Literature DB >> 28954912

Trust thy neighbour in times of trouble: background risk alters how tadpoles release and respond to disturbance cues.

Kevin R Bairos-Novak1, Matthew D Mitchell2, Adam L Crane3, Douglas P Chivers3, Maud C O Ferrari2.   

Abstract

In aquatic environments, uninjured prey escaping a predator release chemical disturbance cues into the water. However, it is unknown whether these cues are a simple physiological by-product of increased activity or whether they represent a social signal that is under some control by the sender. Here, we exposed wood frog tadpoles (Lithobates sylvaticus) to either a high or low background risk environment and tested their responses to disturbance cues (or control cues) produced by tadpoles from high-risk or low-risk backgrounds. We found an interaction between risk levels associated with the cue donor and cue recipient. While disturbance cues from low-risk donors did not elicit an antipredator response in low-risk receivers, they did in high-risk receivers. In addition, disturbance cues from high-risk donors elicited a marked antipredator response in both low- and high-risk receivers. The response of high-risk receivers to disturbance cues from high-risk donors was commensurate with other treatments, indicating an all-or-nothing response. Our study provides evidence of differential production and perception of social cues and provides insights into their function and evolution in aquatic vertebrates. Given the widespread nature of disturbance cues in aquatic prey, there may exist a social signalling system that remains virtually unexplored by ecologists.
© 2017 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  antipredator response; background risk; disturbance cue; predation; social cue; tadpoles

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28954912      PMCID: PMC5627207          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1465

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  39 in total

1.  Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by slimy sculpins (Cottus cognatus): responses to alarm, disturbance, and predator cues.

Authors:  P J Bryer; R S Mirza; D P Chivers
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.626

2.  Characterization of an alarm pheromone secreted by amphibian tadpoles that induces behavioral inhibition and suppression of the neuroendocrine stress axis.

Authors:  Michael E Fraker; Fang Hu; Vindhya Cuddapah; S Andy McCollum; Rick A Relyea; John Hempel; Robert J Denver
Journal:  Horm Behav       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 3.587

3.  Disturbance pheromones in the crayfishOrconectes virilis.

Authors:  B A Hazlett
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 2.626

4.  Source and nature of disturbance-chemical system in crayfish.

Authors:  B A Hazlett
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  A waterborne chemical cue from Gulf toadfish, Opsanus beta, prompts pulsatile urea excretion in conspecifics.

Authors:  Jeremy Fulton; Christophe M R LeMoine; Carol Bucking; Kevin V Brix; Patrick J Walsh; M Danielle McDonald
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2016-12-28

6.  Metabolic stoichiometry and the ecology of fear in Trinidadian guppies: consequences for life histories and stream ecosystems.

Authors:  Christopher M Dalton; Alexander S Flecker
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Risk-induced neophobia: does sensory modality matter?

Authors:  Grant E Brown; Christopher D Jackson; Brendan J Joyce; Douglas P Chivers; Maud C O Ferrari
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 3.084

8.  Behavioral responses of zebrafish depend on the type of threatening chemical cues.

Authors:  Murilo S Abreu; Ana Cristina V Giacomini; Darlan Gusso; Gessi Koakoski; Thiago A Oliveira; Alessandra Marqueze; Rodrigo Egydio Barreto; Leonardo J G Barcellos
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 1.836

9.  Do poison frogs recognize chemical cues of the other sex or do they react to cues of stressed conspecifics?

Authors:  Lisa M Schulte; Daniela C Rössler
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 1.777

10.  Chemical communication of predation risk in zebrafish does not depend on cortisol increase.

Authors:  Leonardo J G Barcellos; Gessi Koakoski; João G S da Rosa; Daiane Ferreira; Rodrigo E Barreto; Percília C Giaquinto; Gilson L Volpato
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  3 in total

1.  Trust thy neighbour in times of trouble: background risk alters how tadpoles release and respond to disturbance cues.

Authors:  Kevin R Bairos-Novak; Matthew D Mitchell; Adam L Crane; Douglas P Chivers; Maud C O Ferrari
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Disturbance cues function as a background risk cue but not as an associative learning cue in tadpoles.

Authors:  Ita A E Rivera-Hernández; Adam L Crane; Michael S Pollock; Maud C O Ferrari
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.899

3.  Sender and receiver experience alters the response of fish to disturbance cues.

Authors:  Jack A Goldman; Laurence E A Feyten; Indar W Ramnarine; Grant E Brown
Journal:  Curr Zool       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 2.624

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.