Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 331–338 | Cite as

The response of female guppies, Poecilia reticulata, to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics

  • Shawn E. Nordell
Article

Abstract

Predation is an important component of the life history and behavior of many fish. In some species of teleost fishes, conspecifics respond to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics by displaying a fright response, such as increased cohesion of schooling. The purpose of this experiment was to investigate whether female guppies, Poecilia reticulata, display a fright response when exposed to a filtered extract made from wounded conspecifics. The schooling behavior of female guppies was observed for ten minute periods for each of three treatments: baseline treatment (no substances added to the aquarium water), sham treatment (distilled water added to the aquarium water), and alarm treatment (fish extract added to the aquarium water). Female guppies responded with a fright reaction when exposed to a filtered extract prepared from wounded conspecifics; female swam in a more cohesive school during the alarm treatment than they did in either the baseline or sham treatments. The guppy fright reaction response indicates that the fish extract is recognized by conspecifics.

alarm reaction fish schooling predation fish assessment fright response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Breden, F. & G. Stoner. 1987. Male predation risk determines female preference in the Trinidadian guppy. Nature 329: 831–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant, P.B. 1987. A study of the alarm system in selected fishes of northern Mississippi. Master's Thesis, University of Mississippi, Jackson. 74 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Chivers, D.P., B.D. Wisendon & R.J.F. Smith. 1995. The role of experience in the response of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) to skin of Iowa darters (Etheostoma exile). Behaviour 132: 665–674.Google Scholar
  4. Dugatkin, L.A. 1988. Do guppies play TIT FOR TAT during predator inspection visits? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25: 395–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dugatkin, L.A. 1992. Tendency to inspect predators predicts mortality risk in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav. Ecol. 3: 124–127.Google Scholar
  6. Dugatkin, L.A. & M. Alfieri. 1992. Interpopulational differences in the use of the Tit-For-Tat strategy during predator inspection in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Evol. Ecol. 6: 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dugatkin, L.A. & J.-G.J. Godin. 1992. Predator inspection, shoaling, and foraging under predation hazard in the Trinidadian guppy. Env. Biol. Fish. 34: 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Endler, J.A. 1978. A predator's view of animal color patterns. Evol. Biol. 11: 319–364.Google Scholar
  9. Endler, J.A. 1980. Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Ecology 34: 76–91.Google Scholar
  10. Endler, J.A. 1983. Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes. Env. Biol. Fish. 9: 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endler, J.A. 1984. Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes. pp. 95–111. In: T.M Zaret (ed.) Evolutionary Ecology of Neotropical Freshwater Fishes, Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
  12. Endler, J.A. 1987. Predation, light intensity, and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim. Behav. 35: 1376–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farr, J.A. 1975. The role of predation in the evolution of social behavior of natural populations of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Evol. 29: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frisch, K. von. 1938. Zur Psychologie des Fischschwarmes. Naturwissenschafte 26: 601–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frisch, K. von. 1941. Ü ber einen Schreckstoff der Fischhaut and seine biologische Bedeutung. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 29: 46–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia, C., E. Rolán-Alvarez & L. Sá nchez. 1992. Alarm reaction and alert state in Gambusia affinis (Pisces, Poeciliidae) in response to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics. J. Ethol. 10: 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hara, T.J. 1993. Role of olfaction in fish behaviour. pp. 171–199. In: T.J. Pitcher (ed.) Behaviour of Teleost Fishes, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  18. Heczko, E.J. & B.H. Seghers. 1981. Effects of alarm substance on schooling in the common shiner (Notropis cornutus, Cyprinidae). Env. Biol. Fish. 6: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houde, A.E. 1987. Mate choice based upon naturally occurring color-pattern variation in a guppy population. Ecology 41: 1–10.Google Scholar
  20. Houde, A.E. 1988. Genetic difference in female choice between two guppy populations. Anim. Behav. 36: 510–516.Google Scholar
  21. Houde, A.E. & J.A. Endler. 1990. Correlated evolution of female mating preferences and male color pattern in the guppy Poecilia reticulata. Science 248: 1405–1408.Google Scholar
  22. Houtman, R. & L.M. Dill. 1994. The influence of substrate color on the alarm response of tidepool sculpins (Oligocottus maculosus: Pisces, Cottidae). Ethology 96: 147–154.Google Scholar
  23. Hugie, D.M., P. Thuringer & R.J.F. Smith. 1991. The response of the tidepool sculpin, Oligocottus maculosus, to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics, alarm signalling in the Cottidae (Pisces). Ethiology 89: 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kodric-Brown, A. 1985. Female preference and sexual selection for male coloration in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17: 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kodric-Brown, A. 1989. Dietary carotenoids and male mating success in the guppy: an environmental component to female choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25: 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krause, J. 1993. Transmission of fright reaction between different species of fish. Behaviour 127: 37–48.Google Scholar
  27. Liley, N.R. & B.H. Seghers. 1975. Factors affecting the morphology and behaviour of guppies in Trinidad. pp. 92–118. In: G. Baerends, C. Beer & A. Manning (ed.) Function and Evolution in Behaviour, Essays in Honour of Prof. Niko Tinbergen, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Lima, S.L. & L.M. Dill. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68: 619–639.Google Scholar
  29. Magurran, A.E. & B.H. Seghers. 1990. Risk sensitive courtship in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behaviour 112: 194–201.Google Scholar
  30. Magurran, A.E. & B.H. Seghers. 1991. Variation in schooling and aggression amongst guppy (Poecilia reticulata) populations in Trinidad. Behaviour 118: 214–234.Google Scholar
  31. Magurran, A.E. & B.H. Seghers. 1994. Sexual conflict as a consequence of ecology: evidence from guppy, Poecilia reticulata, populations in Trinidad. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 255: 31–36.Google Scholar
  32. Mathis, A. & R.J.F. Smith. 1992. Avoidance of areas marked with a chemical alarm substance by fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) in a natural habitat. Can. J. Zool. 70: 1473–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathis, A. & R.J.F. Smith. 1993a. Intraspecific and cross-superorder responses to chemical alarm signals by brook stickleback. Ecol. 74: 2395–2404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathis, A. & R.J.F. Smith. 1993b. Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learn to recognize northern pike, Esox lucius, as predators on the basis of chemical stimuli from minnows in the pike's diet. Anim. Behav. 46: 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mattingly, H.T. & M.J. Butler IV. 1994. Laboratory predation on the Trinidadian guppy: implications for the size-selective predation hypothesis and guppy life history. Oikos 69: 54–64.Google Scholar
  36. Moyle, P.B. & J.J. Cech Jr. 1988. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 559 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the world, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 521 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Pfeiffer, W. 1962. The fright reaction of fish. Biol. Rev. 37: 495–511.Google Scholar
  39. Pfeiffer, W. 1963a. Alarm substances. Experientia 19: 113–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pfeiffer, W. 1963b. The fright reaction in North American fish. Can. J. Zool. 41: 69–77.Google Scholar
  41. Pfeiffer, W. 1974. Pheromones in fish and amphibia. pp. 269–296. In: M.C. Birch (ed.) Pheromones, Frontiers in Biology, Vol. 32, North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Pfeiffer, W. 1977. The distribution of fright reaction and alarm substance cells in fishes. Copeia 1977: 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pfeiffer, W. 1982. Chemical signals in commmunication. pp. 307–326. In: T.J. Hara (ed.) Chemoreception in Fishes, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. Pocklington, R. & L.M. Dill. 1995. Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Anim. Behav. 49: 1122–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reed, J.R. 1969. Alarm substances and fright reaction in some fishes from the southeastern United States. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 4: 664–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Resnick, D.N. 1989. Life history evolution in guppies: 2. repeatability of field observations and the effects of season on life histories. Ecology 43: 1285–1297.Google Scholar
  47. Reznick, D.N. & H. Bryga. 1987. Life history evolution in guppies (Poecilia reticulata): 1. phenotypic and genetic changes in an introduction experiment. Ecology 411: 1370–1385.Google Scholar
  48. Reznick, D. & J.A. Endler. 1982. The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 36: 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reznick, D.N., H. Bryga & J.A. Endler. 1990. Experimentally induced life-history evolution in a natural population. Nature 346: 357–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seghers, B.H. 1974a. Geographic variation in the responses of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to aerial predators. Oecologia 14: 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seghers, B.H. 1974b. Schooling behavior in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): an evolutionary response to predation. Evolution 28: 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sih, A. 1994. Predation risk and the evolutionary ecology of reproductive behavior. J. Fish Biol. 45: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, R.J.F. 1973. Testosterone eliminates alarm substance in male fathead minnows. Can. J. Zool. 51: 875–876.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, R.J.F. 1974. Effects of 17 α-methyltestosterone on the dorsal pad and tubercles of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Can. J. Zool. 52: 1031–1038.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, R.J.F. 1976. Seasonal loss of alarm substance cells in North American cyprinoid fishes and its relation to abrasive spawning behaviour. Can. J. Zool. 54: 1172–1182.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, R.J.F. 1977. Chemical communication as adaptation: alarm substances of fish. pp. 303–320. In: D. Müller-Schwarze & M.M. Mozell (ed.) Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, R.J.F. 1979. Alarm reaction of Iowa and johnny darters (Etheostoma, Percidae, Pisces) to chemicals from injured conspecifics. Can. J. Zool. 57: 1278–1282.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, R.J.F. 1982a. The adaptive significance of the alarm substance - fright reaction system. pp. 327–342. In: T.J. Hara (ed.) Chemoreception in Fishes, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, R.J.F. 1982b. Reaction of Percina nigrofasciata, Ammocrypta beani, and Etheostoma swaini (Percidae, Pisces) to conspecific and intergeneric skin extracts. Can. J. Zool. 60: 1067–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, R.J.F. 1986. The evolution of chemical alarm signals in fishes. pp. 99–115. In: D. Duvall, D. Müller-Schwarze & R.M. Silverstein (ed.) Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Ecology, Evolution & Comparative Biology, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Smith, R.J.F. 1989. The response of Asterropteryx semipunctatus and Gnatholepsis anjerensis (Pisces, Gobiidae) to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics, an alarm response in gobies. Ethology 81: 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, R.J.F. 1992. Alarm signals in fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 2: 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, R.J.F. & B.J. Lawrence. 1992. The response of a bumblebee goby, Brachygobius sabanus, to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics. Env. Biol. Fish. 34: 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, R.J.F. & A. Mathis. 1992. Chemical alarm signals increase survival time of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) during encounters with northern pike (Esoxlucius). Behav. Ecol. 4: 260–265.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, R.J.F., B.J. Lawrence & M.J. Smith. 1991. Cross-reaction to skin extract between two gobies, Asterropteryx semipunctatus and Brachygobius sabanus. J. Chem. Ecol. 17: 2253–2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stoddart, D.M. 1980. The ecology of vertebrate olfaction. Chapman & Hall, London. 234 pp.Google Scholar
  67. Stoner, G. & F. Breden. 1988. Phenotypic differentiation in female preference related to geographic variation in male predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22: 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Winemiller, K.O., M. Leslie & R. Roche. 1990. Phenotypic variation in male guppies from natural inland populations: an additional test of Haskins' sexual selection/predation hypothesis. Env. Biol. Fish.29: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wisendon, B.D., D.P. Chivers & R.J.F. Smith. 1995. Early warning in the predation sequence: a disturbance pheromone in the Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile). J. Chem. Ecol. 21: 1469–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 718 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shawn E. Nordell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations