Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and the assessment of predation risk by fishes
Brown, G.E.; Chivers, D.P. (2006). Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and the assessment of predation risk by fishes, in: Brown, C. et al. Fish cognition and behavior. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series, 11: pp. 49-69 In: Brown, C.; Laland, K.N.; Krause, J. (Ed.) (2006). Fish cognition and behavior. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series, 11. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford. ISBN 978-1-4051-3429-3. XVIII, 328 pp., more In: Pitcher, T.J. (Ed.) Fish and Aquatic Resources Series. Blackwell Science: Oxford. ISSN 1746-2606, more |
| Keywords | Aquaculture
Aquatic organisms > Food organisms
Behaviour > Avoidance reactions
Behaviour > Learning behaviour
Behaviour > Reproductive behaviour
Chemical elements > Metals > Transition elements > Heavy metals > Copper
Interspecific relationships
Interspecific relationships > Predation
Risks
Pisces [WoRMS]
Argentina, Buenos Aire, Lima [Marine Regions]
Marine/Coastal |
| Abstract | Predation is a constant threat faced by most prey individuals (Lima & Dill 1990), shaping an individual's behaviour, morphology and life history traits. As a result, there exists strong selection pressure for the early detection and avoidance of potential predation threats. However, predator avoidance has the potential to be very costly, as it reduces time and energy available for numerous other fitness-related behaviour patterns such as foraging, mating and territorial defence (Godin & Smith 1988; Sih 1992) or forcing prey to utilize suboptimal habitats (Gotceitas & Brown 1993), leading to a potential reduction in energy intake (Lima & Dill 1990). Thus, an individual's response to predation pressure can be seen as a series of threat-sensitive trade-offs between the benefits of predator avoidance and those of a suite of other fitness related activities (Lima & Dill 1990; Lima & Bednekoff 1999). Prey capable of reliably assessing local predation risk should be at a selective advantage, as they would be able to balance these conflicting benefits. |
|
