Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 1657–1666

Attack Cone Avoidance During Predator Inspection Visits by Wild Finescale Dace (Phoxinus neogaeus): The Effects of Predator Diet

  • Grant E. Brown
  • Justin L. Golub
  • Desiree L. Plata
Article

Abstract

When confronted by potential predators, many prey fishes engage in predator inspection behavior. Previous authors have argued that by selectively avoiding the predator's head during an inspection visit (attack cone avoidance), individual inspectors may reduce their local risk of predation. In field trials, we investigated the effects of predator diet cues on the presence of ‘attack cone avoidance’ during predator inspection visits. Wild, free-ranging finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus) were exposed to the combined cues of a model predator and a distilled water control or the odor of a yellow perch (Perca flavescens) fed dace (with alarm pheromone), swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) (lacking Ostariophysan alarm pheromone), or perch that were food deprived for four days. Finescale dace modified their predator inspection behavior following exposure to the odor of a perch fed dace (fewer dace present, reduced frequency of inspections, and an increased per capita inspection rate) compared to those exposed to the odor of a perch fed swordtails, perch that were food deprived, or a distilled water control. In addition, dace inspected the tail region more often only when the model predator was paired with the odor of a perch fed dace. In all other treatments, dace inspected the head region of the model predator more often. These data suggest that attack cone avoidance of inspecting prey fishes may be more likely to occur in high-risk situations, such as in the presence of conspecific alarm pheromones in the diet of potential predators.

Predator inspection Ostariophysan fishes alarm pheromones predator diet anti-predator behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. AXELROD, H. R., and VORDERWINKLER, W. 1983. Encyclopedia of Tropical Fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. BROWN, G. E., and COWAN, J. 2000. Foraging trade-offs and predator inspection in an Ostariophysan fish: Switching from chemical to visual cues. Behaviour 137:181–196.Google Scholar
  3. BROWN, G. E., and GODIN, J.-G. J. 1999a. Who dares, learns: Chemical inspection behaviour and acquired predator recognition in a Characin fish. Anim. Behav. 57:475–481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. BROWN, G. E., and GODIN, J.-G. J. 1999b. Chemical alarm signals in Trinidadian guppies: Laboratory and field evidence. Can. J. Zool. 77:562–570.Google Scholar
  5. BROWN, G. E., GODIN, J.-G. J., and PEDERSEN, J. 1999. Fin flicking behaviour: A visual anti-predator alarm signal in a Characin fish (Hemigrammus erythrozonus). Anim. Behav. 59:469–476.Google Scholar
  6. BROWN, G. E., PAIGE, J. A., and GODIN, J.-G. J. 2000. Chemically-mediated predator inspection behaviour in the absence of predator visual cues by a characin fish, Hemigrammus erythrozonus. Anim. Behav. 60:315–321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. BROWN, G. E., AND SCHWARZBAUER, E. M. Chemical predator inspection and attack cone avoidance in a characin fish: The effects of predator diet. Behaviour (in press).Google Scholar
  8. CHIVERS, D. P., and SMITH, R. J. F. 1998. Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator-prey systems: A review and prospectus. Écoscience 5:338–352.Google Scholar
  9. DUGATKIN, L. A., and GODIN, J.-G. J. 1992a. Prey approaching predators: A cost-benefit perspective. Ann. Zool. Fennici 29:233–252.Google Scholar
  10. DUGATKIN, L. A., and GODIN, J.-G. J. 1992b. Predator inspection, shoaling and foraging under predation hazard in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Environ. Biol. Fish. 34:265–276.Google Scholar
  11. GEORGE, C. J. W. 1960. Behavioral interactions of the pickerel (Esox niger and Esox americanus) and the mosquitofish (Gambusia patruelis). PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. GODIN, J.-G. J., and DAVIS, S. A. 1995a. Who dares, benefits: Predator approach behaviour in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) deters predator pursuit. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B. 259:193–200.Google Scholar
  13. GODIN, J.-G. J., and DAVIS, S. A. 1995b. Boldness and predator deterrence: A reply to Milinski and Boltshauser. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B. 262:107–112.Google Scholar
  14. GODIN, J.-G. J., and DUGATKIN, L. A. 1996. Female mating preference for bold males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., U.S.A. 93:10262–10267.Google Scholar
  15. LICHT, T. 1989. Discriminating between hungry and satiated predators: The response of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from high and low predation sites. Ethology 82:238–243.Google Scholar
  16. MAGURRAN, A. E. 1990. The adaptive significance of schooling as an anti-predator defence in fish. Ann. Zool. Fennici 27:1–66.Google Scholar
  17. MAGURRAN, A. E., and SEGHERS, B. H. 1994. Predator inspection behaviour covaries with schooling tendency amongst wild guppy, Poecilia reticulata, populations in Trinidad. Behaviour 128:121–134.Google Scholar
  18. MATHIS, A., and SMITH, R. J. F. 1993. Chemical labeling of northern pike (Esox lucius) by the alarm pheromone of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). J. Chem. Ecol. 19:1967–1979.Google Scholar
  19. MURPHY, K. E., and PITCHER, T. J. 1997. Predator attack motivation influences the inspection behaviour of European minnows. J. Fish Biol. 50:407–417.Google Scholar
  20. NELSON, J. S. 1994. Fishes of the World. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  21. NORDELL, S. E. 1998. The response of female guppies, Poecilia reticulata, to chemical stimuli from injured conspecifics. Environ. Biol. Fish. 51:331–338.Google Scholar
  22. PITCHER, T. J. 1992. Who dares, wins: The function and evolution of predator inspection behaviour in Shoaling fish. Neth. J. Zool. 42:371–391.Google Scholar
  23. SMITH, R. J. F. 1992. Alarm signals in fishes. R. Fish Biol. Fish. 2:33–63.Google Scholar
  24. SMITH, R. J. F. 1997. Avoiding and deterring predators. in Behavioural Ecology of Teleost Fishes (Ed. by J.-G. J. Godin), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. SMITH, R. J. F., and SMITH, M. J. 1989. Predator-recognition behaviour in two species of gobiid fishes, Asterropteryx semipunctatus and Gnatholepis anjerensis. Ethology 83:19–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grant E. Brown
    • 1
  • Justin L. Golub
    • 1
  • Desiree L. Plata
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Science and Engineering CenterUnion CollegeSchenectady

Personalised recommendations