Trust thy neighbour in times of trouble: background risk alters how tadpoles release and respond to disturbance cues

Uncertainty about old information results in differential predator memory in tadpoles

As information ages, it may become less accurate, resulting in increased uncertainty for decision makers. For example, chemical alarm cues (AC) are a source of public information about a nearby predator attack, and these cues can become spatially inaccurate through time. These cues can also degrade quickly under natural conditions, and cue receivers are sensitive to such degradation. Although numerous studies have documented predator-recognition learning from fresh AC, no studies have explored learning from aged AC and whether the uncertainty associated with this older information contributes to shortening the retention of learned responses (i.e. the 'memory window'). Here, we found that wood frog tadpoles, Lithobates sylvaticus, learned to recognize a novel odour as a predator when paired with AC aged under natural conditions for up to 1 h. However, only tadpoles conditioned with fresh AC were found to retain this learned response when tested 9 days after conditioning. These results support the hypothesis that the memory window is shortened by the uncertainty associated with older information, preventing the long-term costs of a learned association that was based on potentially outdated information.

Disturbance cues function as a background risk cue but not as an associative learning cue in tadpoles

Chemical information has an important role in the sensory ecology of aquatic species. For aquatic prey, chemical cues are a vital source of information related to predator avoidance and risk assessment. For instance, alarm cues are released by prey that have been injured by predators. In addition to providing accurate information about current risk, repeated exposure to alarm cues can elicit a fear response to novel stimuli (neophobia) in prey. Another source of chemical information is disturbance cues, released by prey that have been disturbed or harassed (but not injured) by a predator. While disturbance cues have received much less attention than alarm cues, they appear to be useful as an early warning signal of predation risk and have the potential to be used as a priming cue for learning. In this study, we used wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) tadpoles to test whether repeated exposure to disturbance cues during the embryonic stage can induce neophobic behaviour. Three weeks following repeated exposure to disturbance cues, tadpoles showed reduced activity when exposed to a novel odour, but they no longer displayed an antipredator response to disturbance cues. In a second experiment, we found that tadpoles failed to learn that a novel odour was dangerous following a pairing with disturbance cues, whereas alarm cues facilitated such learning. Our results add to the growing body of information about disturbance cues and provide evidence of their function as an embryonic risk cue but not as an associative learning cue.

Sender and receiver experience alters the response of fish to disturbance cues

Predation is a pervasive selection pressure, shaping morphological, physiological, and behavioral phenotypes of prey species. Recent studies have begun to examine how the effects of individual experience with predation risk shapes the use of publicly available risk assessment cues. Here, we investigated the effects of prior predation risk experience on disturbance cue production and use by Trinidadian guppies Poecilia reticulata under laboratory conditions. In our first experiment, we demonstrate that the response of guppies from a high predation population (Lopinot River) was dependent upon the source of disturbance cue senders (high vs. low predation populations). However, guppies collected from a low predation site (Upper Aripo River) exhibited similar responses to disturbance cues, regardless of the sender population. In our second experiment, we used laboratory strain guppies exposed to high versus low background risk conditions. Our results show an analogous response patterns as shown for our first experiment. Guppies exposed to high background risk conditions exhibited stronger responses to the disturbance cues collected from senders exposed to high (vs. low) risk conditions and guppies exposed to low risk conditions were not influenced by sender experience. Combined, our results suggest that experience with background predation risk significantly impacts both the production of and response to disturbance cues in guppies.

A novel alarm signal in aquatic prey: Familiar minnows coordinate group defences against predators through chemical disturbance cues

Animal signalling systems outside the realm of human perception remain largely understudied. These systems consist of four main components: a signalling context, a voluntary signal, receiver responses and resulting fitness benefits to both the signaller and receiver(s). It is often most difficult to determine incidental cues from voluntary signals. One example is chemical disturbance cues released by aquatic prey during predator encounters that may serve to alert conspecifics of nearby risk and initiate tighter shoaling. We aimed to test whether disturbance cues are released incidentally (i.e. as a cue) or are produced voluntarily depending on a specific signalling context such as the audience surrounding the individual, and thus constitute a signal. We hypothesized that if receivers use disturbance cues to communicate risk among themselves, they would produce more (or more potent) disturbance cues when present in a group of conspecifics rather than when they are isolated (presence/absence of an audience) and use disturbance cues more when present alongside familiar rather than unfamiliar conspecifics (audience composition effect). We placed fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) in groups with familiar fish, unfamiliar fish or as isolated individuals with no audience present, and then simulated a predator chase to evoke disturbance cues. We used bioassays with independent receivers to assess whether the disturbance cues produced differed depending on the signallers' audience. We found evidence of voluntary signalling, as minnows responded to disturbance cues from groups of fish with tighter shoaling while disturbance cues from isolated minnows did not evoke a significant shoaling response (presence/absence audience effect). Receivers also increased shoaling, freezing and dashing more in response to disturbance cues from familiar groups compared to disturbance cues from unfamiliar groups or isolated minnows (audience composition effect). Together, these findings support our hypothesis that disturbance cues are used as an antipredator signal to initiate coordinated group defences among familiar conspecifics involving shoaling, freezing and dashing. This study represents the strongest evidence to date that chemicals released by aquatic prey upon disturbance by predators serve as voluntary signals rather than simply cues that prey have evolved to detect when assessing their risk of predation.

Does donor group size matter? The response of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) and convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofasciata) to disturbance cues from conspecific and heterospecific donors

Prey are under immense pressure to make context-specific, behavioural decisions. Prey use public information to reduce the costs associated with making inappropriate decisions. Chemical cues are commonly used by aquatic vertebrates to assess local threats and facilitate behavioural decision making. Previous studies on chemosensory assessment of risk have largely focused on damage-released alarm cues, with the cues released by disturbed or stressed prey (i.e., disturbance cues) receiving less attention. Disturbance cues are “early-warning signals” common among aquatic vertebrates that may warn conspecific and heterospecific prey guild members of potential risk. Initially, we conducted a series of laboratory studies to determine (i) if guppies (Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859) produce and respond to disturbance cues and (ii) if relative concentration (donor group size) determines response intensity. Secondly, we examined if guppies and convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofasciata (Günther, 1867)) show similar response patterns to their own vs. heterospecific disturbance cues. Our results suggest that guppies exhibit increased predator avoidance behaviour to conspecific disturbance cues (relative to water from undisturbed conspecifics) and increased donor group size lead to stronger antipredator responses. However, although guppies and cichlids respond to each other’s disturbance cues, we found no effect of donor group size towards heterospecific disturbance cues. Our results suggest that disturbance cues are not generalized cues and present a degree of species-specificity.

Trust thy neighbour in times of trouble: background risk alters how tadpoles release and respond to disturbance cues

In aquatic environments, uninjured prey escaping a predator release chemical disturbance cues into the water. However, it is unknown whether these cues are a simple physiological by-product of increased activity or whether they represent a social signal that is under some control by the sender. Here, we exposed wood frog tadpoles (Lithobates sylvaticus) to either a high or low background risk environment and tested their responses to disturbance cues (or control cues) produced by tadpoles from high-risk or low-risk backgrounds. We found an interaction between risk levels associated with the cue donor and cue recipient. While disturbance cues from low-risk donors did not elicit an antipredator response in low-risk receivers, they did in high-risk receivers. In addition, disturbance cues from high-risk donors elicited a marked antipredator response in both low- and high-risk receivers. The response of high-risk receivers to disturbance cues from high-risk donors was commensurate with other treatments, indicating an all-or-nothing response. Our study provides evidence of differential production and perception of social cues and provides insights into their function and evolution in aquatic vertebrates. Given the widespread nature of disturbance cues in aquatic prey, there may exist a social signalling system that remains virtually unexplored by ecologists.