Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 6, pp 989–998 | Cite as

Balancing the response to predation—the effects of shoal size, predation risk and habituation on behaviour of juvenile perch

  • Silvan U. Goldenberg
  • Jost Borcherding
  • Martina Heynen
Original Paper

Abstract

Group size, predation risk and habituation are key drivers of behaviour and evolution in gregarious prey animals. However, the extent to which they interact in shaping behaviour is only partially understood. We analyzed their combined effects on boldness and vigilance behaviour in juvenile perch (Perca fluviatilis) by observing individuals in groups of one, two, three and five faced with four different levels of predation risk in a repeated measures design. The perch showed an asymptotic increase in boldness with increasing group size and the highest per capita vigilance in groups of two. With increasing predation risk, individuals reduced boldness and intensified vigilance. The interaction between group size and predation risk influenced vigilance but not boldness. In this context, individuals in groups of two elevated their vigilance compared to individuals in larger groups only when at higher risk of predation. Further, as only group size, they significantly reduced vigilance at the highest level of risk. With increasing habituation, solitary individuals became considerably bolder. Also, predation risk affected boldness only in the more habituated situation. Hence, repeated measures may be essential to correctly interpret certain relationships in behaviour. Our results suggest that perch may adjust boldness behaviour to group size and predation risk independently. This is rather unexpected since in theory, natural selection would strongly favour an interactive adjustment. Finally, vigilance might be particularly effective in groups of two due to the intense monitoring and detailed response to changing levels of risk.

Keywords

Perca fluviatilis Group living Boldness Vigilance Predator inspection Novelty effect 

Supplementary material

265_2014_1711_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (381 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 380 kb)

References

  1. Allan JR, Pitcher TJ (1986) Species segregation during predator evasion in cyprinid fish shoals. Freshw Biol 16:653–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfelbeck B, Raess M (2008) Behavioural and hormonal effects of social isolation and neophobia in a gregarious bird species, the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Horm Behav 54:435–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird TA, Ryer CH, Olla BL (1991) Social enhancement of foraging on an ephemeral food source in juvenile walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogramma. Environ Biol Fish 31:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks PB (2001) Predation-sensitive grouping and habitat use by eastern grey kangaroos: a field experiment. Anim Behav 61:1013–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bean CW, Winfield IJ (1995) Habitat use and activity patterns of roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.)), rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus (L.)), perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) and pike (Esox lucius L.) in the laboratory: the role of predation threat and structural complexity. Ecol Freshw Fish 4:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beeck P, Tauber S, Kiel S, Borcherding J (2002) 0+ perch predation on 0+ bream: a case study on a eutrophic gravel pit lake. Freshw Biol 47:2359–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benhaiem S, Delon M, Lourtet B et al (2008) Hunting increases vigilance levels in roe deer and modifies feeding site selection. Anim Behav 76:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc B Met 57:289–300Google Scholar
  9. Blumstein DT, Daniel JC, Evans CS (2001) Yellow-footed rock-wallaby group size effects reflect a trade-off. Ethology 107:655–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1988) The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups. J Theor Biol 132:337–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown C, Jones F, Braithwaite V (2005) In situ examination of boldness-shyness traits in the tropical poeciliid, Brachyraphis episcopi. Anim Behav 70:1003–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Budaev SV (2010) Using principal pomponents and factor analysis in animal behaviour research: caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chivers DP, Mirza RS, Bryer PJ, Kiesecker JM (2001) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance by slimy sculpins: understanding the importance of visual versus chemical information. Can J Zool 79:867–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen B, Persson L (1993) Species-specific antipredatory behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman SL, Mellgren RL (1994) Neophobia when feeding alone or in flocks in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 48:903–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Croft DP, James R, Thomas POR, Hathaway C, Mawdsley D, Laland KN, Krause J (2006) Social structure and co-operative interactions in a wild population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:644–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dehn MM (1990) Vigilance for predators:detection and dilution effects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:337–342Google Scholar
  18. Development Core Team R (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  19. Downes S, Hoefer AM (2004) Antipredatory behaviour in lizards: interactions between group size and predation risk. Anim Behav 67:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dugatkin LA, Alfieri M (1991) Guppies and the tit-for-tat strategy: preference based on past interaction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:243–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dyer JRG, Croft DP, Morrell LJ, Krause J (2009) Shoal composition determines foraging success in the guppy. Behav Ecol 20:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elgar MA (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds:a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos 64:13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellenberg U, Mattern T, Seddon PJ (2009) Habituation potential of yellow-eyed penguins depends on sex, character and previous experience with humans. Anim Behav 77:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fernandez-Juricic E, Erichsen JT, Kacelnik A (2004) Visual perception and social foraging in birds. Trends Ecol Evol 19:25–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferrari MCO, Sih A, Chivers DP (2009) The paradox of risk allocation: a review and prospectus. Anim Behav 78:579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flury B (1988) Common principal components and related multivariate models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Frid A (1997) Vigilance by female Dall’s sheep: interactions between predation risk factors. Anim Behav 53:799–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galef BG, Laland KN (2005) Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. Bioscience 55:489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerlai R, Hogan JA (1992) Learning to find the opponent: an ethological analysis of the behavior of paradise fish (Macropodus oopercularis) in intraspecific and interspecific encounters. J Comp Psychol 106:306–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Godin JGJ, Davis SA (1995) Who dares, benefits: predator approach behavior in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) deters predator pursuit. Proc R Soc Lond B 259:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gomez-Laplaza LM, Morgan E (2000) The effect of time spent in isolation on the response to novel nonsocial stimulation in the angelfish Pterophyllum scalare. Can J Zool 78:530–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grand TC, Dill LM (1999) The effect of group size on the foraging behaviour of juvenile coho salmon: reduction of predation risk or increased competition? Anim Behav 58:443–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2005) Sticklebacks benefit from closer predator inspection: an experimental test of risk assessment. Ethol Ecol Evol 17:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hake M, Ekman J (1988) Finding and sharing depletable patches: when group foraging decreases intake rates. Ornis Scand 19:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harcourt JL, Ang TZ, Sweetman G, Johnstone RA, Manica A (2009) Social feedback and the emergence of leaders and followers. Curr Biol 19:248–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hellström G, Heynen M, Oosten J, Borcherding J, Magnhagen C (2011) The effect of group size on risk taking and social conformity in Eurasian perch. Ecol Freshw Fish 20:499–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoare DJ, Couzin ID, Godin JGJ, Krause J (2004) Context-dependent group size choice in fish. Anim Behav 67:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jackson DA (1993) Stopping rules in principal components-analysis: a comparison of heuristic and statistical approaches. Ecology 74:2204–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim JW, Brown GE, Dolinsek IJ, Brodeur NN, Leduc A, Grant JWA (2009) Combined effects of chemical and visual information in eliciting antipredator behaviour in juvenile Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. J Fish Biol 74:1280–1290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krause J, Godin JGJ (1996) Influence of prey foraging posture on flight behavior and predation risk: predators take advantage of unwary prey. Behav Ecol 7:264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford Univ, Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Lehtiniemi M (2005) Swim or hide: predator cues cause species specific reactions in young fish larvae. J Fish Biol 66:1285–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Licht T (1989) Discriminating between hungry and satiated predators: the response of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from high and low predation sites. Ethology 82:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Magnhagen C (2006) Risk-taking behaviour in foraging young-of-the-year perch varies with population size structure. Oecologia 147:734–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Magnhagen C (2007) Social influence on the correlation between behaviours in young-of-the-year perch. