| Literature DB >> 24223291 |
Oona M Lönnstedt1, Philip L Munday, Mark I McCormick, Maud C O Ferrari, Douglas P Chivers.
Abstract
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere and surface ocean are rising at an unprecedented rate due to sustained and accelerating anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Previous studies have documented that exposure to elevated CO2 causes impaired antipredator behavior by coral reef fish in response to chemical cues associated with predation. However, whether ocean acidification will impair visual recognition of common predators is currently unknown. This study examined whether sensory compensation in the presence of multiple sensory cues could reduce the impacts of ocean acidification on antipredator responses. When exposed to seawater enriched with levels of CO2 predicted for the end of this century (880 μatm CO2), prey fish completely lost their response to conspecific alarm cues. While the visual response to a predator was also affected by high CO2, it was not entirely lost. Fish exposed to elevated CO2, spent less time in shelter than current-day controls and did not exhibit antipredator signaling behavior (bobbing) when multiple predator cues were present. They did, however, reduce feeding rate and activity levels to the same level as controls. The results suggest that the response of fish to visual cues may partially compensate for the lack of response to chemical cues. Fish subjected to elevated CO2 levels, and exposed to chemical and visual predation cues simultaneously, responded with the same intensity as controls exposed to visual cues alone. However, these responses were still less than control fish simultaneously exposed to chemical and visual predation cues. Consequently, visual cues improve antipredator behavior of CO2 exposed fish, but do not fully compensate for the loss of response to chemical cues. The reduced ability to correctly respond to a predator will have ramifications for survival in encounters with predators in the field, which could have repercussions for population replenishment in acidified oceans.Entities:
Keywords: Chemical alarm cues; ocean acidification; predator; prey; sensory redundancy; visual cues
Year: 2013 PMID: 24223291 PMCID: PMC3797500 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.684
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Mean (±SD) seawater parameters in the experimental system
| pHNBS | Temp°C | Salinity ppt | TA μmol/kg SW | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.15 (0.04) | 27.66 (0.98) | 35 | 2269.66 (15.01) | 440.53 (44.46) |
| 7.89 (0.06) | 27.74 (0.99) | 35 | 2261.23 (14.92) | 879.95 (140.64) |
Temperature, pH salinity, and total alkalinity (TA) were measured directly. Pco2 was estimated from these parameters using CO2SYS.
Figure 1Mean change (±SE) of behavior in (A) feeding strikes, (B) activity level, and (C) time spent in shelter (s) by naïve Pomacentrus amboinensis when exposed to conspecific skin extracts, heterospecific skin extracts, or a saltwater control between the pre- and poststimulus period for fish exposed to two different CO2 concentrations. Letters above or below bars represent Tukey's HSD groupings of means.
Figure 2Mean change (±SE) in behavior in (A) feeding strikes, (B) activity level, and (C) time spent in shelter (s) by naïve Pomacentrus amboinensis when exposed to the sight of a common predator, Pseudochromis fuscus, a herbivorous goby (Amblygobius phalanea) or an empty bag control between the pre- and poststimulus period for fish exposed to two different CO2 concentrations. Letters above or below bars represent Tukey's HSD groupings of means.
Figure 3Mean change (±SE) in behavior in (a) feeding strikes, (b) activity level, and (c) time spent in shelter (s) by naïve Pomacentrus amboinensis when exposed to conspecific skin extracts, the sight of a common predator, Pseudochromis fuscus, or a combination of the two between the pre- and poststimulus period for fish exposed to two different CO2 concentrations. Letters above or below bars represent Tukey's HSD groupings of means.
Determinant of bobbing frequency of Pomacentrus amboinensis when exposed to CO2 treatments (two levels) and predation risk cues (three levels)
| Model | Likelihood ratio chi-square | df | Hypothesis: bobbing frequency is | df | Difference between models |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) T × C + R | 68.29*** | 6 | Independent of treatment or cue | ||
| (2) T × C + C × R | 59.41*** | 3 | Dependent on cue | 3 | 1 and 2, 8.88* |
| (3) T × C + T × R | 15.5** | 4 | Dependent on treatment | 2 | 1 and 3, 52.79*** |
| (5) T × C × R | 0 | 0 | Dependent on an interaction between treatment and cue | 2 | 4 and 5, 0.63 NS |
T, CO2 treatment (elevated, present day); C, cue (skin extract, visual, both); R, reaction (bobs, no bobs). N = 15.
Significance values comparing are indicated by: * = <0.05, ** = <0.01, *** = <0.005. Bold values indicate <0.0005.
Figure 4Mean number of times that Pomacentrus amboinensis displayed a bobbing event (±SE) when naïve fish from each of the two CO2 treatments were exposed to either conspecific skin extracts, the visual sight of a common predator, Pseudochromis fuscus, or a combination of the two. Fish exposed to the higher treatment (850 μatm) showed a significant decrease in the occurrence of this behavior as compared to fish exposed to current-day CO2 levels with all fish in this treatment responding to combined predator cues by bobbing (440 μatm).