Literature DB >> 20127367

Differential habitat use and antipredator response of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) to olfactory and visual cues from multiple predators.

Charles W Martin1, F Joel Fodrie, Kenneth L Heck, Johanna Mattila.   

Abstract

The indirect, behavioral effects of predation and predator-predator interactions can significantly alter the trophic ecology of many communities. In numerous instances, the strength of these effects may be determined by the ability of prey to identify predation risk through predator-specific cues and respond accordingly to avoid capture. We exposed juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus), a common forage fish in many brackish and freshwater environments, to vision and/or olfactory cues from two predators with different hunting methods: northern pike (Esox lucius, an ambush predator) and European perch (Perca fluviatilis, a roving predator). Our results demonstrated that responses of roach to perceived risk (as evidenced by their selection of structured or open-water habitats) were highly dependent on cue type and predator identity. For instance, roach responded to olfactory cues of pike by entering open-water habitat, but entered structured habitat when presented with a vision cue of this predator. Opposite responses were elicited from roach for both olfactory and visual cues of perch. Interestingly, roach defaulted to selection of structured habitat when presented with vision + olfaction cues of either predator. Moreover, when presented individual cues of both predators together, roach responded by choosing open-water habitat. Upon being presented with vision + olfaction cues of both predators, however, roach strongly favored structured habitat. Differences in habitat selection of roach were likely in response to the alternative foraging strategies of the two predators, and suggest that prey species may not always use structured habitats as protection. This appears particularly true when a threat is perceived, but cannot immediately be located. These results provide insight to the complex and variable nature by which prey respond to various cues and predators, and offer a mechanistic guide for how behaviorally mediated and predator-predator interactions act as structuring processes in aquatic systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20127367     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-010-1564-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  13 in total

1.  Intraguild interference and biocontrol effects of generalist predators in a winter wheat field.

Authors:  Andreas Lang
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2002-10-24       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species.

Authors:  Danielle M Warfe; Leon A Barmuta
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2004-08-06       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Sensory tuning of lateral line receptors in antarctic fish to the movements of planktonic prey.

Authors:  J C Montgomery; J A Macdonald
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-01-09       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey.

Authors:  A Sih; G Englund; D Wooster
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1998-09-01       Impact factor: 17.712

5.  To hide or not to hide? Refuge use in a fluctuating environment.

Authors:  A Sih
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 17.712

6.  Validation of a randomization procedure to assess animal habitat preferences: microhabitat use of tiger sharks in a seagrass ecosystem.

Authors:  Michael R Heithaus; Ian M Hamilton; Aaron J Wirsing; Lawrence M Dill
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.091

7.  Combined effects of chemical and visual information in eliciting antipredator behaviour in juvenile Atlantic salmon Salmo salar.

Authors:  J-W Kim; G E Brown; I J Dolinsek; N N Brodeur; A O H C Leduc; J W A Grant
Journal:  J Fish Biol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.051

8.  Behavioral adjustments of African herbivores to predation risk by lions: spatiotemporal variations influence habitat use.

Authors:  M Valeix; A J Loveridge; S Chamaillé-Jammes; Z Davidson; F Murindagomo; H Fritz; D W Macdonald
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.499

9.  Unintended facilitation between marine consumers generates enhanced mortality for their shared prey.

Authors:  F Joel Fodrie; Matthew D Kenworthy; Sean P Powers
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 5.499

10.  Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems.

Authors:  Michelle Waycott; Carlos M Duarte; Tim J B Carruthers; Robert J Orth; William C Dennison; Suzanne Olyarnik; Ainsley Calladine; James W Fourqurean; Kenneth L Heck; A Randall Hughes; Gary A Kendrick; W Judson Kenworthy; Frederick T Short; Susan L Williams
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  11 in total

1.  Predator identity and time of day interact to shape the risk-reward trade-off for herbivorous coral reef fishes.

Authors:  Laura B Catano; Mark B Barton; Kevin M Boswell; Deron E Burkepile
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 2.  Jumping spiders: An exceptional group for comparative cognition studies.

Authors:  Samuel Aguilar-Arguello; Ximena J Nelson
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Behavioral responses of native prey to disparate predators: naiveté and predator recognition.

Authors:  Jennifer R Anson; Chris R Dickman
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2012-08-04       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Native and non-native plants provide similar refuge to invertebrate prey, but less than artificial plants.

Authors:  Bart M C Grutters; Bart J A Pollux; Wilco C E P Verberk; Elisabeth S Bakker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Naïve prey exhibit reduced antipredator behavior and survivorship.

Authors:  Charles W Martin
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  The Seagrass Effect Turned Upside Down Changes the Prospective of Sea Urchin Survival and Landscape Implications.

Authors:  Simone Farina; Ivan Guala; Silvia Oliva; Luigi Piazzi; Rodrigo Pires da Silva; Giulia Ceccherelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Simulating more realistic predation threat using attack playbacks.

Authors:  Mukta Watve; Sebastian Prati; Barbara Taborsky
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Previous oil exposure alters Gulf Killifish Fundulus grandis oil avoidance behavior.

Authors:  Charles W Martin; Ashley M McDonald; Guillaume Rieucau; Brian J Roberts
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Adaptive Vertical Positioning as Anti-Predator Behavior: The Case of a Prey Fish Cohabiting with Multiple Predatory Fish within Temperate Marine Algal Forests.

Authors:  Pierre D Thiriet; Antonio Di Franco; Adrien Cheminée; Luisa Mangialajo; Paolo Guidetti; Samuel Branthomme; Patrice Francour
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 2.752

10.  Smell or vision? The use of different sensory modalities in predator discrimination.

Authors:  Stefan Fischer; Evelyne Oberhummer; Filipa Cunha-Saraiva; Nina Gerber; Barbara Taborsky
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 2.980

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.