Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 183–192 | Cite as

Response of shoaling fish to the threat of aerial predation

  • Matthew K. Litvak


Many species of shoaling fish are preyed upon by aerial predators. However, to date there has been no analysis of the evasive response of a group of shoaling fish to an aerial threat or attack. The response of a shoal of fish encompasses a suite of behaviors starting with a startle response. Shoals of golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas, responded to the threat of aerial predation from a kingfisher model with a startle response, an increase in shoal depth, an increase in polarity, swimming in the opposite direction under the model predator, shoal compression along the depth axis, and shoal expansion on the plane perpendicular to the depth axis. It was hypothesized that shoal compression along the depth axis serves to increase predator confusion by placing more fish in the predator's visual field. This compression was termed the ‘plane of confusion’.


Predator evasion Aerial threat Confusion effect Avoidance behaviour Startle response Notemigonus crysoleucas 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Abrahams, M.V. & P.W. Colgan. 1985. Risk of predation, hydrodynamic efficiency and their influence on school structure. Env. Biol. Fish. 13: 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bent, A.C. 1940. Life histories of North American cuckoos, goatsuckers, hummingbirds and their allies. Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 506 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Diamond, J. 1971. The Mauthner cell. pp. 265–346. In: W.S. Hoar & D.J. Randall (ed.) Fish Physiology, Vol. 5, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Eaton, R.C. & R.A. Bombardieri. 1978. Behavioural functions of the Mauthner cell. pp. 221–244. In: D. Faber & H. Korn (ed.) Neurobiology of the Mauthner Cell, Raven Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Eaton, R.C. & J.T. Hackett. 1984. The role of the Mauthner cell in fast starts involving escape in teleost fishes. pp. 213–262. In: R.C. Eaton (ed.) Neural Mechanisms of Startle Behavior, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Eaton, R.C. & R. DiDomenico. 1986. Role of teleost escape response during development. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 115: 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eaton, R.C., R.A. Bombardieri & D.L. Meyer. 1977. The Mauthner-initiated startle response in teleost fish. J. Exp. Biol. 66: 65–81.Google Scholar
  8. Elson, P.F. 1962. Predator-prey relationships between fish-eating birds and Atlantic salmon. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 133, Ottawa. 87 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Fraser, J.M. 1974. An attempt to train hatchery-reared brook trout to avoid predation by the common loon. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 103: 815–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giles, N. 1983. Behavioural effect of the parasite Schistocephalus solidus (Cestoda) on an intermediate host, the threespined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L.. Anim. Behav. 31: 1192–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giles, N. & F.A. Huntingford. 1984. Predation risk and interpopulation variation in anti-predator behaviour in the threespined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L.. Anim. Behav. 32: 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton, W.D. 1971. Geometry of the selfish herd. J. Theor. Biol. 31: 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hover, E.E. 1936. Fish-eating birds. Prog. Fish-Cult. 21: 21–22.Google Scholar
  14. Kramer, D.L., D. Manley & R. Bourgeois. 1983. The effects of respiratory and oxygen concentration on the risk of aerial predation in fishes. Can. J. Zool. 61: 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kushlan, J.A. 1976. Feeding behaviour of North American herons. The Auk 93: 86–94.Google Scholar
  16. Landau, L. & J. Terborgh. 1986. Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation. Anim. Behav. 34: 1372–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Litvak, M.K. 1983. Method for measuring small fish. Prog. Fish-Cult. 45: 61.Google Scholar
  18. Litvak, M.K. 1990. Predator avoidance, foraging behaviour and social transmission of information in fish shoals. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto. 113 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Magurran, A.E. 1990. The adaptive significance of schooling as anti-predator defence in fish. Ann. Zool. Fennici 27: 51–66.Google Scholar
  20. Milinski, M. 1977. Experiments on the selection by predators against spatial oddity of their prey. Z. Tierpsychol. 43: 311–325.Google Scholar
  21. Milinski, M. 1979. Can an experienced predator overcome the confusion of swarming prey more easily? Anim. Behav. 27: 1122–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milinski, M. 1984. A predator's cost of overcoming the confusion effect of swarming prey. Anim. Behav. 32: 1157–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milinski, M. & R. Heller. 1978. Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275: 642–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neill, S.R. Jr. & J.M. Cullen. 1974. Experiments on whether schooling by their prey affects the hunting behaviour of cephalopod and fish predators. J. Zool. (Lond.) 172: 549–569.Google Scholar
  25. Partridge, B.L. & T.J. Pitcher. 1980. The sensory basis of fish schools: relative roles of lateral line and vision. J. Comp. Physiol. A 135: 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pitcher, T.J. 1986. Functions of shoaling behavior in teleosts. pp. 294–337. In: T.J. Pitcher (ed.) The Behavior of Teleost Fishes, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  27. Power, M.E. 1984. Depth distributions of armoured catfish: predator-induced resource avoidance? Ecology 65: 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reimchen, T.E. 1988. Inefficient predators and prey injuries in a population of giant stickleback. Can. J. Zool. 66: 2036–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salyer, J.C. II. & K.F. Lagler. 1946. The eastern belted kingfisher, Megaceryle alcyon alcyon (Linnaeus), in relation to fish management. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 76: 96–117.Google Scholar
  30. Schramm, H.L. Jr. M.W. Collopy & E.A. Okrah. 1987. Potential problems of bird predation for fish culture in Florida. Prog. Fish-Cult. 49: 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seghers, B.H. 1974a. Geographic variation in the responses of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to aerial predators. Oecologia (Berl.) 14: 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seghers, B.H. 1974b. Schooling behaviour in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): an evolutionary response to predation. Evol. 28: 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sokal, R.R. & F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 859 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Winer, B.J. 1971. Statistical principles in experimental design. John Wiley, New York. 907 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Wood, C.C. 1986. Dispersion of common merganser (Mergus merganser) breeding pairs in relation to the availability of juvenile Pacific salmon in Vancouver Island streams. Can. J. Zool. 64: 756–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew K. Litvak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations