Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sensory ecology in a changing world: salinity alters conspecific recognition in an amphidromous fish, Pseudomugil signifer

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Group fission and fusion processes are driven by state dependence, risk and the availability of information from others. Yet the availability of information changes under different environmental conditions, thus aiding or inhibiting group formation and maintenance. Chemical cues provide information on the location of individuals and can act as a mechanism for individuals to group together, although they can be greatly affected by environmental conditions. Using a flow channel, we studied how one shoaling fish species, the Pacific blue-eye (Pseudomugil signifer), responds to conspecific chemical cues (CCCs) in different environmental conditions (salinities). This species lives in estuarine environments, ranging in salinity from fresh to fully marine. P. signifer responded to CCCs in freshwater but not in saltwater. Furthermore, P. signifer did not respond to saltwater with CCCs added from freshwater. It took significantly longer for fish in saltwater, than in freshwater, to locate and join a shoal when only CCCs from the shoal were present. Finally, fish formed more cohesive shoals in freshwater than in brackish or saltwater. These results suggest that these fish do not rely on chemical cues in saltwater to locate conspecific shoals. Furthermore, the reduced amounts of these cues in saltwater may inhibit the maintenance of tight shoal structures. We suggest that fish utilise different sensory modalities in fresh or saltwater in order to locate one another, or the social structure of these groups is fundamentally different between these two water types. The importance of this study in relation to understanding how animals utilise and change different sensory modalities in varying environmental conditions is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison JD, Carde RT (2008) Male pheromone blend preference function measured in choice and no-choice wind tunnel trials with almond moths, Cadra cautella. Anim Behav 75:259–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida OG, Miranda A, Frade P, Hubbard PC, Barata EN, Canario AVM (2005) Urine as a social signal in the Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus). Chem Sens 30:309–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breder CM (1959) Studies on social groupings in fishes. Bull Amer Mus Nat Hist 117:393–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown GE, Godin JGJ (1997) Anti-predator responses to conspecific and heterospecific skin extracts by threespine sticklebacks: alarm pheromones revisited. Behav 134:1123–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brumm H (2006) Signalling through acoustic windows: nightingales avoid interspecific competition by short-term adjustment of song timing. J Comp Phys A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Phys 192:1279–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne PG, Keogh JS (2007) Terrestrial toadlets use chemosignals to recognize conspecifics, locate mates and strategically adjust calling behaviour. Anim Behav 74:1155–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ey E, Rahn C, Hammerschmidt K, Fischer J (2009) Wild female olive baboons adapt their grunt vocalizations to environmental conditions. Ethol 115:493–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG (2006) Female swordtail fish use chemical cues to select well-fed mates. Anim Behav 72:721–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornasiero S, Bresciani E, Dendi F, Zuffi MAL (2007) Pheromone trailing in male European whip snake, Hierophis viridiflavus. Amphib Reptil 28:555–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier S, Rose GA (2002) Acoustic observation of diel vertical migration and shoaling behaviour in Atlantic redfishes. J Fish Biol 61:1135–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi F, Tricarico E, Atema J (2005) Unraveling the nature of individual recognition by odor in hermit crabs. J Chem Ecol 31:2877–2896

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theo Biol 31:295–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmings CC (1966) Olfaction and vision in fish schooling. J Exp Biol 45:449–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuschele J, Candolin U (2007) An increase in pH boosts olfactory communication in sticklebacks. Biol Lett 3:411–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heuschele J, Mannerla M, Gienapp P, Candolin U (2009) Environment-dependent use of mate choice cues in sticklebacks. Behav Ecol 20:1223–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard PC, Barata EN, Canario AVM (2003) Olfactory sensitivity of the gilthead seabream (Sparus auratus) to conspecific body fluids. J Chem Ecol 29:2481–2498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones FRH (1956) The behaviour of minnows in relation to light intensity. J Exp Biol 33:271–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lautala T, Hirvonen H (2008) Antipredator behaviour of naive Arctic charr young in the presence of predator odours and conspecific alarm cues. Ecol Freshw Fish 17:78–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lihoreau M, Zimmer C, Rivault C (2007) Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav Ecol 18:880–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick SD (2001) Endocrine control of osmoregulation in teleost fish. Amer Zoo 41:781–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore A, Ives MJ, Kell LT (1994) The role of urine in sibling recognition in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar parr. Proc R Soc Lon Ser B-Bio Sci 255:173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nava SS, Conway MA, Martins EP (2009) Divergence of visual motion detection in diurnal geckos that inhabit bright and dark habitats. Funct Ecol 23:794–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obrist MK (1995) Flexible bat echolocation—the influence of individual, habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen KH, Grahn M, Lohm J, Langefors A (1998) MHC and kin discrimination in juvenile Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Anim Behav 56:319–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pusey B, Kennard M, Arthington A (2004) Freshwater fishes of Northeastern Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Secondi J, Haerty W, Lode T (2005) Female attraction to conspecific chemical cues in the palmate newt Triturus helveticus. Ethol 111:726–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen PW, Stacey NE (1999) Evolution and specialization of fish hormonal pheromones. In: Johnston et al (eds) Advances in chemical signals in vertebrates. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp 15–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen PW, Christensen TA, Stacey NE (1998) Discrimination of pheromonal cues in fish: emerging parallels with insects. Cur Opin Neurobiol 8:458–467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spooner GM (1931) Some observations on schooling in fish. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 17:421–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey NE, Sorensen PW, Vanderkraak GJ, Dulka JG (1989) Direct evidence that 17-alpha, 20-beta-dihydroxy-4-pregnen-3-one functions as a goldfish primer pheromone - Preovulatory release is closely associated with male endocrine responses. Gen Compar Endocrin 75:62–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taga ME, Bassler BL (2003) Chemical communication among bacteria. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100:14549–14554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Todd JH, Atema J, Bardach JE (1967) Chemical communication in social behaviour of a fish—yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis). Sci 158:672–673

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Torisawa S, Takagi T, Fukuda H, Ishibashi Y, Sawada Y, Okada T, Miyashit S, Suzuki K, Yamane T (2007) Schooling behaviour and retinomotor response of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus otientalis under different light intensities. J Fish Biol 71:411–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward AJW, Axford S, Krause J (2002) Mixed-species shoaling in fish: the sensory mechanisms and costs of shoal choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:182–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward AJW, Duff AJ, Horsfall JS, Currie S (2008) Scents and scents-ability: pollution disrupts chemical social recognition and shoaling in fish. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 275:101–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster MM, Adams EL, Laland KN (2008) Diet-specific chemical cues influence association preferences and prey patch use in a shoaling fish. Anim Behav 76:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster MM, Goldsmith J, Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2007) Habitat-specific chemical cues influence association preferences and shoal cohesion in fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt TD (2003) Pheromones and animal behaviour—communication by smell and taste. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mike Webster, Angus Jackson, Tony Underwood and two anonymous referees for stimulating discussion and comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, School of Biological Sciences, Marine Ecology Laboratories, A11, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    James E. Herbert-Read, Deluxmi Logendran & Ashley J. W. Ward

Authors
  1. James E. Herbert-Read
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deluxmi Logendran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashley J. W. Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Herbert-Read.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Krause

Ethical note

The approval number for this study was: L04/3-2008/1/4766, granted by the University of Sydney’s Animal Ethics Committee. After the experiment was completed, fishes were returned to where they were caught. Fishes were kept in captivity for a maximum of 6 months.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herbert-Read, J.E., Logendran, D. & Ward, A.J.W. Sensory ecology in a changing world: salinity alters conspecific recognition in an amphidromous fish, Pseudomugil signifer . Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64, 1107–1115 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0925-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0925-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation