Oecologia

, Volume 172, Issue 1, pp 69–78 | Cite as

Sensory complementation and antipredator behavioural compensation in acid-impacted juvenile Atlantic salmon

Behavioral ecology - Original research

Abstract

Prey incorporate multiple forms of publicly available information on predation risk into threat-sensitive antipredator behaviours. Changes in information availability have previously been demonstrated to elicit transient alterations in behavioural patterns, while the effects of long-term deprivation of particular forms of information remain largely unexplored. Damage-released chemical alarm cues from the epidermis of fishes are rendered non-functional under weakly acidic conditions (pH < 6.6), depriving fish of an important source of information on predation risk in acidified waterbodies. We addressed the effects of long-term deprivation on the antipredator responses to different combinations of chemical and visual threat cues via in situ observations of wild, free-swimming 0+ Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fry in four neutral and four weakly acidic nursery streams. In addition, a cross-population transplant experiment and natural interannual variation in acidity enabled the examination of provenance and environment as causes of the observed differences in response. Fish living under weakly acidic conditions demonstrate significantly greater or hypersensitive antipredator responses to visual cues compared to fish under neutral conditions. Under neutral conditions, fish demonstrate complementary (additive or synergistic) effects of paired visual and chemical cues consistent with threat-sensitive responses. Cross-population transplants and interannual comparisons of responses strongly support the conclusion that differences in antipredator responses between neutral and weakly acidic streams result from the loss of chemical information on predation risk, as opposed to population-derived differences in behaviours.

Keywords

Predator–prey interactions Threat-sensitivity Public information Damage-released chemical cues Risk assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank R. Cunjak (University of New Brunswick) and M. Hambrook (Miramichi Salmon Association) for logistic and technical support. C.D. Jackson, K. Paquin, M. Romano, T.I. Laakkonen, P.H. Malka, M. Tresidder, J. Dumont, A. Schaffer, A. Fraser, L.J. Mancini, J. Beam and D. Thibodeau provided assistance in the field. This work was supported by grants from le Fonds québécois de la récherche sur la nature et les technologies (FQRNT) to C.K. Elvidge and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Concordia University to G.E. Brown. All work was conducted with the approval of Fisheries & Oceans Canada (scientific licence # SG-NBT-09-050) and in accordance with Concordia University Animal Research Ethics protocol AREC-2008-BROW. This manuscript is contribution no. 122 to the Catamaran Brook Habitat Research Project.

Supplementary material

442_2012_2478_MOESM1_ESM.doc (569 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 569 kb)

