Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Behavioral ecology - Original Paper
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ådjers K, Appelberg M, Eschbaum R, Lappalainen A, Minde A, Repecka R, Thoresson G (2006) Trends in coastal fish stocks of the Baltic Sea. Bor Env Res 11:13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Amo L, Lopez P, Martin J (2004) Chemosensory recognition and behavioural responses of wall lizards, Podarcis muralis, to scents of snakes that pose different risks of predation. Copeia 2004:691–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden S, Boström C (2001) The leaf canopy of seagrass beds: faunal community structure and function in a salinity gradient along the Swedish coast. Ecol Stud 151:214–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonsdorff E, Blomqvist EM (1993) Biotic couplings on shallow water soft bottoms: examples from the northern Baltic Sea. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 31:153–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown G (2003) Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and local risk assessment in prey fishes. Fish Fish 4:227–234

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GE, Chivers DP (2006) Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and local risk assessment in prey fishes. In: Brown C, Laland KN, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behaviour. Blackwell, London, pp 49–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown GE, Cowan J (2000) Foraging trade-offs and predator inspection in an Ostariophysan fish: switching from chemical to visual cues. Behaviour 137:181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GE, Rive AC, Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2006) The dynamic nature of anti-predator behaviour: prey fish integrate threat-sensitive anti-predator responses within background levels of predation risk. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GE, Harvey MC, Leduc AOHC, Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2009) Social context, competitive interactions and the dynamic nature of antipredator responses of juvenile rainbow trout. J Fish Biol 75:552–562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signaling in aquatic predator–prey systems: a review and prospectus. Eucoscience 5:338–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen B, Persson L (1993) Species-specific antipredatory behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder L, Squires D, Rice J (1997) Non-additive effects of terrestrial and aquatic predators on juvenile estuarine fish. Ecology 78:1796–1804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill LM, Heithaus MR, Walters CJ (2003) Behaviorally mediated indirect interactions in marine communities and their conservation implications. Ecology 84:1151–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eklöv P, Persson L (1995) Species-specific antipredator capacities and prey refuges: interactions between piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis) and juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engström-Öst J, Mattila J (2008) Foraging, growth and habitat choice in turbid water: an experimental study with fish larvae in the Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 359:275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari MCO, Trowell JJ, Brown GE, Chivers DP (2005) The role of learning in the development of threat-sensitive predator avoidance by fathead minnows. Anim Behav 70:777–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finke DL, Denno RF (2002) Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: implications for prey suppression. Ecology 83:643–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff IR, Sundaresan SR, Cordingley J, Rubenstein DI (2007) Habitat use and movement of plains zebra (Equus burchelli) in response to predation danger from lions. Behav Ecol 18(4):725–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodrie FJ, Kenworthy MK, Powers SP (2008) Unintended facilitation between marine consumers generates enhanced mortality for their shared prey. Ecology 89(12):3268–3274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski JH (2004) Habitat complexity disrupts predator-prey interactions yet preserves the trophic cascade in oyster-reef communities. Ecology 85:995–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffen BD (2006) Detecting emergent effects of multiple predator species. Oecologia 148:702–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hager MC, Helfman GS (1991) Safety in numbers: shoal size choice by minnows under predatory threat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heithaus MR, Dill LM, Marshall GJ, Buhleier B (2002) Habitat use and foraging behavior of tiger sharks (Baleocerdo cuvier) in a seagrass ecosystem. Mar Biol 140:237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heithaus MR, Hamilton IM, Wirsing AJ, Dill LM (2006) Validation of a randomization procedure to assess animal habitat preferences: microhabitat use of tiger sharks in a seagrass ecosystem. J Anim Ecol 75:666–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hickman CR, Stone MD, Mathis A (2004) Priority use of chemical over visual cues for detection of predators by neotenic graybelly salamanders, Eurycea multiplicata griseogaster. Herpetologica 60:203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horinouchi MN, Jo Y, Fujita M, Sano M, Suzuki Y (2009) Seagrass habitat complexity does not always decrease foraging efficiencies of piscivorous fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 377:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James PL, Heck KL (1994) The effects of habitat complexity and light intensity on ambush predation within a simulated seagrass habitat. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 176:187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Brown GE, Dolinsek IJ, Brodeur NN, Leduc AOHC, Grant JWA (2009) Additive and interactive effects of chemical and visual information in eliciting antipredator behaviour in juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J Fish Biol 74:1280–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kusch RC, Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2004) Making sense of predator scents: investigating the sophistication of predator assessment abilities of fathead minnows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:551

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang A (2003) Intraguild interference and biocontrol effects of generalist predators in a winter wheat field. Oecologia 134:144–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leduc AOHC, Roh E, Breau C, Brown GE (2007) Learned recognition of a novel odour by wild juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) under fully natural conditions. Anim Behav 73:471–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtiniemi M, Engström-Öst J, Viitasalo M (2005) Turbidity decreases anti-predator behaviour in pike larvae (Esox lucius). Environ Biol Fish 73:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist SB, Bachmann MD (1982) The role of visual and olfactory cues in the prey catching behavior of the tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum. Copeia 1982(1):81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE, Seghers BH (1994) Predator inspection behaviour covaries with schooling tendency amongst wild guppy, Poecilia reticulata, populations in Trinidad. Behaviour 128:121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathis A, Smith RJF (1993) Fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) learn to recognize pike (Esox lucius) as predators on the basis of chemical stimuli from minnows in the pike’s diet. Anim Behav 46:645–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathis A, Vincent F (2000) Differential use of visual and chemical cues in predator recognition and threat-sensitive antipredator behaviour by larval central newts, Notophthalmus viridescens. Can J Zool 78:1646–1652

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathis A, Chivers DC, Smith RJF (1993) Population differences in responses of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) to chemical and visual stimuli from predators. Ethology 93:31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila J (1992) The effect of habitat complexity on predation efficiency of perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) and ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus L.). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 157:55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikheev VN, Wanzenböck J, Pasternak AF (2006) Effects of predator-induced visual and olfactory cues on 0+ perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) foraging behavior. Ecol Freshwater Fish 15:111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery JC, MacDonald JA (1987) Sensory tuning of lateral line receptors in antarctic fish to movement of planktonic prey. Science 235:195–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moran MD (2003) Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson WG, Bonsdorff E (1990) Fish predation and habitat complexity: are complexity thresholds real? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 141:183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Lawton JH (1978) On feeding on more than one trophic level. Nature 275:542–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressier EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rilov G, Figueira WF, Lyman SJ, Crowder L (2007) Complex habitats may not always benefit prey: linking visual field, reef fish behavior and distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:225–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savino JF, Stein RA (1989) Behavioural interactions between fish predators and their prey: effects of plant density. Anim Behav 37:311–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Sokol-Hessner L (2002) Linearity in the aggregate effects of multiple predators in a food web. Ecol Lett 5:168–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Krivan V, Ovadia O (2004) Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 7:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz ST, Kruschel C, Bakran-Petricioli T (2009) Influence of seagrass meadows on predator-prey habitat segregation in an Adriatic lagoon. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 374:85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shivik JA (1998) Brown tree snake response to visual and olfactory cues. J Wildl Manage 62(1):105–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (1997) To hide or not to hide? Refuge use in a fluctuating environment. Trends Ecol Evol 10:375–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RJF (1992) Alarm signals in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 2:33–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD (2002) Field evidence of trait-mediated indirect interactions in a rock intertidal food web. Ecol Lett 5:241–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utne-Palm AC (2002) Visual feeding of fish in a turbide environment: physical and behavioural aspects. Mar Freshwater Behav Physiol 35:111–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valeix M, Loveridge AJ, Chamaillé-Jammes S, Davidson Z, Murindagomo F, Fritz H, MacDonald DW (2009) Behavioral adjustments of African herbivores to predation risk by lions: spatiotemporal variations influence habitat use. Ecology 90:23–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vance-Chalcraft HD, Soluk DA, Ozburn N (2004) Is prey predation risk influenced more by increasing predator density or predator species richness in stream enclosures? Oecologia 139:117–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent SE, Shine R, Brown GP (2005) Does foraging mode influence sensory modalites for prey detection? A comparison between males and female filesnakes (Acrochordus arafurae Acrochordidae). Anim Behav 70:715–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahle RA (1992) Body-size dependent anti-predator mechanisms of the American lobster. Oikos 65:52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfe DM, Barmuta LA (2004) Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141:171–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik S, Calladine A, Fourqurean JW, Heck KL Jr, Hughes AR, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy WJ, Short FT, Williams SL (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(30):12377–12381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecology 84:1083–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, Dill LM (2007) Living on the edge: dugongs prefer to forage in microhabitats that allow escape from rather than avoidance of predators. Anim Behav 74:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H, Kortet R, Myntti J, Vainikka A (2007) Predator odor recognition and antipredatory response in fish: does the prey know the predator diel rhythm? Acta Oecol 31:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for this project was provided through general funds from the University of South Alabama’s Department of Marine Science, as well as Husö Biological Station, Åbo Akademi University. We thank S. Scyphers, M. Scheinin, M. Ajemian, and M. Kenworthy for assistance in collecting fish and running trials, as well as the staff and students at Husö Biological Station for their logistical support throughout our visit. We also thank J. Valentine, M. Ajemian, B. Toscano, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and improvements to this manuscript. All experiments were in compliance with the laws of Finland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dauphin Island Sea Lab, 101 Bienville Boulevard, Dauphin Island, AL, 36528-0369, USA

    Charles W. Martin & Kenneth L. Heck Jr.

  2. University of South Alabama, 307 University Boulevard N, Mobile, AL, 36688-0002, USA

    Charles W. Martin & Kenneth L. Heck Jr.

  3. Department of Marine Sciences, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC, 28557, USA

    F. Joel Fodrie

  4. Husö Biological Station, Åbo Akademi University, Tykistökatu 6, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Johanna Mattila

Authors
  1. Charles W. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Joel Fodrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth L. Heck Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johanna Mattila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles W. Martin.

Additional information

Communicated by Anssi Laurila.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, C.W., Fodrie, F.J., Heck, K.L. et al. Differential habitat use and antipredator response of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) to olfactory and visual cues from multiple predators. Oecologia 162, 893–902 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1564-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1564-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation