Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 55–65 | Cite as

Elasmobranch cognitive ability: using electroreceptive foraging behaviour to demonstrate learning, habituation and memory in a benthic shark

  • Joel A. Kimber
  • David W. Sims
  • Patricia H. Bellamy
  • Andrew B. Gill
Original Paper

Abstract

Top predators inhabiting a dynamic environment, such as coastal waters, should theoretically possess sufficient cognitive ability to allow successful foraging despite unpredictable sensory stimuli. The cognition-related hunting abilities of marine mammals have been widely demonstrated. Having been historically underestimated, teleost cognitive abilities have also now been significantly demonstrated. Conversely, the abilities of elasmobranchs have received little attention, despite many species possessing relatively large brains comparable to some mammals. The need to determine what, if any, cognitive ability these globally distributed, apex predators are endowed with has been highlighted recently by questions arising from environmental assessments, specifically whether they are able to learn to distinguish between anthropogenic electric fields and prey bioelectric fields. We therefore used electroreceptive foraging behaviour in a model species, Scyliorhinus canicula (small-spotted catshark), to determine cognitive ability by analysing whether elasmobranchs are able to learn to improve foraging efficiency and remember learned behavioural adaptations. Positive reinforcement, operant conditioning was used to study catshark foraging behaviour towards artificial, prey-type electric fields (Efields). Catsharks rewarded with food for responding to Efields throughout experimental weeks were compared with catsharks that were not rewarded for responding in order to assess behavioural adaptation via learning ability. Experiments were repeated after a 3-week interval with previously rewarded catsharks this time receiving no reward and vice versa to assess memory ability. Positive reinforcement markedly and rapidly altered catshark foraging behaviour. Rewarded catsharks exhibited significantly more interest in the electrical stimulus than unrewarded catsharks. Furthermore, they improved their foraging efficiency over time by learning to locate and bite the electrodes to gain food more quickly. In contrast, unrewarded catsharks showed some habituation, whereby their responses to the electrodes abated and eventually entirely ceased, though they generally showed no changes in most foraging parameters. Behavioural adaptations were not retained after the interval suggesting learned behaviour was not memorised beyond the interval. Sequences of individual catshark search paths clearly illustrated learning and habituation behavioural adaptation. This study demonstrated learning and habituation occurring after few foraging events and a memory window of between 12 h and 3 weeks. These cognitive abilities are discussed in relation to diet, habitat, ecology and anthropogenic Efield sources.

Keywords

Scyliorhinus canicula Efield Electroreception Behavioural adaptation Search path 

References

  1. Aronson LR, Aronson FR, Clarke E (1967) Instrumental conditioning and light-dark discrimination in young nurse sharks. B Mar Sci 17:249–256Google Scholar
  2. Boehlert GW, Gill AB (2010) Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development—a current synthesis. Oceanography 23:68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown C, Braithwaite VA (2005) Effects of predation pressure on the cognitive ability of the poeciliid Brachyraphis episcopi. Behav Ecol 16:482–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown C, Markula A, Laland K (2003) Social learning of prey location in hatchery reared Atlantic salmon. J Fish Biol 63:738–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown C, Laland K, Krause J (2006) Fish cognition and behaviour. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan JE, Larkin PA (1972) Food specialization by individual trout. J Bull Fish Res Board Can 29:1615–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Church RM (1964) Systematic effect of random error in the yoked control design. Psychol Bull 62(2):122–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark E (1959) Instrumental conditioning of lemon sharks. Science 130:217–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark E (1961) Visual discrimination in lemon sharks. In: Tenth Pacific science congress, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA, 21 August—6 September 10:175–176Google Scholar
  10. Compagno L, Dando M, Fowler S (2005) Sharks of the world. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Croy MI, Hughes RN (1991) The role of learning and memory in the feeding behaviour of the fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia L. Anim Behav 41:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Csanyi V, Csizmadia G, Miklosi A (1989) Long-term memory and recognition of another species in the paradise fish. Anim Behav 37:908–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson BG, Heyer GV, Eppi R, Kalmijn AJ (1980) Field experiments on electrically evoked feeding responses in the dogfish shark, Mustelus canis. Biol Bull 159:482Google Scholar
  14. Demski LS, Northcutt RG (1996) The brain and cranial nerves of the white shark: an evolutionary perspective. In: Klimley AP, Ainley DG (eds) White sharks: the biology of Carcharadon carcharias. Academic Press, London, pp 121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dill LM (1983) Adaptive flexibility in the foraging behavior of fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis JR, Pawson MG, Shackley SE (1996) The comparative feeding ecology of six species of shark and four species of ray (Elasmobranchii) in the North-east Atlantic. J Mar Biol Ass UK 76:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gill AB, Kimber JA (2005) The potential for cooperative management of elasmobranchs and offshore renewable energy development in UK waters. J Mar Biol Ass UK 85:1075–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gill AB, Gloyne-Phillips I, Neal KJ, Kimber JA (2005) The potential effects of electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea power cables associated with offshore wind farm developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine organisms. (COWRIE stage 1.5). Report number COWRIE EMF 06-2004Google Scholar
  19. Girvan JR, Braithwaite VA (1998) Population differences in spatial learning in three-spined sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:913–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graeber RC, Ebbesson SO (1972) Visual discrimination learning in normal and tectal-ablated nurse sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum). Comp Biochem Physiol A 42:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graeber RC, Ebbesson SO, Jane JA (1978) Visual discrimination following partial telencephalic ablations in nurse sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum). J Comp Neurol 180:325–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guinet C, Bouvier J (1995) Development of intentional stranding hunting techniques in killer whale (Orcinus orca) calves at Crozet Archipelago. Can J Zool 73:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guttridge TL, van Dijk S, Stamhuis EJ, Krause J, Gruber SH, Brown C (2012) Social learning in juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Anim Cogn 16(1):55–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyer GW, Fields MC, Fields RD, Kalmijn AJ (1981) Field experiments on electrically evoked feeding responses in the pelagic blue shark, Prionace glauca. Biol Bull 161:345–346Google Scholar
  25. Hirvonen H, Ranta E, Rita H, Peuhkuri N (1999) Significance of memory properties in prey choice decisions. Ecol Model 115:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgson ES, Mathewson RF (1971) Chemosensory orientation in sharks. Ann NY Acad Sci 188:175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hughes RN, Blight CM (1999) Algorithmic behaviour and spatial memory are used by two intertidal fish species to solve the radial maze. Anim Behav 58:601–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaiser MJ, Westhead AP, Hughes RN, Gibson RN (1992) Are digestive characteristics important contributors to the profitability of prey? A study of diet selection in the fifteen-spined stickleback Spinachia spinachia (L.). Oecologia 90:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalmijn AJ (1971) The electric sense of sharks and rays. J Exp Biol 55:371–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalmijn AJ (1972) Bioelectric fields in sea water and the function of the ampullae of Lorenzini in elasmobranch fishes. SIO Ref Ser 72–83:1–21Google Scholar
  31. Kimber JA, Sims DW, Bellamy PH, Gill AB (2009) Male-female interactions affect foraging behaviour within groups of small- potted catshark, Scyliorhinus canicula. Anim Behav 77:1435–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kimber JA, Sims DW, Bellamy PH, Gill AB (2011) The ability of a benthic elasmobranch to discriminate between biological and artificial electric fields. Mar Biol 158(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuba MJ, Byrne RA, Burghardt GM (2010) A new method for studying problem solving and tool use in stingrays (Potamotrygon castexi). Anim Cogn 13(3):507–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuczaj SA, Gory JD, Xitco MJ (2009) How intelligent are dolphins? A partial answer based on their ability to plan their behavior when confronted with novel problems. Jap J Anim Psychol 59:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laland KN, Brown C, Krause J (2003) Learning in fishes: from 3-s memory to culture. Fish Fish 4:199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laptikhovsky VV, Arkhipkin AI, Henderson AC (2001) Feeding habits and dietary overlap in spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias (Squalidae) and narrowmouth catshark Schroederichthys bivius (Scyliorhinidae). J Mar Biol Ass UK 81:1015–1018Google Scholar
  37. Lyle JM (1983) Food and feeding habits of the lesser spotted dogfish, Scyliorhinus canicula (L.), in Isle of man waters. J Fish Biol 23:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mackney PA, Hughes RN (1995) Foraging behaviour and memory window in sticklebacks. Behaviour 132:1231–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maklakov AA, Immler S, Gonzalez-Voyer A, Ronn J, Kolm N (2011) Brains and the city: big-brained passerine birds succeed in urban environments. Biol Lett 7(5):730–732PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer CG, Papastamatiou YP, Holland KN (2010) A multiple instrument approach to quantifying the movement patterns and habitat use of tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier) and Galapagos sharks (Carcharhinus galapagensis) at French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii. Mar Biol 157:1857–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Micheli F (1997) Effects of experience on crab foraging in a mobile and a sedentary species. Anim Behav 53:1149–1159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Myagkov NA (1991) The brain sizes of living elasmobranchii as their organization level indicator. I. General analysis. J Brain Res 32:553–561Google Scholar
  43. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nilsson J, Kristiansen TS, Fosseidengen JE, Ferno A, van den Bos R (2008) Learning in cod (Gadus morhua): long trace interval retention. Anim Cogn 11:215–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Northcutt RG (1978) Brain organization in cartilaginous fishes. In: Hodgson ES, Mathewson RF (eds) Sensory biology of sharks, skates and rays. US Office of Naval Research, Arlington, pp 117–193Google Scholar
  46. Odling-Smee L, Braithwaite VA (2003) The influence of habitat stability on landmark use during spatial learning in the three-spined stickleback. Anim Behav 65:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reader SM, MacDonald K (2003) Environmental variability and primate behavioural flexibility. In: Reader SM, Laland KN (eds) Animal innovation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ridet J-M, Bauchot R, Delfini C, Platel R, Thireau M (1973) L’encephale de Scyliorhinus canicula (Linne) (Chondrichthyes, Slacii, Scyliorhinidae). Recherche d’une grandeur de reference pour des etudes quantitatives. Cah Biol Mar 14:11–28Google Scholar
  49. Schluessel V, Bleckmann H (2005) Spatial memory and orientation strategies in the elasmobranch Potamotrygon motoro. J Comp Physiol A 191:695–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schusterman RJ, Kastak D (2002) Problem solving and memory. In: Hoelzel R (ed) Marine mammal biology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 371–388Google Scholar
  51. Shapiro AD, Slater PIB, Janik VM (2004) Call usage learning in gray seals (Halichoerus grypus). J Comp Physiol 118:447–454Google Scholar
  52. Similä T, Ugarte F (1993) Surface and underwater observations of cooperatively feeding killer whales in Northern Norway. Can J Zool 71:1494–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sims DW, Davies SJ (1994) Does specific dynamic action (SDA) regulate return of appetite in the lesser spotted dogfish, Scyliorhinus canicula? J Fish Biol 45:341–348Google Scholar
  54. Sol D, Bacher S, Reader SM, Lefebvre L (2008) Brain size predicts the success of mammal species introduced into novel environments. Am Nat 172:S63–S71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  56. Sutherland WJ, Bailey MJ, Bainbridge IP, Brereton T, Dick JTA, Drewitt J, Gilder PM, Green RE, Heathwaite AL, Johnson SM, MacDonald DW, Mitchell R, Osborn D, Owen RP, Pretty J, Prior SV, Prosser H, Pullin AS, Rose P, Stott A, Tew T, Thomas CD, Thompson DBA, Vickery JA, Walker M, Walmsley C, Warrington S, Watkinson AR, Williams RJ, Woodroffe R, Woodroof HJ (2008) Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning. J Appl Ecol 45:821–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tricas TC, Sisneros JA (2004) Ecological functions and adaptations of the elasmobranch electrosense. In: von der Emde G, Mogdans J, Kapoor BG (eds) The senses of fishes: adaptations for the reception of natural stimuli. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 308–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Visser IN, Smith TG, Bullock ID, Green GD, Carlsson OG, Imberti S (2008) Antartic peninsula killer whales (Orcinus orca) hunt seals and a penguin on floating ice. Mar Mammal Sci 24:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wright T, Jackson R (1964) Instrumental conditioning of young sharks. Copeia 2:409–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel A. Kimber
    • 1
    • 2
  • David W. Sims
    • 2
  • Patricia H. Bellamy
    • 1
  • Andrew B. Gill
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and TechnologyCranfield UniversityCranfield, BedfordshireUK
  2. 2.Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The LaboratoryPlymouth, DevonUK

Personalised recommendations