Fishermen Advocates: Disclosing Forgery in Fishing Industries




Main » 2012 » July » 5 » Olfactory behaviour of microsmatic fish, including Northern pike (Esox lucius)


5:44 PM
Olfactory behaviour of microsmatic fish, including Northern pike (Esox lucius)
Microsmatic fish are represented by species in which the well developed visual system provides most of the behavioural responses in comparison with the less developed chemosensory system (Devitsina & Malyukina, 1977). Visually guided diurnal or twilight predators, like Northern pike, Esox lucius, and other Esocidae, on the one hand, and visually guided planktoneaters, like Black Sea black-striped pipefish, Syngnathus nigrolineatus, and other Syngnathidae, on the second hand, form this group of fish (e.g., Doroshenko, 2008). In general, the chemosensory system of microsmatic fish provides first of all their reproductive behaviour, spatial migration, partially anti-predator behaviour and is weak or indifferent in providing feeding responses.

Data for microsmatic fish are given by many authors (Hara, 1975; Devitsina, 1977; Devitsina & Malyukina, 1977; Doroshenko, 1981, 2008).

Pike & Musky

According to data received by Devitsyna & Malyukina (1977) in the electrophysiological experiments, the olfactory system of pike, E. lucius, responds only to conspecific sexual pheromones (gonad extracts), but does not respond to conspecific odors, pure water and feeding substances like fish blood or tissue extracts.

In the behavioural experiments with pike, Nilsson & Brönmark (1999) have found that the chemical cues from the foraging conspecifics render only minor effects upon the foraging individuals.

In feeding behaviour, musky, E. masquinongy, use mainly vision and lateral sensory systems (New et al., 2001).

Pike larvae decrease the frequency of their attacks on zooplankters and show other anti-predator responses to chemical cues of Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis (Lehtiniemi, 2005; Lehtiniemi et al., 2005). Chemical cues of perch (water from under adult predators, 15 cm length, fed on pike larvae until experiments) affect alone, but chemical and visual cues offered together are more effective.

Furthermore, it is shown that pike are attracted by alarm pheromone of fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Mathis et al., 1995; Chivers et al., 1996; indirect data by Wisenden & Thiel, 2001). In addition, pike demonstrate distinct foraging responses to artificial hypoxanthin-3(N)-oxide (Mathis et al., 1995) identified as an active component of ostariophysan fish alarm pheromones.

The skin of esociformes represented by the foregoing pike, as well as blackfish and mudminnow, does not contain special cells with alarm pheromones (Pfeiffer, 1960; Wisenden et al., 2007) like special cells in the skin of ostariophysans and perciformes. In conformity with these data, pike, E. lucius, (recall that pike are large predatory fish) do not exhibit any alarm responses on conspecific skin extracts (Schutz, 1956). Activities of these extracts are registered at the central neural level of pike's olfactory system (Devitsyna & Malyukina, 1977), but this discrepancy with the foregoing data can be explained by the methodological features. Another esociform fish, central mudminnow, Umbra limi, (mudminnow are small chiefly benthivorous fish) exhibit distinct alarm responses to conspecific skin extracts (Wisenden et. al., 2007). In contrast to solitary pike, selection of mudminnow on respond to public chemical information (for review, see Wisenden & Chivers, 2006; Wisenden et al., 2007) may be determined by gregariousness of these fish, their small size and thus their vulnerability to predators.

Basic References

Chivers D.P., Brown G.E., Smith R.J.F. 1996. The evolution of chemical alarm signals: attracting predators benefits alarm signal senders. The American Naturalist 148, 649-659

Devitsyna G.V. 1977.  Comparative study of the olfactory analyser morphology in fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 129-139

Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502

Doroshenko M.A. 1981. Comparative morphometric analysis of the olfactory system in marine fishes. Russian Journal of Marine Biology 3, 3–14

Doroshenko M.A. 2008. Sensory differentiation of marine fishes on the olfactory groups in connection with their ecological specialization. World Ocean Researches: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, Far East State Technical Fishery University, Vladivostok, 32-35

Hara T.J. 1975. Olfaction in fish. Progress in Neurobiology 5, 271-335

Lehtiniemi M. 2005. Swim or hide: predator cues cause species specific reactions in young fish larvae. Journal of Fish Biology 66, 1285–1299

Lehtiniemi M., Engström-Öst J., Viitasalo M. 2005. Turbidity decreases anti-predator behaviour in pike larvae (Esox lucius). Environmental Biology of Fishes 37, 1-8

Liang X.F., Liu J.K., Huang B.Y. 1998. The role of sense organs in the feeding behaviour of Chinese perch. Journal of Fish Biology 52, 1058-1067

Mathis A., Chivers D.P., