Cue recognition and behavioural responses in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) under risk of fish predation
- 5 Downloads
To effectively respond to predation risk, prey must assess the risk associated with different predation cues. Predation cues can stem either from the predator or from conspecifics and indicate different predation risk levels, thus eliciting different anti-predation responses. The three-spined stickleback is a well-studied fish species often found in gregarious formations. Previous studies show that sticklebacks perform a variety of anti-predation behaviours; however, little is known about how they respond to multiple simultaneous predator cues, characteristic of heterogeneous natural habitats. Here, we experimentally compare the relative importance of three types of predation cues (visual predator cue, chemical predator odour cue and chemical alarm cue from injured conspecifics) and their interactions, on anti-predation and foraging behaviour of sticklebacks. Results showed that (1) individual sticklebacks responded most strongly to visual predator cues, which resulted in reduced foraging activity, increased spine erection and increased predator inspection; (2) the presence of chemical cues (predator odour and/or conspecific alarm cues) stimulates freezing behaviour to a minor extent; and (3) anti-predation behaviour manifests as a trade-off with foraging-related activities. Overall, the results indicate that sticklebacks could assess risk and modify their behavioural responses depending on which cues are present in the environment. The experimental approach of using factorial combinations of different predatory cues can increase our understanding of the role of multimodal cues in aquatic ecosystems.
KeywordsPredator Multimodal cues Anti-predation behaviour Chemical cues Alarm cues Visual cues
Our co-author J. I. Johnsson sadly passed away during the final process of writing this manuscript, his contributions to the field were major and he will be missed and remembered as a great mentor and collaborator. The work was finalised with support from University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Science, Dept. Ecosystem Biology & SoWa (MEYS; projects LM2015075, EF16_0130001782-SoWa Ecosystems Research) to ALD and JN.
MA and ALD conceived and designed the investigation. ALD, JN and JIJ performed the field and laboratory work. JN analysed the data. JIJ and MA contributed materials, reagents and analysis tools. ALD wrote the manuscript and all other authors widely contributed and provided editorial advice.
This study was supported by funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the National Program for Fundamental Research (ref. CGL 2009-07904) to MA, and the Swedish Research Council Formas to JIJ.
Compliance with ethical standards
The experiment was approved by the Ethical Committee for Animal Research in Gothenburg (Licence 8-2011) and complied with current laws in Sweden and the European Directive 2010/63/EU.
- Bartoń K (2017) Package ‘MuMIn’: multi-model inference. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/
- Brown GE, Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1995) Fathead minnows avoid conspecific and heterospecific alarm pheromone in the faeces of northern pike. J Fish Biol 47:387–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1995.tb01908.x Google Scholar
- Dinno A (2015) Package ‘paran’: Horn’s test of principal components/factors. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/paran/
- Huntingford F, Giles N (1987) Individual variation in anti-predator responses in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Ethology 74:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00933.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Huntingford FA, Wright PJ, Tierney JF (1994) Adaptive variation in antipredator behaviour in threespine stickleback. In: Bell MA, Foster SA (eds) The evolutionary biology of the Threespine stickleback. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp 277–296Google Scholar
- Meuthen D, Flege P, Brandt R, Thünken T (2018) The location of damage-released alarm cues in a cichlid fish. Evol Ecol Res 19:529–546Google Scholar
- Pitcher TJ, Green DA, Magurran AE (1986) Dicing with death: predator inspection behaviour in minnow shoals. J Fish Biol 28:439–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1986.tb05181.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
- Šmejkal M, Ricard D, Sajdlová Z, Čech M, Vejřík L, Blabolil P, Vejříková I, Prchalová M, Vašek M, Souza AT, Brönmark C, Peterka J (2017) Can species-specific prey responses to chemical cues explain prey susceptibility to predation? Ecol Evol 8:4544–4551. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
- Tulley JJ, Huntingford FA (1987) Age, experience and the development of adaptive variation in anti-predator responses in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ethology 75:285–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00660.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wisenden BD (2000) Scents of danger: the evolution of olfactory ornamentation in chemically-mediated predator-prey interactions. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds) Animal signals: Signalling and signal Design in Animal Communication. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, pp 3645–3386Google Scholar
- Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2006) The role of public chemical information in antipredator behaviour. In: Ladich F (ed) Communication in fishes. Science Publisher, Enfield, NH, pp 259–278Google Scholar