Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 623–640 | Cite as

Communication in troubled waters: responses of fish communication systems to changing environments

  • Inke van der Sluijs
  • Suzanne M. Gray
  • Maria Clara P. Amorim
  • Iain Barber
  • Ulrika Candolin
  • Andrew P. Hendry
  • Rüdiger Krahe
  • Martine E. Maan
  • Anne Christine Utne-Palm
  • Hans-Joachim Wagner
  • Bob B. M. Wong
Original Paper


Fish populations are increasingly being subjected to anthropogenic changes to their sensory environments. The impact of these changes on inter- and intra-specific communication, and its evolutionary consequences, has only recently started to receive research attention. A disruption of the sensory environment is likely to impact communication, especially with respect to reproductive interactions that help to maintain species boundaries. Aquatic ecosystems around the world are being threatened by a variety of environmental stressors, causing dramatic losses of biodiversity and bringing urgency to the need to understand how fish respond to rapid environmental changes. Here, we discuss current research on different communication systems (visual, chemical, acoustic, electric) and explore the state of our knowledge of how complex systems respond to environmental stressors using fish as a model. By far the bulk of our understanding comes from research on visual communication in the context of mate selection and competition for mates, while work on other communication systems is accumulating. In particular, it is increasingly acknowledged that environmental effects on one mode of communication may trigger compensation through other modalities. The strength and direction of selection on communication traits may vary if such compensation occurs. However, we find a dearth of studies that have taken a multimodal approach to investigating the evolutionary impact of environmental change on communication in fish. Future research should focus on the interaction between different modes of communication, especially under changing environmental conditions. Further, we see an urgent need for a better understanding of the evolutionary consequences of changes in communication systems on fish diversity.


Evolution Environmental change Sensory systems Sexual selection Phenotypic plasticity Adaptation 


  1. Albert AYK, Millar NP, Schluter D (2007) Character displacement of male nuptial colour in threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Biol J Linnean Soc 91:37–48Google Scholar
  2. Amorim MCP (2006) Diversity of sound production in fish. In: Ladich F, Collin SP, Moller P, Kapoor BG (eds) Communication in fishes. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 71–105Google Scholar
  3. Amorim MCP, Knight ME, Stratoudakis Y, Turner GF (2004) Differences in sounds made by courting males of three closely related Lake Malawi cichlid species. J Fish Biol 65:1358–1371Google Scholar
  4. Amorim MCP, Simoes JM, Fonseca PJ, Turner GF (2008) Species differences in courtship acoustic signals among five Lake Malawi cichlid species (Pseudotropheus spp.). J Fish Biol 72:1355–1368Google Scholar
  5. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnegard ME, Bogdanowicz SM, Hopkins CD (2005) Multiple cases of striking genetic similarity between alternate electric fish signal morphs in sympatric. Evolution 59:324–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnegard ME, Jackson BS, Hopkins CD (2006) Time-domain signal divergence and discrimination without receptor modification in sympatric morphs of electric fishes. J Exp Biol 209:2182–2198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Baatrup E, Junge M (2001) Antiandrogenic pesticides disrupt sexual characteristics in the adult male guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Environ Health Perspect 109:1063–1070PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Baier B (2008) Effect of conductivity changes on the stability of electric signal waveforms in dwarf stonebashers (Mormyridae; Pollimyrus castelnaui, P. marianne). J Comp Physiol A 194:915–919Google Scholar
  10. Barber I, Nairn D, Huntingford FA (2001) Nests as ornaments: revealing construction by male sticklebacks. Behav Ecol 12:390–396Google Scholar
  11. Bell AM (2001) Effects of an endocrine disrupter on courtship and aggressive behaviour of male three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim Behav 62:775–780Google Scholar
  12. Boughman JW (2001) Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944–948PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks R, Couldridge V (1999) Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am Nat 154:37–45Google Scholar
  14. Bullock TH, Hopkins CD, Popper AN, Fay RR (2005) Electroreception. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Candolin U, Salesto T, Evers M (2007) Changed environmental conditions weaken sexual selection in sticklebacks. J Evol Biol 20:233–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheng CL, Flamarique IN (2004) Opsin expression: New mechanism for modulating colour vision—Single cones start making a different opsin as young salmon move to deeper waters. Nature 428:279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Colman JR, Baldwin D, Johnson LL, Scholz NL (2009) Effects of the synthetic estrogen, 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol, on aggression and courtship behavior in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicol 91:346–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Crampton WGR, Albert JS (2006) Evolution of electric signal diversity in Gymnotiform fishes. In: Ladich F, Collin SP, Moller P, Kapoor BG (eds) Communication in fishes. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 647–731Google Scholar
  20. Cummings ME (2007) Sensory trade-offs predict signal divergence in surfperch. Evolution 61:530–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Darimont CT, Carlson SM, Kinnison MT, Paquet PC, Reimchen TE, Wilmers CC (2009) Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:952–954PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Darwall WRT, Vié JC (2005) Identifying important sites for conservation of freshwater biodiversity: extending the species-based approach. Fisheries Manag Ecol 12:287–293Google Scholar
  23. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Domenici P, Claireaux G, McKenzie DJ (2007) Environmental constraints upon locomotion and predator-prey interactions in aquatic organisms: an introduction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 362:1929–1936Google Scholar
  25. Donohue I, Molinos JG (2009) Impacts of increased sediment loads on the ecology of lakes. Biol Rev 84:517–531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunlap KD, Smith GT, Yekta A (2000) Temperature dependence of electrocommunication signals and their underlying neural rhythms in the weakly electric fish, Apteronotus leptorhynchus. Brain Behav Evol 55:152–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Dunlop ES, Heino M, Dieckmann U (2009) Eco-genetic modeling of contemporary life-history evolution. Ecol Appl 19:1815–1834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Enberg K, Jorgensen C, Dunlop ES, Heino M, Dieckmann U (2009) Implications of fisheries-induced evolution for stock rebuilding and recovery. Evol Appl 2:394–414Google Scholar
  29. Endler JA (1980) Natural selection on colour patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34:76–91Google Scholar
  30. Endler JA (1983) Natural and sexual selection on colour patterns in poeciliid fishes. Env Biol Fish 9:173–190Google Scholar
  31. Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal condition, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:S125–S153Google Scholar
  32. Endler JA, Westcott DA, Madden JR, Robson T (2005) Animal visual systems and the evolution of colour patterns: sensory processing illuminates signal evolution. Evolution 59:1795–1818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Evans CD, Monteith DT, Cooper DM (2005) Long-term increases in surface water dissolved organic carbon: observations, possible causes and environmental impacts. Environ Pollut 137:55–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Fay RR, Popper AN (2000) Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: the inner ears and processing. Hear Res 149:1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Feulner PGD, Kirschbaum F, Tiedemann R (2008) Adaptive radiation in the Congo River: an ecological speciation scenario for African weakly electric fish (Teleostei; Mormyridae; Campylomormyrus). J Physiology-Paris 102:340–346Google Scholar
  36. Feulner PGD, Plath M, Engelmann J, Kirschbaum F, Tiedemann R (2009) Electrifying love: electric fish use species-specific discharge for mate recognition. Biol Lett 5:225–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Fisher HS, Wong BBM, Rosenthal GG (2006) Alteration of the chemical environment disrupts communication in a freshwater fish. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 273:1187–1193Google Scholar
  38. Fugère V, Krahe R (2010) Electric signals and species recognition in the wave-type gymnotiform fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. J Exp Biol 213:225–236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Fuller RC, Houle D, Travis J (2005) Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am Nat 166:437–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gray SM, McKinnon JS (2007) Linking colour polymorphism maintenance and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 22:71–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gray SM, Dill LM, Tantu FY, Loew ER, Herder F, McKinnon JS (2008) Environment-contingent sexual selection in a colour polymorphic fish. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 275:1785–1791Google Scholar
  42. Grether GF (2000) Carotenoid limitation and mate preference evolution: a test of the indicator hypothesis in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 54:1712–1724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Grether GF, Hudon J, Millie DF (1999) Carotenoid limitation of sexual coloration along an environmental gradient in guppies. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 266:1317–1322Google Scholar
  44. Hendry AP, Farrugia TJ, Kinnison MT (2008) Human influences on rates of phenotypic change in wild animal populations. Molec Ecol 17:20–29Google Scholar
  45. Heuschele J, Candolin U (2007) An increase in pH boosts olfactory communication in sticklebacks. Biol Lett 3:411–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Heuschele J, Mannerla M, Gienapp P, Candolin U (2009) Environment-dependent use of mate choice cues in sticklebacks. Behav Ecol 20:1223–1227Google Scholar
  47. Hofmann Cv, O’Quin KE, Marshall NJ, Cronin TW, Seehausen O, Carleton KL (2009) The eyes have it: regulatory and structural changes both underlie cichlid visual pigment diversity. Plos Biol 7:e1000266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Hopkins CD (1976) Stimulus filtering and electroreception: tuberous electroreceptor’s in three species of gymnotoid fish. J Comp Physiol 111:171–207Google Scholar
  49. Jaensson A, Scott AP, Moore A, Kylin H, Olsen KH (2007) Effects of a pyrethroid pesticide on endocrine responses to female odours and reproductive behaviour in male parr of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). Aquat Toxicol 81:1–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Järvenpää M, Lindström K (2004) Water turbidity by algal blooms causes mating system breakdown in a shallow-water fish, the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 271:2361–2365Google Scholar
  51. Jeffery WR (2005) Adaptive evolution of eye degeneration in the Mexican blind cavefish. J Hered 96:185–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Jordan R, Kellogg K, Juanes F, Stauffer J (2003) Evaluation of female mate choice cues in a group of Lake Malawi mbuna (Cichlidae). Copeia 16:181–186Google Scholar
  53. Karim N, Gordon SP, Schwartz AK, Hendry AP (2007) This is not deja vu all over again: male guppy colour in a new experimental introduction. J Evol Biol 20:1339–1350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kemp DJ, Reznick DN, Grether GF (2008) Ornamental evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata): insights from sensory processing-based analyses of entire colour patterns. Biol J Linnean Soc 95:734–747Google Scholar
  55. Kidd MR, Danley PD, Kocher TD (2006) A direct assay of female choice in cichlids: all the eggs in one basket. J Fish Biol 68:373–384Google Scholar
  56. Kodric-Brown A, Nicoletto PF (2005) Courtship behaviour, swimming performance, and microhabitat use of Trinidadian guppies. Env Biol Fish 73:299–307Google Scholar
  57. Kramer B, Kuhn B (1993) Electric signalling and impedance matching in a variable environment—the electric organ of mormyrid fish actively adapts to changes in water conductivity. Naturwissenschaften 80:43–46Google Scholar
  58. Ladich F (2007) Females whisper briefly during sex: context- and sex-specific differences in sounds made by croaking gouramis. Anim Behav 73:379–387Google Scholar
  59. Ladich F, Fine ML (2006) Sound-generating mechanisms in fishes: a unique diversity in vertebrates. In: Ladich F, Collin SP, Moller P, Kapoor BG (eds) Communication in fishes. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 1–43Google Scholar
  60. Lande R (2009) Adaptation to an extraordinary environment by evolution of phenotypic plasticity and genetic assimilation. J Evol Biol 22:1435–1446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Landsberger M, von der Emde G, Haverkate D, Schuster S, Gentsch J, Ulbricht E, Reichenbach A, Makarov F, Wagner HJ (2008) Dim light vision—morphological and functional adaptations of the eye of the mormyrid fish, Gnathonemus petersii. J Physiology-Paris 102:291–303Google Scholar
  62. Lavoué S, Sullivan JP, Arnegard ME, Hopkins CD (2008) Differentiation of morphology, genetics and electric signals in a region of sympatric between sister species of African electric fish (Mormyridae). J Evol Biol 21:1030–1045PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Law R (2007) Fisheries-induced evolution: present status and future direction. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 335:271–277Google Scholar
  64. Levine JS, MacNichol EF (1982) Colour vision in fishes. Sci Am 246:140–149Google Scholar
  65. Lewandowski E, Boughman JW (2008) Effects of genetics and light environment on colour expression in three spine sticklebacks. Biol J Linnean Soc 27:663–673Google Scholar
  66. Lim MLM, Sodhi NS, Endler JA (2008) Conservation with sense. Science 319:281PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Lobel PS (1998) Possible species specific courtship sounds by two sympatric cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi, Africa. Env Biol Fish 52:443–452Google Scholar
  68. Loew ER, Lythgoe JN (1978) Ecology of cone pigments in teleost fishes. Vis Res 18:715–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Maan ME, Seehausen O, van Alphen JJM (2010) Female mating preferences and male coloration covary with water transparency in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Biol J Linnean Soc 99:398–406Google Scholar
  70. Malmqvist B, Rundle S (2002) Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ Conserv 29:134–153Google Scholar
  71. McLennan DA (2003) The importance of olfactory signals in the gasterosteid mating system: sticklebacks go multimodal. Biol J Linnean Soc 80:555–572Google Scholar
  72. Milinski M (2006) The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 37:159–186Google Scholar
  73. Moller P (2002) Multimodal sensory integration in weakly electric fish: a behaviorial account. J Physiology-Paris 96:547–556Google Scholar
  74. Moller P (2006) Electrocommunication: history, insights, and new questions. In: Ladich F, Collin SP, Moller P, Kapoor BG (eds) Communication in fishes. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 579–598Google Scholar
  75. Moore A, Waring CP (2001) The effects of a synthetic pyrethroid pesticide on some aspects of reproduction in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquat Toxicol 52:1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Myrberg AAJ, Spanier E, Ha SJ (1978) Temporal patterning in acoustical communication. In: Reese ES, Lighter FJ (eds) Contrasts in behaviour. Wiley, New York, pp 137–179Google Scholar
  77. Myrberg AA, Mohler M, Catala J (1986) Sound production by males of a coral reef fish (Pomacentrus partitus): its significance to females. Anim Behav 34:923–933Google Scholar
  78. Östlund-Nilsson S, Holmlund M (2003) The artistic three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteous aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:214–220Google Scholar
  79. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Pauers MJ, McKinnon JS, Ehlinger TJ (2004) Directional sexual selection on chroma and within-pattern colour contrast in Labeotropheus fuelleborni. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 271:S444–S447Google Scholar
  81. Plath M, Blum D, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I (2008) A visual audience effect in a cavefish. Behaviour 145:931–947Google Scholar
  82. Plenderleith M, van Oosterhout C, Robinson RL, Turner GF (2005) Female preference for conspecific males based on olfactory cues in a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Biol Lett 1:411–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Popper AN, Hastings MC (2009) The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish Biol 75:455–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Price TD (2006) Phenotypic plasticity, sexual selection and the evolution of colour patterns. J Exp Biol 209:2368–2376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Raeymaekers JAM, Boisjoly M, Delaire L, Berner D, Räsäene K, Hendry AP (2010) Testing for mating isolation between ecotypes: laboratory experiments with lake, stream and hybrid stickleback. J Evol Biol 23:2694–2708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Cons Biol 13:1220–1222Google Scholar
  87. Rosenthal GG, De La Rosa Reyna XF, Kazianis S, Stephens MJ, Morizot DC, Ryan MJ, De Leon FJG (2003) Dissolution of sexual signal complexes in a hybrid zone between the swordtails Xiphophorus birchmanni and Xiphophorus malinche (Poeciliidae). Copeia 47:299–307Google Scholar
  88. Rushbrook BJ, Head ML, Katsiadaki I, Barber I (2010) Flow regime affects building behavior and nest structure in sticklebacks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1927–1935Google Scholar
  89. Schuster S (2006) Integration of the electrosense with other senses: implications for communication. In: Ladich F, Collin SP, Moller P, Kapoor BG (eds) Communication in fishes. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 781–804Google Scholar
  90. Schwartz AK, Hendry AP (2009) Testing the influence of local forest canopy clearing on phenotypic variation in Trinidadian guppies. Funct Ecol 24:354–364Google Scholar
  91. Seehausen O, van Alphen JJM, Witte F (1997) Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277:1808–1811Google Scholar
  92. Seehausen O, Terai Y, Magalhaes IS, Carleton KL, Mrosso HDJ, Miyagi R, van der Sluijs I, Schneider MV, Maan ME, Tachida H, Imai H, Okada N (2008) Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish. Nature 455:620–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Shand J, Davies WL, Thomas N, Balmer L, Cowing JA, Pointer M, Carvalho LS, Trezise AEO, Collin SP, Beazley LD, Hunt DM (2008) The influence of ontogeny and light environment on the expression of visual pigment opsins in the retina of the black bream, Acanthopagrus butcheri. J Exp Biol 211:1495–1503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Sharpe DMT, Hendry AP (2009) Life history change in commercially exploited fish stocks: an analysis of trends across studies. Evol Appl 2:260–275Google Scholar
  95. Siepeilski AM, DiBattista JD, Carlson SM (2009) It’s about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. Ecol Lett 12:1261–1276Google Scholar
  96. Silva A, Perrone R, Macadar O (2007) Environmental, seasonal, and social modulations of basal activity in a weakly electric fish. Physiol Behav 90:525–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Simões JM, Fonseca PJ, Turner GF, Amorim MCP (2008) African cichlid Pseudotropheus spp. males moan to females during foreplay. J Fish Biol 72:2689–2694Google Scholar
  98. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Ecology: birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise—great tits hit the high notes to ensure that their mating calls are heard above the city’s din. Nature 424:267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Cours A, Ten Cate C, Popper AN (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25:419–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Smadja C, Butlin RK (2009) On the scent of speciation: the chemosensory system and its role in pre mating isolation. Heredity 102:77–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Smith AR, van Staaden MJ (2009) The association of visual and acoustic courtship behaviour in African cichlid fishes. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 42:211–216Google Scholar
  102. Sorensen PW, Stacey NE (2004) Brief review of fish pheromones and discussion of their possible uses in the control of non-indigenous teleost fishes. New Zeal J Mar Fresh 38:399–417Google Scholar
  103. Squire A, Moller P (1982) Effects of water conductivity on electrocommunication in the weak-electric fish Brienomyrus niger (Mormyriformes). Anim Behav 30:375–382Google Scholar
  104. Stockwell CA, Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (2003) Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 18:94–101Google Scholar
  105. Sullivan JP, Lavoue S, Hopkins CD (2002) Discovery and phylogenetic analysis of a riverine species flock of African electric fishes (Mormyridae: Teleostei). Evolution 56:597–616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Sullivan JP, Lavoue S, Arnegard ME, Hopkins CD (2004) AFLPs resolve phylogeny and reveal mitochondrial introgression within a species flock of African electric fish (Mormyroidea: Teleostei). Evolution 58:825–841PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Svanback R, Pineda-Krch M, Doebeli M (2009) Fluctuating population dynamics promotes the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Am Nat 174:176–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Temple SE, Veldhoen KM, Phelan JT, Veldhoen NJ, Hawryshyn CW (2008) Ontogenetic changes in photoreceptor opsin gene expression in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch, Walbaum). J Exp Biol 211:3879–3888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Tierney KB, Singh CR, Ross PS, Kennedy CJ (2007) Relating olfactory neurotoxicity to altered olfactory-mediated behaviours in rainbow trout exposed to three currently-used pesticides. Aquat Toxicol 81:55–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Tricas TC, Michael SW, Sisneros JA (1995) Electro sensory optimization to conspecic phasic signals for mating. Neurosci Lett 202:129–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Utne-Palm AC (2002) Visual feeding of fish in a turbid environment: physical and behavioural aspects. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 35:111–128Google Scholar
  112. Vasconcelos RO, Amorim MCP, Ladich F (2007) Effects of ship noise on the detectability of communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. J Exp Biol 210:2104–2112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Wagner HJ (2007) Bipolar cells in the “grouped retina” of the elephantnose fish (Gnathonemus petersii). Visual Neurosci 24:355–362Google Scholar
  114. Wagner HJ, Kroger RHH (2005) Adaptive plasticity during the development of colour vision. Prog Retin Eye Res 24:521–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 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 Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 275:101–105Google Scholar
  116. Webster DR, Weissburg MJ (2009) The hydrodynamics of chemical cues among aquatic organisms. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 41:73–90Google Scholar
  117. Winn HE (1964) The biological significance of fish sounds. In: Tavolga WN (ed) Marine bio-acoustics. Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp 213–230Google Scholar
  118. Wong BBM, Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG (2005) Species recognition by male swordtails via chemical cues. Behav Ecol 16:818–822Google Scholar
  119. Wong BBM, Candolin U, Lindstrom K (2007) Environmental deterioration compromises socially enforced signals of male quality in three-spined sticklebacks. Am Nat 170:184–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Wysocki LE, Dittami JP, Ladich F (2006) Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes. Biol Cons 128:501–508Google Scholar
  121. Zakon H, Oestreich J, Tallarovic S, Triefenbach F (2002) EOD modulations of brown ghost electric fish: JARs, chirps, rises, and dips. J Physiology-Paris 96:451–458Google Scholar
  122. Zala SM, Penn DJ (2004) Abnormal behaviours induced by chemical pollution: a review of the evidence and new challenges. Anim Behav 68:649–664Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inke van der Sluijs
    • 1
  • Suzanne M. Gray
    • 1
  • Maria Clara P. Amorim
    • 2
  • Iain Barber
    • 3
  • Ulrika Candolin
    • 4
  • Andrew P. Hendry
    • 1
    • 5
  • Rüdiger Krahe
    • 1
  • Martine E. Maan
    • 6
    • 7
  • Anne Christine Utne-Palm
    • 8
  • Hans-Joachim Wagner
    • 9
  • Bob B. M. Wong
    • 10
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Unidade de Investigacao em Eco-Etologia, ISPALisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  4. 4.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  5. 5.Redpath MuseumMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  6. 6.Institute of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  7. 7.Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Center of Ecology, Evolution and BiogeochemistryKastanienbaumSwitzerland
  8. 8.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  9. 9.Anatomisches InstitutUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany
  10. 10.School of Biological SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations