Comparing the non-lethal and lethal effects of predation risk â¬on goldfish anti-predatory behavior
In: Israel Journal of Ecology and EvolutionSearch for other papers by Merav Wacht Katz in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Zvika Abramsky in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Burt P. Kotler in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Michael L Rosenzweig in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Ofir Altstein in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Inbar Roth in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Constantine Klimovitsky in
Current site
Google Scholar
Little egrets (Egretta garzetta) and common goldfish (Carassius auratus) interacted in experimental theaters that challenge them with a behavioral game. We studied the behavioral tactics of both players. The experimental theaters consist of three equally spaced pools, each with a shelter in its center. The fish can take shelter in a safe but foodless habitat, or swim exposed in the open that contains food. The egrets can move among the pools to catch the exposed fish. We investigated the importance of non-lethal effects versus lethal effects on predatorâprey interactions. We created a variance in predation pressure by keeping the number of egrets fixed but varying the number of pools of the experimental theater between 1 and 3 pools. In all treatments, even when the egret was present, individual goldfish emerged from protected cover occasionally, exposing at least their heads and sometimes their entire bodies in apparent disregard for the possibly lethal consequences. We assumed that this behavior stems from the fish's constant need to collect information about its surroundings. The fish responded appropriately to the variations in predation pressure by changing their activity level outside the cover, i.e., the fish drastically and significantly reduced their exposure outside the cover, as well as the rate of peeping, as predation pressure increased. The results demonstrate the importance role of non-lethal effects, and how they drive the behavior of prey in response to predation risk, which in turn, drives the action of the predator in an asymmetric two-player game of stealth and fear.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Agrawal AA. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science. 294:321â326.
-
Amano M, , IiGo M, , Yamamori K, 2005. Effects of feeding time on approaching behavior to food odor in goldfish. Fish Sci. 71:183â186.
-
Brosnan SF, , Early RL, , Dugatkin LA. 2003. Observational learning and predator inspection in Guppies (Poeciliareticulata). Ethology. 109:823â833.
-
Brown JS. 1992. Patch use under predation risk: I. Models Predictions. 29:301â309.
-
Brown JS. 1988. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 22:37â47.
-
Brown JS, , Laundré JW, , Gurung M. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal. 80:385â399.
-
Brown JS, , Mitchell WA. 1989. Diet selection on depletable resources. Oikos. 54:33â43.
-
Brown JS, , Kotler BP. 2004. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett. 7:999â1014.
-
Charnov EL. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 9:129â136.
-
Cresswell W. 2008. Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. Ibis. 150:3â17.
-
Dugatkin LA. 1988. Do guppies play TIT FOR TAT during predator inspection visits? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 23:395â399.
-
Dugatkin LA, , Godin J-GJ. 1992. Predator inspection, shoaling and foraging under predation hazard in the Trinidadian guppy, Poeciliareticulate. Environ Biol Fish. 34:265â276.
-
Dunlop R. 2006. Avoidance learning in goldfish (Carassiusauratus) and trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) and implications for pain perception. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 97:255â271.
-
Hawlena D, , Strickland MS, , Bradford MA, , Schmitz OJ. 2012. Fear of predation slows plant-litter decomposition. Sci. 336:1434â1438.
-
Hoeinghaus DJ, , Pelicice FM. 2010. Lethal and nonlethal effects of predators on stream fish species and assemblages: a synthesis of predation experimen. Am Fish Soc Symp. 73:619â648.
-
Holopainen IJ, , Tonn WM, , Paszkowski CA. 1997. Tales of two fish: the dichotomous biology of crucian carp (Carassiuscarassius (L.)) in northern Europe. Ann Zool Fenn. 34:1â22.
-
Hugie DM. 2003. The waiting game: a âbattle of waitsâ between predator and prey. Behav Ecol. 14:807â817.
-
Hugie DM, , Dill LM. 1994. Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J Fish Biol. 45:151â169.
-
Hummel RE. 2011. Electronic properties of materials. New York (NY): Springer.
-
Ingrum J, , Nordell S, , Dole J. 2010. Effects of habitat complexity and group size on perceived predation risk in goldfish (Carassiusauratus). Ethology Ecol Evol. 22:119â132.
-
Kacelnik A, , Krebs JR, , Bernstein C. 1992. The ideal free distribution and predator-prey populations. Trends Ecol Evol. 7:50â55.
-
Katz MW, , Abramsky Z, , Kotler B, , Altstein O, , Rosenzweig ML. 2010. Playing the waiting game: predator and prey in a test environment. Evol Ecol Res. 12:793â801.
-
Katz M, , Abramsky Z, , Kotler B, , Rosenzweig M, , Alteshtein O, , and Vasserman G. 2013. Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment. Am Naturalist. 181:381â395.
-
Katz MW, , Abramsky Z, , Kotler BP, ,, Roth I, , Althestein O, , Rosenzweig ML. 2014. A predatorâprey behavioral game: how does number of food patches influence foraging tactics? Evol Ecol Res. 16:1â17.
-
Kushlan JA. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. In: Sprunt IV, Ogden JC, Winckler S, editors. Wading birds. New York, NY: National Audubon Society; p. 249â297.
-
Laundre JW, Hernandez L, Ripple WJ. 2010. The landscape of fear: ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol J. 3:1â7.
-
Lima SL. 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Stress Behav. 27:215â290.
-
Lima SL. 2002. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:70â75.
-
Lima SL, , Dill LM. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool. 68:619â640.
-
Magurran A. 1984. Gregarious goldfish. New Scientist. 103:32â33.
-
Magurran A, Girling SL. 1986. Predator model recognition and response habituation in shoaling minnows. Anim Behav. 34:510â518.
-
Morin PJ. 2011. Communities, in community ecology, 2nd Ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Nelson EH, , Matthews CE, , Rosenheim JA. 2004. Predators reduce prey population growth by inducing changes in prey behavior. Ecology. 85:1853â1858.
-
Peacor SD, , Werner EE. 2001. The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:3904â3908.
-
Pitcher T, , Magurran A. 1983. Shoal size, patch profitability and information exchange in foraging goldfish. Anim Behav. 31:546â555.
-
Preisser EL, , Bolnick DJ, , Benard MF. 2005. Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology. 86:501â509.
-
Rosenzweig ML, Macarthur RH. 1963. Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Am Nat. 97:209â223.
-
Sih A. 1980. Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Sci. 210:1041â1043.
-
Sih A. 1982. Optimal patch use: variations in selective pressure for efficient foraging. Am Nat. 120:666â685.
-
Sih A. 1997. To hide or not to hide? Refuge use in a fluctuating environment. Trends Ecol Evol. 12:375â376.
-
Stenberg M, Persson A. 2005. The effects of spatial food distribution and group size on foraging behaviour in a benthic fish. Behav processes. 70:41â50.
-
Stiling P. 2002. Potential non-target effects of a biological control agent, prickly pear moth, cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in North America, and possible management actions. Biol Invasions. 4:273â281.
-
Taylor RJ. 1984. Predation. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall Inc.
-
Vargas JP, , López JC, , Salas C, , Thinus-Blan C. 2004. Encoding of geometric and featural spatial information by goldfish (Carassius auratus). J Comp Psychol. 118:206.
-
Weir LK, , Grant JWA. 2004. The causes of resource monopolization: interaction between resource dispersion and mode of competition. Ethology. 110:63â74.
-
Yoshida M, , Nagamine M, , Uematsu K. 2005. Comparison of behavioral responses to a novel environment between three teleosts, bluegill Lepomismacrochirus,crucian carp Carassiuslangsdorfii, and goldfish Carassiusauratus. Fish Sci. 71:314â319.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 415 | 87 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 36 | 0 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 40 | 0 | 0 |
Comparing the non-lethal and lethal effects of predation risk â¬on goldfish anti-predatory behavior
In: Israel Journal of Ecology and EvolutionSearch for other papers by Merav Wacht Katz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Zvika Abramsky in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Burt P. Kotler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michael L Rosenzweig in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ofir Altstein in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Inbar Roth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Constantine Klimovitsky in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Little egrets (Egretta garzetta) and common goldfish (Carassius auratus) interacted in experimental theaters that challenge them with a behavioral game. We studied the behavioral tactics of both players. The experimental theaters consist of three equally spaced pools, each with a shelter in its center. The fish can take shelter in a safe but foodless habitat, or swim exposed in the open that contains food. The egrets can move among the pools to catch the exposed fish. We investigated the importance of non-lethal effects versus lethal effects on predatorâprey interactions. We created a variance in predation pressure by keeping the number of egrets fixed but varying the number of pools of the experimental theater between 1 and 3 pools. In all treatments, even when the egret was present, individual goldfish emerged from protected cover occasionally, exposing at least their heads and sometimes their entire bodies in apparent disregard for the possibly lethal consequences. We assumed that this behavior stems from the fish's constant need to collect information about its surroundings. The fish responded appropriately to the variations in predation pressure by changing their activity level outside the cover, i.e., the fish drastically and significantly reduced their exposure outside the cover, as well as the rate of peeping, as predation pressure increased. The results demonstrate the importance role of non-lethal effects, and how they drive the behavior of prey in response to predation risk, which in turn, drives the action of the predator in an asymmetric two-player game of stealth and fear.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 415 | 87 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 36 | 0 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 40 | 0 | 0 |