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magnhagen C, Borcherding J (2008) Risk-taking behaviour in foraging perch: does predation pressure influence age-specific boldness? Anim Behav 75:509–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Magnhagen C, Bunnefeld N (2009) Express your personality or go along with the group: what determines the behaviour of shoaling perch. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:3369–3375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Magnhagen C, Staffan F (2005) Is boldness affected by group composition in young-of-the-year perch (Perca fluviatilis)? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Magurran AE, Pitcher TJ (1983) Foraging, timidity and shoal size in minnows and goldfish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Magurran AE, Pitcher TJ (1987) Provenance, shoal size and the sociobiology of predator-evasion behavior in minnow shoals. Proc R Soc Lond B 229:439–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Magurran AE, Seghers BH (1990) Population differences in predator recognition and attack cone avoidance in the guppy Poecilia reticulata. Anim Behav 40:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martin JGA, Reale D (2008) Temperament, risk assessment and habituation to novelty in eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus. Anim Behav 75:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martin CW, Fodrie FJ, Heck KL, Mattila J (2010) Differential habitat use and antipredator response of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) to olfactory and visual cues from multiple predators. Oecologia 162:893–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Milinski M (1997) How to avoid seven deadly sins in the study of behavior. Adv Stud Behav 26:159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Milinski M, Pfluger D, Kulling D, Kettler R (1990) Do sticklebacks cooperate repeatedly in reciprocal pairs? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Newey P (2007) Foraging behaviour of the Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) in relation to vigilance and group size. Emu 107:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olsson J, Svanback R, Eklov P (2007) Effects of resource level and habitat type on behavioral and morphological plasticity in Eurasian perch. Oecologia 152:48–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Packer C (1986) Whatever happened to reciprocal altruism. Trends Ecol Evol 1:142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Development Core Team (2011) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-100, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
  62. Pitcher T (1992) Who dares, wins: the function and evolution of predator inspection behavior in shoaling fish. Neth J Zool 42:371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pitcher TJ, Turner JR (1986) Danger at dawn: experimental support for the twilight hypothesis in shoaling minnows. J Fish Biol 29:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pitcher TJ, Green DA, Magurran AE (1986) Dicing with death: predator inspection behavior in minnow shoals. J Fish Biol 28:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Probst WN, Thomas G, Eckmann R (2009) Hydroacoustic observations of surface shoaling behaviour of young-of-the-year perch Perca fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) with a towed upward-facing transducer. Fish Res 96:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roberts G (1996) Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim Behav 51:1077–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rodriguez-Prieto I, Martin J, Fernandez-Juricic E (2011) Individual variation in behavioural plasticity: direct and indirect effects of boldness, exploration and sociability on habituation to predators in lizards. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saxby A, Adams L, Snellgrove D, Wilson RW, Sloman KA (2010) The effect of group size on the behaviour and welfare of four fish species commonly kept in home aquaria. Appl Anim Behav Sci 125:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Seghers BH (1981) Facultative schooling behavior in the spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius): possible costs and benefits. Environ Biol Fish 6:21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Snickars M, Sandstrom A, Mattila J (2004) Antipredator behaviour of 0+ year Perca fluviatilis: effect of vegetation density and turbidity. J Fish Biol 65:1604–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Soma M, Hasegawa T (2004) The effect of social facilitation and social dominance on foraging success of budgerigars in an unfamiliar environment. Behaviour 141:1121–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Treves A (2000) Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation. Anim Behav 60:711–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Valone TJ, Templeton JJ (2002) Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Philos T Roy Soc B 357:1549–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walling CA, Dawnay N, Kazem AJN, Wright J (2004) Predator inspection behaviour in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus): body size, local predation pressure and cooperation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wanzenböck J, Mikheev VN, Pasternak AF (2006) Modification of 0+perch foraging behaviour by indirect cues of predation risk. Ecol Freshw Fish 15:118–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ward AJW, Sumpter DJT, Couzin LD, Hart PJB, Krause J (2008) Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:6948–6953PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Webster MM, Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2007) Boldness is influenced by social context in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behaviour 144:351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson DS, Coleman K, Clark AB, Biederman L (1993) Shy-bold continuum in pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus): an ecological study of apsychological trait. J Comp Psychol 107:250–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvan U. Goldenberg
    • 1
  • Jost Borcherding
    • 1
  • Martina Heynen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of General Ecology and Limnology, Ecological Field Station GrietherbuschZoological Institute of the University of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations