Population and sex differences in antipredator responses of breeding fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) to chemical stimuli from garter snakes (Thamnophis radix andT. sirtalis)

1994 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 2111-2121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey G. Matity ◽  
Douglas P. Chivers ◽  
R. Jan F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Garter Snakes ◽  
Antipredator Responses ◽  
Chemical Stimuli

scholarly journals Familiarity and shoal cohesion in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas): implications for antipredator behaviour

1995 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. 955-960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Chivers ◽  
Grant E. Brown ◽  
R. Jan F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Northern Pike ◽  
Antipredator Behaviour ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Fish Predator ◽  
Antipredator Response ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Risk Of Predation ◽  
Chemical Stimuli ◽  
Model Fish

We exposed groups of four fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) that were familiar to each other and had been taken from naturally occurring shoals, and groups of four fish unfamiliar to each other, taken from four separate shoals, to either chemical stimuli from pike or a model fish predator (northern pike, Esox lucius). In response to both chemical stimuli from pike and the pike model, minnows from familiar groups showed greater shoal cohesion than those from unfamiliar groups. Tighter shoal cohesion should result in a higher probability of surviving an encounter with a predator. Fish in familiar shoals also exhibited more dashing, a known antipredator response, than those in unfamiliar groups. In addition, groups of familiar fish showed less freezing behaviour than unfamiliar groups. In response to the model fish predator, familiar shoals exhibited a greater number of predator inspections, and the number of inspectors per inspection visit was greater, than those in unfamiliar groups. These results suggest that preferential shoaling with familiar conspecifics leads to an increase in cooperative antipredator behaviour and may thereby lower a minnow's risk of predation.

LEARNED RECOGNITION OF HETEROSPECIFIC ALARM CUES ENHANCES SURVIVAL DURING ENCOUNTERS WITH PREDATORS

Behaviour ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 139 (7) ◽  
pp. 929-938 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Chivers ◽  
Reehan Mirza ◽  
Jeffery Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Yellow Perch ◽  
Pimephales Promelas ◽  
Mixed Diet ◽  
Alarm Cues ◽  
Fathead Minnows ◽  
Culaea Inconstans ◽  
Alarm Cue ◽  
Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus Mykiss ◽  
Chemical Alarm Cues ◽  
Chemical Stimuli

AbstractNumerous species of aquatic animals release chemical cues when attacked by a predator. These chemicals serve to warn other conspecifics, and in some cases heterospecifics, of danger, and hence have been termed alarm cues. Responses of animals to alarm cues produced by other species often need to be learned, yet mechanisms of learned recognition of heterospecific cues are not well understood. In this study, we tested whether fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) could learn to recognize a heterospecific alarm cue when it was combined with conspecific alarm cue in the diet of a predator. We exposed fathead minnows to chemical stimuli collected from rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, fed a mixed diet of minnows and brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans, or trout fed a mixed diet of swordtails, Xiphophorous helleri, and stickleback. To test if the minnows had acquired recognition of the heterospecific alarm cues, we exposed them to stickleback alarm cues and introduced an unknown predator, yellow perch (Perca flavescens) or northern pike (Esox lucius). Both perch and pike took longer to initiate an attack on minnows that were previously exposed to trout fed minnows and stickleback than those previously exposed to trout fed swordtails and stickleback. These results demonstrate that minnows can learn to recognize heterospecific alarm cues based on detecting the heterospecific cue in combination with minnow alarm cues in the diet of the predator. Ours is the first study to demonstrate that behavioural responses to heterospecific chemical alarm cues decreases the probability that the prey will be attacked and captured during an encounter with a predator.

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