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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Hydrobiologia 2015-03, Vol.746 (1), p.285-290 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & 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 |