References

  1. Amo L, Lopez P, Martin J (2004) Wall lizards combine chemical and visual cues of ambush snake predators to avoid overestimating risk inside refuges. Anim Behav 67:647–653. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown C, Laland K (2001) Social learning and life skills training for hatchery reared fish. J Fish Biol 59:471–493. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02354.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator-prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5:338–352Google Scholar
  4. Clair TA, Dennis IF, Scruton DA, Gilliss M (2007) Freshwater acidification research in Atlantic Canada: a review of results and predictions for the future. Environ Rev 15:153–167. doi: 10.1139/A07-004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronin TW (1997) The visual ecology of predator-prey interactions. In: Godin J-GJ (ed) Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 105–138Google Scholar
  6. Dalesman S, Inchley CJ (2008) Interaction between olfactory and visual cues affects flight initiation and distance by the hermit crab, Pagurus bernhardus. Behaviour 145:1479–1492. doi: 10.1163/156853908785765836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491. doi: 10.1126/science.1098254 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elvidge CK, Brown GE (2012) Visual and chemical prey cues as complementary predator attractants in a tropical stream fish assemblage. Int J Zool Article ID 510920, 7 pages doi:  10.1155/2012/510920
  9. Environment Canada (2012) Water pollution: acid rain. http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=FDF30C16-1 Accessed on 08 Feb 2012
  10. Ferrari MCO, Vavrek MA, Elvidge CK, Fridman B, Chivers DP, Brown GE (2008) Sensory complementation and the acquisition of predator recognition by salmonid fishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:113–121. doi: 10.1007/s00265-008-0641-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrari MCO, Lysak KR, Chivers DP (2010a) Turbidity as an ecological constraint on learned predator recognition and generalization in a prey fish. Anim Behav 79:515–519. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010b) Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724. doi: 10.1139/Z10-029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godin J-GJ (1997) Evading predators. In: Godin J-GJ (ed) Behavioural Ecology of Teleost Fishes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 191–236Google Scholar
  14. Government of New Brunswick (2011) Fish Book 2011. http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/nr-rn/pdf/en/Fish/Fish.pdf Accessed on 10 Feb 2012
  15. Hall D, Suboski MD (1995) Visual and olfactory stimuli in learned release of alarm reactions by zebra danio fish (Brachydanio rerio). Neurobiol Learn Mem 63:229–240. doi: 10.1006/nlme.1995.1027 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartman EJ, Abrahams MV (2000) Sensory compensation and the detection of predators: the interaction between chemical and visual information. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:571–575. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazlett BA, McLay C (2005) Responses to predation risk: alternative strategies in the crab Heterozius rotundifrons. Anim Behav 69:967–972. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.06.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson CD, Brown GE (2011) Differences in antipredator behaviour between wild and hatchery-reared juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) under seminatural conditions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:2157–2166. doi: 10.1139/f2011-129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim J-W, Brown GE, Dolinsek IJ, Brodeur NN, Leduc AOHC, Grant JWA (2009) Combined effects of chemical and visual information in eliciting antipredator behaviour in juvenile Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. J Fish Biol 74:1280–1290. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02199.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kroglund F, Rosseland BO, Teien HC, Salbu B, Kristensen T, Finstad B (2008) Water quality limits for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) exposed to short term reductions in pH and increased aluminum simulating episodes. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12:491–507. www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/12/491/2008/
  21. Leduc AOHC (2008) Behavioural and ecological implications of ambient acidification on the chemosensory alarm functions in juvenile salmonids. PhD thesis, Concordia University, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  22. Leduc AOHC, Kelly JM, Brown GE (2004) Detection of conspecific alarm cues by juvenile salmonids under neutral and weakly acidic conditions: laboratory and field tests. Oecologia 139:318–324. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1492-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leduc AOHC, Roh E, Harvey MC, Brown GE (2006) Impaired detection of chemical alarm cues by juvenile wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a weakly acidic environment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:2356–2363. doi: 10.1139/f06-128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leduc AOHC, Roh E, Breau C, Brown GE (2007) Learned recognition of a novel odour by wild juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, under fully natural conditions. Anim Behav 73:471–477. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leduc AOHC, Roh E, Brown GE (2009) Effects of acid rainfall on juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) antipredator behaviour: loss of chemical alarm function and potential survival consequences during predation. Mar Freshw Res 60:1223–1230. doi: 10.1071/Mf08323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leduc AOHC, Kim J-W, Macnaughton CJ, Brown GE (2010) The sensory complement model helps predict diel alarm response patterns in juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) under natural conditions. Can J Zool 88:398–403. doi: 10.1139/Z10-016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640. doi: 10.1139/z90-092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mikheev VN, Wanzenbock J, Pasternak AF (2006) Effects of predator-induced visual and olfactory cues on 0+ perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) foraging behaviour. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:111–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00140.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2000) Predator-recognition training enhances survival of brook trout: evidence from laboratory and field-enclosure studies. Can J Zool 78:2198–2208. doi: 10.1139/z00-164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2001) Chemical alarm signals enhance survival of brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) during encounters with predatory chain pickerel (Esox niger). Ethology 107:989–1005. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2001.00729.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 81:88–95. doi: 10.1139/Z02-216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mirza RS, Ferrari MCO, Kiesecker JM, Chivers DP (2006) Responses of American toad tadpoles to predation cues: behavioural response thresholds, threat-sensitivity and acquired predation recognition. Behaviour 143:877–889. doi: 10.1163/156853906778017926 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muniz IP (1990) Freshwater acidification-its effects on species and communities of freshwater microbes, plants and animals. Proc R Soc Edinb B 97:227–254. doi: 10.1017/S0269727000005364 Google Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.org/
  35. Schmidt KA (2006) Non-additivity among multiple cues of predation risk: a behaviourally-driven cascade between owls and songbirds. Oikos 113:82–90. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14167.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith RJF (1992) Alarm signals in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 2:33–63. doi: 10.1007/bf00042916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith RJF (1997) Avoiding and deterring predators. In: Godin J-GJ (ed) Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–190Google Scholar
  38. Suboski MD (1990) Releaser-induced recognition learning. Psychol Rev 97:271–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warnes GR (2011) gplots: various R programming tools for plotting data. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gplots
  40. Wisenden BD (2000) Olfactory assessment of predation risk in the aquatic environment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 355:1205–1208. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. K. Elvidge
    • 1
  • C. J. Macnaughton
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. E. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Département de Sciences BiologiquesUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations