Fishless-stream mayflies express behavioural flexibility in response to predatory fish

The fish avoidance behaviour of nymphs of the grazing mayfly Baetis rhodani (Ephemerop- tera) was examined. The nymphs originated from a fishless stream. To study their responses to the addition of predator cues, nymphs were exposed to (1) chemical cues from a caged fish, or (2) a freely moving diurnal fish (European minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus). The nymphs immediately increased their refuge use when exposed to a live fish, whereas chemical cues alone did not cause any avoidance responses. In a second experiment, the eVects of (1) fish chemicals and (2) a fish model plus fish chemicals on the diel refuge use patterns of Baetis nymphs were examined. In the presence of a fish model, more nymphs were outside the refuges during the first few hours of darkness, when fish predators are not active, than at any other time of day. A similar but non-significant trend was observed when only chemical cues offish were present, whereas refuge use in the control treatment was aperiodic. Baetis nymphs were thus able to assess the fish predation risk and to respond by quickly adjustable, flexible avoidance behaviour. Spatial and temporal variation in predation risk, and adult dispersal between fishless and fish-inhabited streams, may be the key factors promoting the maintenance of flexible fish avoidance behaviour in stream-dwelling mayfly nymphs. ? 1996 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour

[1]  A. Sih.  Prey Uncertainty and the Balancing of Antipredator and Feeding Needs , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[2]  D. Soluk,et al.  Synergistic interactions between fish and stoneflies: facilitation and interference among stream predators , 1988 .

[3]  M. McPeek,et al.  Predation Risk and The Foraging Behavior of Competing Stream Insects , 1989 .

[4]  F. Huntingford,et al.  Inherited Population Differences in Avoidance Conditioning in Three-Spined Sticklebacks, Gasterosteus Aculeatus , 1992 .

[5]  M. McPeek.  Differential dispersal tendencies among Enallagma damselflies (Odonata) inhabiting different habitats , 1989 .

[6]  B. Malmqvist.  Downstream drift in Madeiran Levadas: tests of hypotheses relating to the influence of predators on the drift of insects , 1988 .

[7]  Raymond D. Semlitsch,et al.  Effects of visual, chemical and tactile cues of fish on the behavioural responses of tadpoles , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  Anne E. Magurran,et al.  The inheritance and development of minnow anti-predator behaviour , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  J. Pijanowska.  Diel vertical migration in zooplankton: fixed or inducible behavior? , 1993 .

[10]  M. McPeek.  Behavioral Differences between Enallagma Species (Odonata) Influencing Differential Vulnerability to Predators , 1990 .

[11]  J. Travis,et al.  The Role of Abiotic Factors in Community Organization , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[12]  R. D. Semlitsch,et al.  Modification of anti-predator behaviour in tadpoles by environmental conditioning , 1992 .

[13]  G. Grossman,et al.  Stochasticity in Structural and Functional Characteristics of an Indiana Stream Fish Assemblage: A Test of Community Theory , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[14]  B. Peckarsky,et al.  Diel Feeding and Positioning Periodicity of a Grazing Mayfly in a Trout Stream and a Fishless Stream , 1994 .

[15]  J. Culp,et al.  Foraging and evading predators: the effect of predator species on a behavioural trade-off by a lotic mayfly , 1994 .

[16]  J. Allan,et al.  Predator-Prey Relationships in Streams , 1983 .

[17]  S. Kohler.  Identification of stream drift mechanisms: an experimental and observational approach , 1985 .

[18]  A. Bouskila,et al.  Rules of Thumb for Predation Hazard Assessment: Predictions from a Dynamic Model , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[19]  William E. Neill,et al.  Population variation in the ontogeny of predator-induced vertical migration of copepods , 1992, Nature.

[20]  S. Dodson.  Predator-induced Reaction NormsCyclic changes in shape and size can be protective , 1989 .

[21]  A. Flecker.  Fish Predation and The Evolution of Invertebrate Drift Periodicity: Evidence from Neotropical Streams , 1992 .

[22]  J. Culp,et al.  Size-dependent diel foraging periodicity of a mayfly grazer in streams with and without fish , 1993 .

[23]  S. Juliano,et al.  The Relationship between Vulnerability to Predation and Behavior of Larval Treehole Mosquitoes: Geographic and Ontogenetic Differences , 1992 .

[24]  B. Heise.  Sensitivity of mayfly nymphs to red light: implications for behavioural ecology , 1992 .

[25]  C. Townsend,et al.  Interpopulation variation in mayfly antipredator tactics: differential effects of contrasting predatory fish , 1994 .

[26]  S. Dodson,et al.  THE EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY OF AN ANTIPREDATOR REACTION NORM: DAPHNIA PULEX AND CHAOBORUS AMERICANUS , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  J. Allan,et al.  Trout predation and the size composition of stream drift 1 , 1978 .

[28]  A. Sih,et al.  Predator-prey interactions among fish and larval amphibians: use of chemical cues to detect predatory fish , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  F. Huntingford,et al.  Predation risk and inter-population variation in antipredator behaviour in the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. , 1984, Animal Behaviour.