Ecology of sound communication in fishes

Fishes communicate acoustically under ecological constraints which may modify or hinder signal transmission and detection and may also be risky. This makes it important to know if and to what degree fishes can modify acoustic signalling when key ecological factors—predation pressure, noise and ambient temperature—vary. This paper reviews short‐time effects of the first two factors; the third has been reviewed recently (Ladich, 2018 ). Numerous studies have investigated the effects of predators on fish behaviour, but only a few report changes in calling activity when hearing predator calls as demonstrated when fish responded to played‐back dolphin sounds. Furthermore, swimming sounds of schooling fish may affect predators. Our knowledge on adaptations to natural changes in ambient noise, for example caused by wind or migration between quiet and noisier habitats, is limited. Hearing abilities decrease when ambient noise levels increase (termed masking), in particular in taxa possessing enhanced hearing abilities. High natural and anthropogenic noise regimes, for example vessel noise, alter calling activity in the field and laboratory. Increases in sound pressure levels (Lombard effect) and altered temporal call patterns were also observed, but no switches to higher sound frequencies. In summary, effects of predator calls and noise on sound communication are described in fishes, yet sparsely in contrast to songbirds or whales. Major gaps in our knowledge on potential negative effects of noise on acoustic communication call for more detailed investigation because fishes are keystone species in many aquatic habitats and constitute a major source of protein for humans.     

Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and local risk assessment in prey fishes

An individual's behaviour patterns can be conceptualized as a series of threat‐sensitive trade‐offs between ambient predation pressure and a suite of fitness‐related activities, such as resource defence, foraging and mating. Individuals that can reliably assess local predation risk could increase their fitness potential by exhibiting predator avoidance behaviours only at appropriate times. However, such learned risk assessment requires reliable information regarding current predation risks. A diverse range of prey fishes are known to possess chemical alarm cues, which when detected by conspecifics and some heterospecifics, elicit a variety of overt and covert responses. These chemical cues, either alone or as a part of a predator's dietary odour, provide reliable information regarding local predation risk. In this review, I describe recent works examining the role of chemosensory information in: (i) acquired predator recognition, (ii) predator inspection behaviour and (iii) the use of conspecific and heterospecific cues as social information sources.     

Diet and trophic niche overlap of native and nonnative fishes in the Gila River,USA: implications for native fish conservation

Pilger TJ, Gido KB, Propst DL. Diet and trophic niche overlap of native and nonnative fishes in the Gila River, USA: implications for native fish conservation. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 2010: 19: 300–321. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S Abstract –  The upper Gila River basin is one of the few unimpounded drainage basins west of the Continental Divide, and as such is a stronghold for endemic fishes in the region. Nevertheless, multiple nonindigenous fishes potentially threaten the persistence of native fishes, and little is known of the trophic ecology of either native or nonnative fishes in this system. Gut contents and stable isotopes (¹³C and ¹⁵N) were used to identify trophic relationships, trophic niche overlap and evaluate potential interactions among native and nonnative fishes. Both native and nonnative fishes fed across multiple trophic levels. In general, adult native suckers had lower ¹⁵N signatures and consumed more algae and detritus than smaller native fish, including juvenile suckers. Adult nonnative smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) and two species of trout preyed on small‐bodied fishes and predaceous aquatic invertebrates leading to significantly higher trophic positions than small and large‐bodied native fishes. Thus, the presence of these nonnative fishes extended community food‐chain lengths by foraging at higher trophic levels. Although predation on juvenile native fishes might threaten persistence of native fishes, the high degree of omnivory suggests that impacts of nonnative predators may be lessened and dependent on environmental variability.