Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on June 16, 2004
Behavioral Ecology 2004 15(6):925-929; doi:10.1093/beheco/arh097
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The effects of habitat- and diet-based cues on association preferences in three-spined sticklebacks
a Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK, and b Department of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
Address correspondence to A. J. Ward. E-mail: ajww2{at}le.ac.uk.
A number of recent articles have investigated the potential of familiarity preferences to influence group membership in free-ranging animals. However, it is not clear to which extent individual recognition or a more general recognition of a group odor is responsible for familiarity preferences. First, we tested the sensory basis of the recognition of familiars in stickleback. When allowed to choose between a familiar and a nonfamiliar stimulus shoal on the basis of both visual and chemical communication, visual communication only, and chemical communication only, the preference of focal fish for familiars was shown to depend on the presence of chemical cues. We subsequently investigated the effects of recent habitat and diet on shoaling preferences in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Experimental fish were divided into four treatment groups consisting of two water treatments (saline and freshwater) and two diet treatments (Daphnia spp. and bloodworm). Focal fish subsequently showed significant association preferences for groups of nonfamiliar fish that had undergone the same water or diet treatment as themselves. These data indicate that individual recognition is not a prerequisite for the expression of association preferences.
Key words: chemical cues, diet, habitat, three-spined stickleback.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A.J.W. Ward, M.M. Webster, A.E. Magurran, S. Currie, and J. Krause Species and population differences in social recognition between fishes: a role for ecology? Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2009; 20(3): 511 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.M Webster, A.J.W Ward, and P.J.B Hart Shoal and prey patch choice by co-occurring fishes and prawns: inter-taxa use of socially transmitted cues Proc R Soc B, January 22, 2008; 275(1631): 203 - 208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. J.W Ward, A. J Duff, J. S Horsfall, and S. Currie Scents and scents-ability: pollution disrupts chemical social recognition and shoaling in fish Proc R Soc B, January 7, 2008; 275(1630): 101 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. J.W Ward, M. M Webster, and P. J.B Hart Social recognition in wild fish populations Proc R Soc B, April 22, 2007; 274(1613): 1071 - 1077. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. E. Rafferty and J. W. Boughman Olfactory mate recognition in a sympatric species pair of three-spined sticklebacks Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2006; 17(6): 965 - 970. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. M. Webster and P. J.B. Hart Kleptoparasitic prey competition in shoaling fish: effects of familiarity and prey distribution Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2006; 17(6): 959 - 964. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. G Frommen and T. C.M Bakker Inbreeding avoidance through non-random mating in sticklebacks Biol Lett, June 22, 2006; 2(2): 232 - 235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||


