To date, little attention has been devoted to possible complementary effects of multiple forms of public information similar information on the foraging behaviour of predators. In order to examine how predators may incorporate multiple information sources, we conducted a series of predator attraction trials in the Lower Aripo River, Trinidad. Four combinations of visual (present or absent) and chemical cues (present or absent) from each of two prey species were presented. The occurrences of three locally abundant predatory species present within a 1？m radius of cue introduction sites were recorded. The relative attractiveness of cue type to each predator was directly related to their primary foraging modes, with visual ambush predators demonstrating an attraction to visual cues, benthivores to chemical cues, and active social foragers demonstrating complementary responses to paired cues. Predator species-pair counts were greatest in response to cues from the more abundant prey species, indicating that individuals may adopt riskier foraging strategies when presented with more familiar prey cues. These differences in predator attraction patterns demonstrate complementary effects of multiple sensory cues on the short-term habitat use and foraging behaviour of predators under fully natural conditions. 1. Introduction The behavioural strategies adopted by participants in predator-prey interactions are often mediated by publicly available cues [1] conveying information with some degree of immediate contextual relevance to the receiver. Public, or non-species-specific, cues may convey qualitatively different information to and elicit quantitatively different behavioural responses from different receivers [2]. The relative importance of different types of public cues in predator-prey interactions may be mediated by interactions between receiver taxon and environmental constraints; for example, visual cues are typically limited by photoperiod [3]. In aquatic environments, visual and chemical cues have been identified as the primary sources of information eliciting short-term behavioural processes for both vertebrate (e.g., fishes, [4]) and invertebrate (e.g., crustaceans, [5, 6]) species. Although acoustic cues have been demonstrated to elicit behavioural responses in freshwater fish receivers under laboratory conditions [7], the reliability of acoustic information may be limited under conditions of relatively high background noise, as in lotic systems. Many groups of freshwater fishes produce chemical cues in the epidermis which are released into the water
References
[1]
E. Danchin, L. A. Giraldeau, T. J. Valone, and R. H. Wagner, “Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution,” Science, vol. 305, no. 5683, pp. 487–491, 2004.
[2]
C. K. Elvidge, I. W. Ramnarine, J. G. J. Godin, and G. E. Brown, “Size-mediated response to public cues of predation risk in a tropical stream fish,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 77, no. 7, pp. 1632–1644, 2010.
[3]
T. W. Cronin, “The visual ecology of predator-prey interactions,” in Behavioural Ecology of Teleost Fishes, J. G. J. Godin, Ed., pp. 105–138, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1997.
[4]
J. W. Kim, G. E. Brown, I. J. Dolinsek, N. N. Brodeur, A. O. H. C. Leduc, and J. W. A. Grant, “Combined effects of chemical and visual information in eliciting antipredator behaviour in juvenile Atlantic salmon Salmo salar,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1280–1290, 2009.
[5]
B. A. Hazlett and C. McLay, “Responses to predation risk: alternative strategies in the crab Heterozius rotundifrons,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 967–972, 2005.
[6]
J. M. Hemmi, “Predator avoidance in fiddler crabs: 2. The visual cues,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 615–625, 2005.
[7]
B. D. Wisenden, J. Pogatshnik, D. Gibson, L. Bonacci, A. Schumacher, and A. Willett, “Sound the alarm: learned association of predation risk with novel auditory stimuli by fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and glowlight tetras (Hemigrammus erythrozonus) after single simultaneous pairings with conspecific chemical alarm cues,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 141–147, 2008.
[8]
M. C. O. Ferrari, B. D. Wisenden, and D. P. Chivers, “Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 88, no. 7, pp. 698–724, 2010.
[9]
R. J. F. Smith, “Avoiding and deterring predators,” in Behavioural Ecology of Teleost Fishes, J. G. J. Godin, Ed., pp. 163–190, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1997.
[10]
J. L. Golub, V. Vermette, and G. E. Brown, “Response to conspecific and heterospecific alarm cues by pumpkinseeds in simple and complex habitats: field verification of an ontogenetic shift,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1073–1081, 2005.
[11]
G. E. Brown and R. J. F. Smith, “Conspecific skin extracts elicit antipredator responses in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 1916–1922, 1997.
[12]
G. E. Brown, D. P. Chivers, and R. J. Smith, “Localized defecation by pike: a response to labelling by cyprinid alarm pheromone?” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 105–110, 1995.
[13]
B. D. Wisenden, J. Karst, J. Miller, S. Miller, and L. Fuselier, “Anti-predator behaviour in response to conspecific chemical alarm cues in an esociform fish, Umbra limi (Kirtland 1840),” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 85–92, 2008.
[14]
G. E. Brown and J. G. J. Godin, “Chemical alarm signals in wild Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata),” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 562–570, 1999.
[15]
R. J. F. Smith, “Alarm signals in fishes,” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 33–63, 1992.
[16]
M. C. Harvey and G. E. Brown, “Dine or dash?: ontogenetic shift in the response of yellow perch to conspecific alarm cues,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 345–352, 2004.
[17]
O. A. Popova, “The role of predaceous fish in ecosystems,” in Ecology of Freshwater Fish Production, S. D. Gerking, Ed., pp. 215–249, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK, 1978.
[18]
G. E. Brown, V. J. Leblanc, and L. E. Porter, “Ontogenetic changes in the response of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides, Centrarchidae, Perciformes) to heterospecific alarm pheromones,” Ethology, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 401–414, 2001.
[19]
B. D. Wisenden and T. A. Thiel, “Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance,” Journal of Chemical Ecology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 433–438, 2002.
[20]
S. L. Lima and L. M. Dill, “Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 619–640, 1990.
[21]
A. Mathis, D. P. Chivers, and R. J. Smith, “Chemicl alarm signals: predator deterrents or predator attractants?” American Naturalist, vol. 145, no. 6, pp. 994–1005, 1995.
[22]
O. M. Lonnstedt, M. I. McCormick, and D. P. Chivers, “Well-informed foraging: damage-released chemical cues of injured prey signal quality and size to predators,” Oecologia, vol. 168, no. 3, pp. 651–658, 2012.
[23]
G. E. Brown, C. K. Elvidge, C. J. Macnaughton, I. Ramnarine, and J. G. J. Godin, “Cross-population responses to conspecific chemical alarm cues in wild Trinidadian guppies, Poecilia reticulata: evidence for local conservation of cue production,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 139–147, 2010.
[24]
D. P. Croft, L. J. Morrell, A. S. Wade et al., “Predation risk as a driving force for sexual segregation: a cross-population comparison,” American Naturalist, vol. 167, no. 6, pp. 867–878, 2006.
[25]
A. E. Magurran, Evolutionary Ecology: The Trinidadian Guppy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2005.
[26]
R. Froese and D. Pauly, “FishBase. 2011,” World Wide Web electronic publication, (01/2010)http://www.fishbase.org/.
[27]
J. Krause and J. G. J. Godin, “Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 465–473, 1995.
[28]
K. E. Esteves, “Feeding ecology of three Astyanax species (Characidae, Tetragonopterinae) from a floodplain lake of Mogi-Guacu River, Parana River Basin, Brazil,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 83–101, 1996.
[29]
B. H. Seghers, An analysis of geographic variation in the antipredator adaptations of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata [Ph.D. thesis], Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada, 1973.
[30]
G. E. Brown, C. J. MacNaughton, C. K. Elvidge, I. Ramnarine, and J. G. J. Godin, “Provenance and threat-sensitive predator avoidance patterns in wild-caught Trinidadian guppies,” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 699–706, 2009.
[31]
J. Pinheiro, D. Bates, S. DebRoy, D. Sarkar, and R Development Core Team, “nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models,” R package version 3.1-97, 2010.
[32]
R Development Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2010.
[33]
E. Paradis, J. Claude, and K. Strimmer, “APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language,” Bioinformatics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 289–290, 2004.
[34]
M. F. Cashner, “Are spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) attracted to Schreckstoff? A test of the predator attraction hypothesis,” Copeia, no. 3, pp. 592–598, 2004.
[35]
D. P. Chivers, G. E. Brown, and R. J. F. Smith, “The evolution of chemical alarm signals: attracting predators benefits alarm signal senders,” American Naturalist, vol. 148, no. 4, pp. 649–659, 1996.
[36]
P. A. Nilsson and C. Bronmark, “Prey vulnerability to a gape-size limited predator: behavioural and morphological impacts on Northern pike piscivory,” Oikos, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 539–546, 2000.
[37]
A. O. H. C. Leduc, J. M. Kelly, and G. E. Brown, “Detection of conspecific alarm cues by juvenile salmonids under neutral and weakly acidic conditions: laboratory and field tests,” Oecologia, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 318–324, 2004.
