Behavioral response of solitary fathead minnows,Pimephales promelas, to alarm substance

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. J. Lawrence ◽  
R. J. F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Response ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Alarm Substance ◽  
Fathead Minnows

Male fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque) retain their fright reaction to alarm substance during the breeding season

1976 ◽  
Vol 54 (12) ◽  
pp. 2230-2231 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Breeding Season ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Field Tests ◽  
Alarm Substance ◽  
Skin Extract ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Fright Reaction ◽  
Alarm Substance Cells

In laboratory and field tests, breeding male fathead minnows respond to conspecific skin extract with a fright reaction despite their own seasonal loss of alarm substance cells. Their fright reaction is facilitated by the presence of other fatheads.

Avoidance of areas marked with a chemical alarm substance by fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) in a natural habitat

1992 ◽  
Vol 70 (8) ◽  
pp. 1473-1476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Mathis ◽  
R. Jan F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Alarm Pheromone ◽  
Natural Habitat ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Alarm Substance ◽  
Apparent Difference ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Developmental Factors ◽  
Natural Stream ◽  
Risk Of Predation ◽  
Control Versus

If chemical alarm pheromones warn individuals of nearby predation on conspecifics, then individuals should avoid areas where alarm pheromone is present. This hypothesis was tested in a natural stream habitat by exposing fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) to minnow traps that had been marked with either conspecific alarm pheromone or with a control substance (glass-distilled water). The minnows exhibited significant avoidance of traps marked with the alarm pheromone: less than 4% of the minnows that were captured were found in the experimental traps. There was a nonsignificant tendency for minnows in control traps to be larger than those caught in experimental traps, suggesting a possible role of experience or developmental factors in determining the response to alarm pheromone. There was no apparent difference in overall body condition (i.e., length-specific mass) between the minnows that were caught in control versus experimental traps. Detection of the alarm pheromone may allow receivers to avoid areas where risk of predation is high.

Development of apical pits in chloride cells of the gills of Pimephales promelas after chronic exposure to acid water

1983 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 462-463
Author(s):  
Richard L. Leino ◽  
Jon G. Anderson ◽  
J. Howard McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Chronic Exposure ◽  
Lake Superior ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Chloride Cells ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Secondary Lamellae ◽  
Untreated Water ◽  
Water Ph ◽  
Flow Through

Groups of 12 fathead minnows were exposed for 129 days to Lake Superior water acidified (pH 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 or 6.5) with reagent grade H2SO4 by means of a multichannel toxicant system for flow-through bioassays. Untreated water (pH 7.5) had the following properties: hardness 45.3 ± 0.3 (95% confidence interval) mg/1 as CaCO3; alkalinity 42.6 ± 0.2 mg/1; Cl- 0.03 meq/1; Na+ 0.05 meq/1; K+ 0.01 meq/1; Ca2+ 0.68 meq/1; Mg2+ 0.26 meq/1; dissolved O2 5.8 ± 0.3 mg/1; free CO2 3.2 ± 0.4 mg/1; T= 24.3 ± 0.1°C. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd gills were subsequently processed for LM (methacrylate), TEM and SEM respectively.Three changes involving chloride cells were correlated with increasing acidity: 1) the appearance of apical pits (figs. 2,5 as compared to figs. 1, 3,4) in chloride cells (about 22% of the chloride cells had pits at pH 5.0); 2) increases in their numbers and 3) increases in the % of these cells in the epithelium of the secondary lamellae.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document