Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 7, pp 1123–1129 | Cite as

Ontogenetic differences in chemical alarm cue production determine antipredator responses and learned predator recognition

  • Matthew D. MitchellEmail author
  • Mark I. McCormick
Original Paper

Abstract

How individuals assess, respond and subsequently learn from alarm cues is crucial to their survival and future fitness. Yet this information is not constant through time; many individuals are exposed to different predators throughout their life as they outgrow some predators or move to habitats containing different predators. To maximise overall fitness, individuals should discriminate between different cues and respond and learn from only those that are relevant to their current ontogenetic stage. We tested whether juvenile spiny chromis, Acanthochromis polyacanthus, could distinguish between chemical alarm cues from conspecific donors of different ontogenetic stages and whether the cue ontogenetic stage of the cue donor affected the efficacy of learning about predators. Juveniles displayed a significant antipredator response when conditioned with juvenile chemical alarm cues paired with predator odour but failed to respond when conditioned with predator odour paired with either adult alarm cues or with saltwater. Subsequently, individuals only recognised the predator odour alone as a threat when conditioned with juvenile alarm cues. This demonstrates that prey may be highly specific in how they use information from conspecific alarm cues, selectively responding to and learning from only those cues that are relevant to their developmental stage.

Keywords

Predator recognition Learning Ontogeny Threat sensitivity Coral reefs Fish 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff at the JCU MARFU aquarium facility for their assistance and Christopher Goatley for providing comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Funding was provided by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (MIM).

Ethical standards

This research complies with current laws of Australia and was undertaken with approval of the James Cook University animal ethics committee (permit: A1067) and according to the University’s animal ethics guidelines.

References

  1. Almany G, Webster M (2006) The predation gauntlet: early post-settlement mortality in reef fishes. Coral Reefs 25:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellwood DR, Hughes TP (2001) Regional-scale assembly rules and biodiversity of coral reefs. Science 292:1532–1534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumstein DT, Daniel JC (2004) Yellow-bellied marmots discriminate between the alarm calls of individuals and are more responsive to calls from juveniles. Anim Behav 68:1257–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumstein DT, Verneyre L, Daniel JC (2004) Reliability and the adaptive utility of discrimination among alarm callers. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1851–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown GE, Smith RJF (1996) Foraging trade-offs in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas, Osteichthyes, Cyprinidae): acquired predator recognition in the absence of an alarm response. Ethology 102:776–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown GE, Adrian JC Jr, Patton T, Chivers DP (2001) Fathead minnows learn to recognize predator odour when exposed to concentrations of artificial alarm pheromone below their behavioural-response threshold. Can J Zool 79:2239–2245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown GE, Gershanec DL, Plata DL, Golub JL (2002) Ontogenetic changes in response to heterospecific alarm cues by juvenile largemouth bass are phenotypically plastic. Behaviour 39:913–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown GE, Foam PE, Cowell HE, Fiore PG, Chivers DP (2004) Production of chemical alarm cues in convict cichlids: the effects of diet, body condition and ontogeny. Ann Zool Fenn 41:487–499Google Scholar
  9. Carreau-Green ND, Mirza RS, Martinez ML, Pyle GG (2008) The ontogeny of chemically mediated antipredator responses of fathead minnows Pimephales promelas. J Fish Biol 73:2390–2401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator-prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5:338–352Google Scholar
  11. Connell SD (2000) Is there safety-in-numbers? Oikos 88:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalesman S, Rundle SD, Bilton DT, Cotton PA (2007) Phylogenetic relatedness and ecological interactions determine anti-predator behaviour. Ecology 88:2462–2467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feeney WE, Lönnstedt OM, Bosiger YJ, Martin J, Jones GP, Rowe RJ, McCormick MI (2012) High rate of prey consumption in a small predatory fish on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 31:909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari MCO, Trowell JJ, Brown GB, Chivers DP (2005) The role of learning in the development of threat-sensitive predator avoidance by fathead minnows. Anim Behav 70:777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari MCO, Capitania-Kwok T, Chivers DP (2006) The role of learning in the acquisition of threat-sensitive responses to predator odours. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:522–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2009) Sophisticated early life lessons: threat-sensitive generalization of predator recognition by embryonic amphibians. Behav Ecol 63:1369–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010) Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golub JL, Brown GE (2003) Are all signals the same? Ontogenetic change in the response to conspecific and heterospecific chemical alarm signals by juvenile green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:113–118Google Scholar
  19. Golub JL, Vermette V, Brown GE (2005) Response to conspecific and heterospecific alarm cues by pumpkinseeds in simple and complex habitats: field verification of an ontogenetic shift. J Fish Biol 66:1073–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey MC, Brown GE (2004) Dine or dash? Ontogenetic shift in the response of yellow perch to conspecific alarm cues. Environ Biol Fish 70:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helfman GS (1989) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish–trumpetfish interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmes T, McCormick MI (2010) Size-selectivity of predatory reef fish on juvenile prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 399:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behaviour: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lönnstedt OM, McCormick MI (2011) Chemical alarm cues inform prey of predation threat: the importance of ontogeny and concentration in a coral reef fish. Anim Behav 82:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lönnstedt OM, McCormick MI, Meekan MG, Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2012) Learn and live: predator experience and feeding history determines prey behaviour and survival. Proc R Soc B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2516 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Manassa RP, McCormick MI (2012) Social learning improves survivorship at a life history transition. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2458-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcus J, Brown GE (2003) Response of pumpkinseed sunfish to conspecific chemical alarm cues: an interaction between ontogeny and stimulus concentration. Can J Zool 81:1671–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2002) Brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) can differentiate chemical alarm cues produced by different age/size classes of conspecifics. J Chem Ecol 28:555–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2003) Response of juvenile rainbow trout to varying concentrations of chemical alarm cue: response thresholds and survival during encounters with predators. Can J Zool 81:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nonacs P, Blumstein DT (2010) Predation risk and behavioural life history. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW (eds) Evolutionary behavioural ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 207–224Google Scholar
  32. Sih A, Ziemba R, Harding KC (2000) New insights on how temporal variation in predation risk shapes prey behaviour. Trends Ecol Evol 15:3–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thresher RE (1983) Environmental correlates of the distribution of planktivorous fishes in the One Tree reef lagoon. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 10:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and School of Marine and Tropical BiologyJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations