. First, we empirically tested the theoretical assumption that the prey fish use vegetated habitats and that the presence of an actual predator has a stronger effect on the choice of habitat than simply a chemical cue. Then we tested the hypothesis that prey do not choose a habitat according to macrophyte species and whether this pattern changed as a result of increasing predation risk. We found that the prey fish preferred vegetated habitats; however, they did not appear to distinguish native from invasive macrophytes. Our results support the hypothesis that the physical structure of macrophytes is more important in determining habitat choice than the evolutionary relationship between the fish and the native macrophyte species.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10750-014-2096-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1673392127</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A409422976</galeid><sourcerecordid>A409422976</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-3ed4d0699af75aec614b3234dcab668ac794bac44e30475da1dd671490bdc0933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks9u1DAQxiMEEkvhAThhiQscUmzHidfcqoo_lSohsfRsTexJ4mpjL7a33X0CXhsv6YFyQLbk8ej3jUfzuapeM3rOKJUfEqOypTVlouZUdfXhSbVirWzqljH5tFpRytb1mrXr59WLlG5p0ShOV9Wvzb2bZ-dHAt6SydlTGHGEaLeYEgkDyROSCXqXIX8ku4hHMrg0ERuID5mYKYSEpMd8j-gJEA_Z3eGfcuUSfP2QmMHEsJuOGUnaoXGYCJRdHhv2I76sng2wTfjq4Tyrbj5_-nH5tb7-9uXq8uK6Ni3rct2gFZZ2SsEgW0DTMdE3vBHWQN91azBSiR6MENhQIVsLzNpOMqFobw1VTXNWvVvq7mL4uceU9eySwe0WPIZ90qyTTaM447Kgb_9Bb8M--tJdoUTXtoJyUajzhRphi9r5IeQIpiyLszPB4-BK_kJQJThXsiuC948Ehcl4yCPsU9JXm--PWbawZXQplUnpXXQzxKNmVJ9814vvuviuT77rQ9HwRZMK60eMf7X9H9GbRTRA0DBGl_TNhlPWlo-y5orK5jcV8LlI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1646554024</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Swimming and hiding regardless of the habitat: prey fish do not choose between a native and a non-native macrophyte species as a refuge</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Figueiredo, Bruno R. S ; Mormul, Roger P ; Thomaz, Sidinei M</creator><creatorcontrib>Figueiredo, Bruno R. S ; Mormul, Roger P ; Thomaz, Sidinei M</creatorcontrib><description>The ability to respond to a predation threat may be the key factor influencing prey survival. Thus, small-sized fish may adapt to use macrophyte patches as refugia in ecosystems where they face predators. We evaluated the habitat choices of a small fish species (Serrapinnus notomelas) to determine whether these fish prefer native versus recently introduced submerged macrophyte stands in the context of predator avoidance. Specifically, we applied three predator cue treatments: no cue, chemical cue from a hungry predator and presence of a satiated predator. First, we empirically tested the theoretical assumption that the prey fish use vegetated habitats and that the presence of an actual predator has a stronger effect on the choice of habitat than simply a chemical cue. Then we tested the hypothesis that prey do not choose a habitat according to macrophyte species and whether this pattern changed as a result of increasing predation risk. We found that the prey fish preferred vegetated habitats; however, they did not appear to distinguish native from invasive macrophytes. Our results support the hypothesis that the physical structure of macrophytes is more important in determining habitat choice than the evolutionary relationship between the fish and the native macrophyte species.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0018-8158</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5117</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10750-014-2096-x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Animal populations ; Aquatic ecosystems ; Aquatic plants ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Ecology ; Ecosystems ; Fish ; Fishes ; Freshwater &amp; Marine Ecology ; Habitats ; Indigenous species ; Invasive Species ; Life Sciences ; macrophytes ; Native species ; Nonnative species ; Predation ; Predators ; Prey ; refuge habitats ; Refugia ; risk ; Swimming ; Zoology</subject><ispartof>Hydrobiologia, 2015-03, Vol.746 (1), p.285-290</ispartof><rights>Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Springer</rights><rights>Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-3ed4d0699af75aec614b3234dcab668ac794bac44e30475da1dd671490bdc0933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-3ed4d0699af75aec614b3234dcab668ac794bac44e30475da1dd671490bdc0933</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/s10750-014-2096-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10750-014-2096-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Figueiredo, Bruno R. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mormul, Roger P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomaz, Sidinei M</creatorcontrib><title>Swimming and hiding regardless of the habitat: prey fish do not choose between a native and a non-native macrophyte species as a refuge</title><title>Hydrobiologia</title><addtitle>Hydrobiologia</addtitle><description>The ability to respond to a predation threat may be the key factor influencing prey survival. Thus, small-sized fish may adapt to use macrophyte patches as refugia in ecosystems where they face predators. We evaluated the habitat choices of a small fish species (Serrapinnus notomelas) to determine whether these fish prefer native versus recently introduced submerged macrophyte stands in the context of predator avoidance. Specifically, we applied three predator cue treatments: no cue, chemical cue from a hungry predator and presence of a satiated predator. First, we empirically tested the theoretical assumption that the prey fish use vegetated habitats and that the presence of an actual predator has a stronger effect on the choice of habitat than simply a chemical cue. Then we tested the hypothesis that prey do not choose a habitat according to macrophyte species and whether this pattern changed as a result of increasing predation risk. We found that the prey fish preferred vegetated habitats; however, they did not appear to distinguish native from invasive macrophytes. Our results support the hypothesis that the physical structure of macrophytes is more important in determining habitat choice than the evolutionary relationship between the fish and the native macrophyte species.</description><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>Aquatic plants</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fishes</subject><subject>Freshwater &amp; Marine Ecology</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Indigenous species</subject><subject>Invasive Species</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>macrophytes</subject><subject>Native species</subject><subject>Nonnative species</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>refuge habitats</subject><subject>Refugia</subject><subject>risk</subject><subject>Swimming</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><issn>0018-8158</issn><issn>1573-5117</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ks9u1DAQxiMEEkvhAThhiQscUmzHidfcqoo_lSohsfRsTexJ4mpjL7a33X0CXhsv6YFyQLbk8ej3jUfzuapeM3rOKJUfEqOypTVlouZUdfXhSbVirWzqljH5tFpRytb1mrXr59WLlG5p0ShOV9Wvzb2bZ-dHAt6SydlTGHGEaLeYEgkDyROSCXqXIX8ku4hHMrg0ERuID5mYKYSEpMd8j-gJEA_Z3eGfcuUSfP2QmMHEsJuOGUnaoXGYCJRdHhv2I76sng2wTfjq4Tyrbj5_-nH5tb7-9uXq8uK6Ni3rct2gFZZ2SsEgW0DTMdE3vBHWQN91azBSiR6MENhQIVsLzNpOMqFobw1VTXNWvVvq7mL4uceU9eySwe0WPIZ90qyTTaM447Kgb_9Bb8M--tJdoUTXtoJyUajzhRphi9r5IeQIpiyLszPB4-BK_kJQJThXsiuC948Ehcl4yCPsU9JXm--PWbawZXQplUnpXXQzxKNmVJ9814vvuviuT77rQ9HwRZMK60eMf7X9H9GbRTRA0DBGl_TNhlPWlo-y5orK5jcV8LlI</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Figueiredo, Bruno R. S</creator><creator>Mormul, Roger P</creator><creator>Thomaz, Sidinei M</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7U7</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>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</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>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</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>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>7U6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Swimming and hiding regardless of the habitat: prey fish do not choose between a native and a non-native macrophyte species as a refuge</title><author>Figueiredo, Bruno R. S ; Mormul, Roger P ; Thomaz, Sidinei M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-3ed4d0699af75aec614b3234dcab668ac794bac44e30475da1dd671490bdc0933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>Aquatic plants</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fishes</topic><topic>Freshwater &amp; Marine Ecology</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Indigenous species</topic><topic>Invasive Species</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>macrophytes</topic><topic>Native species</topic><topic>Nonnative species</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>refuge habitats</topic><topic>Refugia</topic><topic>risk</topic><topic>Swimming</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Figueiredo, Bruno R. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mormul, Roger P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomaz, Sidinei M</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology 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 One Sustainability</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</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>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>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><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Hydrobiologia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Figueiredo, Bruno R. S</au><au>Mormul, Roger P</au><au>Thomaz, Sidinei M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Swimming and hiding regardless of the habitat: prey fish do not choose between a native and a non-native macrophyte species as a refuge</atitle><jtitle>Hydrobiologia</jtitle><stitle>Hydrobiologia</stitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>746</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>285</spage><epage>290</epage><pages>285-290</pages><issn>0018-8158</issn><eissn>1573-5117</eissn><abstract>The ability to respond to a predation threat may be the key factor influencing prey survival. Thus, small-sized fish may adapt to use macrophyte patches as refugia in ecosystems where they face predators. We evaluated the habitat choices of a small fish species (Serrapinnus notomelas) to determine whether these fish prefer native versus recently introduced submerged macrophyte stands in the context of predator avoidance. Specifically, we applied three predator cue treatments: no cue, chemical cue from a hungry predator and presence of a satiated predator. First, we empirically tested the theoretical assumption that the prey fish use vegetated habitats and that the presence of an actual predator has a stronger effect on the choice of habitat than simply a chemical cue. Then we tested the hypothesis that prey do not choose a habitat according to macrophyte species and whether this pattern changed as a result of increasing predation risk. We found that the prey fish preferred vegetated habitats; however, they did not appear to distinguish native from invasive macrophytes. Our results support the hypothesis that the physical structure of macrophytes is more important in determining habitat choice than the evolutionary relationship between the fish and the native macrophyte species.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s10750-014-2096-x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0018-8158
ispartof Hydrobiologia, 2015-03, Vol.746 (1), p.285-290
issn 0018-8158
1573-5117
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1673392127
source SpringerLink Journals
subjects Animal populations
Aquatic ecosystems
Aquatic plants
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Ecology
Ecosystems
Fish
Fishes
Freshwater & Marine Ecology
Habitats
Indigenous species
Invasive Species
Life Sciences
macrophytes
Native species
Nonnative species
Predation
Predators
Prey
refuge habitats
Refugia
risk
Swimming
Zoology
title Swimming and hiding regardless of the habitat: prey fish do not choose between a native and a non-native macrophyte species as a refuge
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T05%3A19%3A09IST&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=Swimming%20and%20hiding%20regardless%20of%20the%20habitat:%20prey%20fish%20do%20not%20choose%20between%20a%20native%20and%20a%20non-native%20macrophyte%20species%20as%20a%20refuge&rft.jtitle=Hydrobiologia&rft.au=Figueiredo,%20Bruno%20R.%20S&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=746&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=285&rft.epage=290&rft.pages=285-290&rft.issn=0018-8158&rft.eissn=1573-5117&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10750-014-2096-x&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA409422976%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=1646554024&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A409422976&rfr_iscdi=true