Aquatic prey use chemical alarm cues as public information sources to optimize behavioural decisions. Recent studies suggest that the contextual value of these cues is shaped by their source, the size of the donor relative to the receiver, and the size of the receiver itself. Here, we exposed Hart’s rivulus (Anablepsoides hartii) to conspecific or heterospecific alarm cues from donors that were either smaller or larger than the mean focal rivulus size. Smaller rivulus reduced foraging in response to conspecific and heterospecific cues, regardless of donor size. However, larger rivulus exhibited no reduction in foraging towards small conspecific cues and increased foraging towards small heterospecific cues. Additionally, while conspecific donors elicited strong predator avoidance, rivulus exhibited stronger responses to large vs. small heterospecific cues. Our results demonstrate that the value of alarm cues is shaped by the interacting effects of receiver size and the size and species of cue donors.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Brown, G.E., LeBlanc, V.J. & Porter, L.E. (2001a). Ontogenetic changes in the response of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides, Centrarchidae, Perciformes) to heterospecific alarm pheromones. — Ethology 107: 401-414.
Brown, G.E., Adrian Jr., J.C., Erickson, J., Kaufman, I.H. & Gershaneck, D. (2001b). Responses to nitrogen-oxides by Characiforme fishes suggest evolutionary conservation in Ostariophysan alarm pheromones. — In: Chemical signals in vertebrates 9 (Marchlewska-Koj, A., Lepri, J.J. & Müller-Schwarze, D., eds). Plenum Press, New York, NY, p. 305-312.
Brown, G.E., Elvidge, C.K., Macnaughton, C.J., Ramnarine, I. & Godin, J.-G.J. (2010). Cross-population responses to conspecific chemical alarm cues in wild Trinidadian guppies, Poecilia reticulata: evidence for local conservation of cue production. — Can. J. Zool. 88: 139-147.
Brown, G.E., Ferrari, M.C.O. & Chivers, D.P. (2011). Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and threat-sensitive assessment of predation risk by fishes. — In: Fish cognition and behavior (Brown, C., Laland, K. & Krause, J., eds). Blackwell, Oxford, p. 59-80.
Brown, G.E., Ferrari, M.C.O., Elvidge, C.K., Ramnarine, I. & Chivers, D.P. (2013). Phenotypically plastic neophobia: a response to variable predation risk. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 280: 20122712.
Brown, G.E., Macnaughton, C.J., Elvidge, C.K., Ramnarine, I. & Godin, J.-G.J. (2009). Provenance and threat-sensitive predator avoidance patterns in wild-caught Trinidadian guppies. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 699-706.
Chivers, D.P., Brown, G.E. & Ferrari, M.C.O. (2012). The evolution of alarm substances and disturbance cues in aquatic animals. — In: Chemical ecology in aquatic systems (Brönmark, C. & Hansson, L.A., eds). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p. 127-139.
Chuard, P.J.C., Grant, J.W.A., Ramnarine, I.W. & Brown, G.E. (2020). Exploring the threat-sensitive predator avoidance hypothesis on mate competition in two wild populations of Trinidadian guppies. — Behav. Proc. 180: 104225.
Croft, D.P., James, R., Thomas, P.O.R., Hathaway, C., Mawdsley, D., Laland, K.N. & Krause, J. (2006). Social structure and co-operative interactions in a wild population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59: 644-650.
Deacon, A.E., Jones, F.A.M. & Magurran, A.E. (2018). Gradients in predation risk in a tropical river system. — Curr. Zool. 64: 213-221.
Dupuch, A., Magnan, P. & Dill, L.M. (2004). Sensitivity of northern redbelly dace, Phoxinus eos, to chemical alarm cues. — Can. J. Zool. 82: 407-415.
Elvidge, C.K., Ramnarine, I.W., Godin, J.-G.J. & Brown, G.E. (2010). Size-mediated response to public cues of predation risk in a tropical stream fish. — J. Fish Biol. 77: 1632-1644.
Elvidge, C.K., Ramnarine, I. & Brown, G.E. (2014). Compensatory foraging in Trinidadian guppies: effects of acute and chronic predation threats. — Curr. Zool. 60: 323-332.
Elvidge, C.K. & Brown, G.E. (2015). Size-based differences determine the contextual value of risky information in heterospecific information use. — Anim. Behav. 102: 7-14.
Engqvist, L. (2005). The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. — Anim. Behav. 70: 967-971.
Ferrari, M.C.O., McCormick, M.I., Meekan, M.G. & Chivers, D.P. (2015). Background level of risk and the survival of predator-naive prey: can neophobia compensate for predator naivety in juvenile coral reef fishes? — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 282: 20142197.
Ferrari, M.C.O., Trowell, J.J., Brown, G.E. & Chivers, D.P. (2005). The role of learning in the development of threat-sensitive predator avoidance by fathead minnows. — Anim. Behav. 70: 777-784.
Ferrari, M.C.O., Wisenden, B.D. & Chivers, D.P. (2010). Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. — Can. J. Zool. 88: 698-724.
Feyten, L.E.A., Demers, E.E.M., Ramnarine, I.W., Chivers, D.P., Ferrari, M.C.O. & Brown, G.E. (2019). Who’s where? Ecological uncertainty shapes neophobic predator avoidance in Trinidadian guppies. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 73: 70-80.
Feyten, L.E.A., Crane, A.L., Ramnarine, I.W. & Brown, G.E. (2021). Predation risk shapes the use of conflicting personal risk and social safety information in guppies. — Behav. Ecol. 32: 1296-1305.
Fraser, D.F. & Gilliam, J.F. (1987). Feeding under predation hazard: response of the guppy and Hart’s rivulus from sites with contrasting predation hazard. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 203-209.
Fraser, D.F. & Gilliam, J.F. (1992). Nonlethal impacts of predator invasion — facultative suppression of growth and reproduction. — Ecology 73: 959-970.
Friesen, R.G. & Chivers, D.P. (2006). Underwater video reveals strong avoidance of chemical alarm cues by prey fishes. — Ethology 112: 339-345.
Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Magrath, R.D., Nieh, J.C. & Ruxton, G.D. (2010). Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 354-361.
Harvey, M.C. & Brown, G.E. (2004). Dine or dash?: ontogenetic shift in the response of yellow perch to conspecific alarm cues. — Environm. Biol. Fish. 70: 345-352.
Johnson, D.D.P., Blumstein, D.T., Fowler, J.H. & Haselton, M.G. (2013). The evolution of error: error management, cognitive constraints, and adaptive decision-making biases. — Trends Ecol. Evol. 28: 474-481.
Kelly, J.M., Adrian, J.C. & Brown, G.E. (2006). Can the ratio of aromatic skeletons explain cross-species responses within evolutionarily conserved Ostariophysan alarm cues?: testing the purine-ratio hypothesis. — Chemoecology 16: 93-96.
Lima, S.L. & Bednekoff, P.A. (1999). Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. — Am. Nat. 153: 649-659.
Lima, S.L. & Dill, L.M. (1990). Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. — Can. J. Zool. 68: 619-640.
Mathis, A. & Smith, R. (1993). Chemical alarm signals increase the survival-time of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) during encounters with Northern pike (Esox lucius). — Behav. Ecol. 4: 260-265.
Pollock, M.S., Chivers, D.P., Kusch, R.C., Tremaine, R.J., Friesen, R.G., Zhao, X. & Brown, G.E. (2005). Learned recognition of heterospecific alarm cues by prey fishes: a case study of minnows and stickleback. — In: Chemical signals in vertebrates 10 (Mason, R.T., LeMaster, M.P. & Müller-Schwarze, D., eds). Springer, Boston, MA, p. 321-327.
Pollock, M.S., Chivers, D.P., Mirza, R.S. & Wisenden, B.D. (2003). Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learn to recognize chemical alarm cues of introduced Brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans. — Environm. Biol. Fish. 66: 313-319.
Preisser, E.L., Bolnick, D.I. & Benard, M.F. (2005). Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator–prey interactions. — Ecology 86: 501-509.
Reznick, D. & Endler, J.A. (1982). The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). — Evolution 36: 160-177.
Roh, E., Mirza, R.S. & Brown, G.E. (2004). Quality or quantity? The role of donor condition in the production of chemical alarm cues in juvenile convict cichlids. — Behaviour 141: 1235-1248.
Seghers, B.H. An analysis of geographic variatioin in the antipredator adaptations of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. — Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Seppänen, J.-T., Forsman, J.T., Mönkkönen, M. & Thomson, R.L. (2007). Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. — Ecology 88: 1622-1633.
Stankowich, T. & Blumstein, D.T. (2005). Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 272: 2627-2634.
Trnka, A. & Samas, P. (2022). The use of social information about predation risk by foraging house sparrows: a feeder experiment. — J. Ethol. 40: 79-84.
Walsh, M.R., Fraser, D.F., Bassar, R.D. & Reznick, D.N. (2011). The direct and indirect effects of guppies: implications for life-history evolution in Rivulus harti. — Funct. Ecol. 25: 227-237.
Weissburg, M., Smee, D.L. & Ferner, M.C. (2014). The sensory ecology of nonconsumptive predator effects. — Am. Nat. 184: 141-157.
Xia, J., Elvidge, C.K. & Cooke, S.L. (2018). Niche separation, ontogeny, and heterospecific alarm responses in centrarchid sunfish. — Behav. Ecol. 29: 862-868.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 478 | 116 | 21 |
Full Text Views | 29 | 11 | 4 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 53 | 19 | 5 |
Aquatic prey use chemical alarm cues as public information sources to optimize behavioural decisions. Recent studies suggest that the contextual value of these cues is shaped by their source, the size of the donor relative to the receiver, and the size of the receiver itself. Here, we exposed Hart’s rivulus (Anablepsoides hartii) to conspecific or heterospecific alarm cues from donors that were either smaller or larger than the mean focal rivulus size. Smaller rivulus reduced foraging in response to conspecific and heterospecific cues, regardless of donor size. However, larger rivulus exhibited no reduction in foraging towards small conspecific cues and increased foraging towards small heterospecific cues. Additionally, while conspecific donors elicited strong predator avoidance, rivulus exhibited stronger responses to large vs. small heterospecific cues. Our results demonstrate that the value of alarm cues is shaped by the interacting effects of receiver size and the size and species of cue donors.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 478 | 116 | 21 |
Full Text Views | 29 | 11 | 4 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 53 | 19 | 5 |