Animal Cognition

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 481–492 | Cite as

Food approach conditioning and discrimination learning using sound cues in benthic sharks

  • Catarina Vila PoucaEmail author
  • Culum Brown
Original Paper


The marine environment is filled with biotic and abiotic sounds. Some of these sounds predict important events that influence fitness while others are unimportant. Individuals can learn specific sound cues and ‘soundscapes’ and use them for vital activities such as foraging, predator avoidance, communication and orientation. Most research with sounds in elasmobranchs has focused on hearing thresholds and attractiveness to sound sources, but very little is known about their abilities to learn about sounds, especially in benthic species. Here we investigated if juvenile Port Jackson sharks could learn to associate a musical stimulus with a food reward, discriminate between two distinct musical stimuli, and whether individual personality traits were linked to cognitive performance. Five out of eight sharks were successfully conditioned to associate a jazz song with a food reward delivered in a specific corner of the tank. We observed repeatable individual differences in activity and boldness in all eight sharks, but these personality traits were not linked to the learning performance assays we examined. These sharks were later trained in a discrimination task, where they had to distinguish between the same jazz and a novel classical music song, and swim to opposite corners of the tank according to the stimulus played. The sharks’ performance to the jazz stimulus declined to chance levels in the discrimination task. Interestingly, some sharks developed a strong side bias to the right, which in some cases was not the correct side for the jazz stimulus.


Elasmobranch Behaviour Cognition Associative learning Personality Hearing 



This research was funded by the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University, and CVP was supported by an Endeavour Postgraduate (PhD) Scholarship. We thank the members and interns of the Fish Lab and SIMS for husbandry assistance, Jack Gruber for help running the experiment, Drew Allen for advice on statistical analysis, and Vera Schlüessel and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This work was approved by the Macquarie University Animal Ethics Committee under ARA 2014-003.

Supplementary material

10071_2018_1183_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 KB)
10071_2018_1183_MOESM2_ESM.eps (22.3 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (EPS 22856 KB)
10071_2018_1183_MOESM3_ESM.eps (784 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (EPS 783 KB)


  1. Banner A (1972) Use of sound in predation by young lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris (Poey). Bull Mar Sci 22:251–283Google Scholar
  2. Bass NC, Mourier J, Knott NA, Day J, Guttridge T, Brown C (2016) Long-term migration patterns and bisexual philopatry in a benthic shark species. Mar Freshw Res 68:1414–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1406.5823
  4. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vis 10:433–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown C, Laland K, Krause J (2011) Fish cognition and behavior. Wiley, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budaev S, Brown C (2011) Personality traits and behaviour. In: Brown C, Laland K, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behavior. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, p 472Google Scholar
  8. Byrnes EE, Brown C (2016) Individual personality differences in Port Jackson sharks Heterodontus portusjacksoni. J Fish Biol 89:1142–1157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrnes EE, Vila Pouca C, Chambers SL, Brown C (2016) Into the wild: developing field tests to examine the link between elasmobranch personality and laterality. Behav 153:1777–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carere C, Locurto C (2011) Interaction between animal personality and animal cognition. Curr Zool 57:491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casper BM, Mann DA (2006) Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis). Environ Biol Fishes 76:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casper BM, Mann DA (2007) Dipole hearing measurements in elasmobranch fishes. J Exp Biol 210:75–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Casper B, Mann D (2009) Field hearing measurements of the Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. J Fish Biol 75:2768–2776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chase AR (2001) Music discriminations by carp (Cyprinus carpio). Anim Learn Behav 29:336–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford JD, Hagedorn M, Hopkins CD (1986) Acoustic communication in an electric fish, Pollimyrus isidori (Mormyridae). J Comp Physiol A 159:297–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Amato MR, Salmon DP (1984) Processing of complex auditory stimuli (tunes) by rats and monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Learn Behav 12:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dugatkin LA, Alfieri MS (2003) Boldness, behavioral inhibition and learning. Ethol Ecol Evol 15:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferster CB, Skinner BF (1957) Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts, East Norwalk, CT, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finger JS, Dhellemmes F, Guttridge TL (2017) Personality in elasmobranchs with a focus on sharks: Early evidence, challenges, and future directions. In: Vonk J, Weiss A, Kuczaj SA (eds) Personality in nonhuman animals. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gannon DP, Barros NB, Nowacek DP, Read AJ, Waples DM, Wells RS (2005) Prey detection by bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus: an experimental test of the passive listening hypothesis. Anim Behav 69:709–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardiner JM, Hueter RE, Maruska KP, Sisneros JA, Casper BM, Mann DA, Demski LS (2012) Sensory physiology and behavior of elasmobranchs. Biol Sharks Relat 1:349–401Google Scholar
  22. Guttridge TL, Brown C (2014) Learning and memory in the Port Jackson shark, Heterodontus portusjacksoni. Anim Cogn 17:415–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hart NS, Collin SP (2015) Sharks senses and shark repellents. Integr Zool 10:38–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hart NS, Theiss SM, Harahush BK, Collin SP (2011) Microspectrophotometric evidence for cone monochromacy in sharks. Naturwissenschaften 98:193–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Huijbers CM, Nagelkerken I, Lössbroek PAC, Schulten IE, Siegenthaler A, Holderied MW, Simpson SD (2012) A test of the senses: fish select novel habitats by responding to multiple cues. Ecology 93:46–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hulse SH, Takeuchi AH, Braaten RF (1992) Perceptual invariances in the comparative psychology of music. Music Percept 10:151–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jordan LK, Mandelman JW, Kajiura SM (2011) Behavioral responses to weak electric fields and a lanthanide metal in two shark species. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 409:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelly JC, Nelson DR (1975) Hearing thresholds of the horn shark, Heterodontus francisci. J Acoust Soc Am 58:905–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kritzler H, Wood L (1961) Provisional audiogram for the shark, Carcharhinus leucas. Science 133:1480–1482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ladich F (2015) Sound communication in fishes. Animal signals and communication series, vol. 4. Springer, ViennaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ladich F, Myrberg A (2006) Agonistic behavior and acoustic communication. Commun Fish 1:121–148Google Scholar
  32. Last PR, Stevens JD (2009) Sharks and rays of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Australia, 644pGoogle Scholar
  33. Lefcheck JS (2016) piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol Evol 7:573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mann DA, Lu Z, Popper AN (1997) A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature 389:341–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McFarland W (1990) Light in the sea: the optical world of elasmobranchs. J Exp Zool 256:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer CG, Holland KN, Papastamatiou YP (2005) Sharks can detect changes in the geomagnetic field. J R Soc Interface 2:129–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Myrberg AA Jr, Ha SJ, Walewski S, Banbury JC (1972) Effectiveness of acoustic signals in attracting epipelagic sharks to an underwater sound source. Bull Mar Sci 22:926–949Google Scholar
  38. Myrberg AA Jr, Mohler M, Catala JD (1986) Sound production by males of a coral reef fish (Pomacentrus partitus): its significance to females. Anim Behav 34:913–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Myrberg AA (2001) The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environ Biol Fishes 60:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 85:935–956PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson DR (1967) Hearing thresholds, frequency discrimination, and acoustic orientation in the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris (Poey). Bull Mar Sci 17:741–768Google Scholar
  43. Nelson DR, Johnson RH (1972) Acoustic attraction of Pacific reef sharks: effect of pulse intermittency and variability. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A Physiol 42:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Porter D, Neuringer A (1984) Music discriminations by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 10:138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Powter DM, Gladstone W (2009) Habitat-mediated use of space by juvenile and mating adult Port Jackson sharks, Heterodontus portusjacksoni, in Eastern Australia. Pac Sci 63:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Core Team (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  47. Radford C, Stanley J, Simpson S, Jeffs A (2011) Juvenile coral reef fish use sound to locate habitats. Coral Reefs 30:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Remage-Healey L, Nowacek DP, Bass AH (2006) Dolphin foraging sounds suppress calling and elevate stress hormone levels in a prey species, the Gulf toadfish. J Exp Biol 209:4444–4451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Richardson WJ, Greene CR Jr, Malme CI, Thomson DH (2013) Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan LA, Hart NS, Collin SP, Hemmi JM (2016) Visual resolution and contrast sensitivity in two benthic sharks. J Exp Biol 219:3971–3980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Scheipl F, Greven S, Küchenhoff H (2008) Size and power of tests for a zero random effect variance or polynomial regression in additive and linear mixed models. Comput Stat Data Anal 52:3283–3299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schielzeth H, Nakagawa S (2013) rptR: repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data. R package version 0.6. 405/r52Google Scholar
  53. Schluessel V (2015) Who would have thought that ‘Jaws’ also has brains? Cognitive functions in elasmobranchs. Anim Cogn 18:19–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Sih A, Del Giudice M (2012) Linking behavioural syndromes and cognition: a behavioural ecology perspective. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367:2762–2772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simpson SD, Meekan M, Montgomery J, McCauley R, Jeffs A (2005) Homeward Sound. Science 308:221–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Simpson SD, Meekan MG, Larsen NJ, McCauley RD, Jeffs A (2010) Behavioral plasticity in larval reef fish: orientation is influenced by recent acoustic experiences. Behav Ecol 21:1098–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Coers A, ten Cate C, Popper AN (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25:419–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Spedicato GA, Kang TS, Yalamanchi SB, Yadav D (2016) The markovchain package: a package for easily handling Discrete Markov Chains in R. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  60. Trompf L, Brown C (2014) Personality affects learning and trade-offs between private and social information in guppies, Poecilia reticulata. Anim Behav 88:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tyack P (1998). Acoustic communication under the sea. Hopp SL, Owren MJ, Evans CS (eds) Animal acoustic communication. Springer, New York, pp 163–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Watanabe S, Sato K (1999) Discriminative stimulus properties of music in Java sparrows. Behav Proc 47:53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. White S, Wagner T, Gowan C, Braithwaite V (2016) Can personality predict individual differences in brook trout spatial learning ability? Behav Process 414:220–228Google Scholar
  64. Wilson M, Acolas M-L, Bégout M-L, Madsen PT, Wahlberg M (2008) Allis shad (Alosa alosa) exhibit an intensity-graded behavioral response when exposed to ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am 124:EL243-EL247Google Scholar
  65. Zion B, Barki A (2012) Ranching fish using acoustic conditioning: has it reached a dead end? Aquaculture 344–349:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zion B, Karplus I, Barki A (2010) Generalization and discrimination of positive and negative acoustic stimuli in the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Behav Process 83:306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zuur A, Ieno E, Walker N, Saveliev A, Smith G (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations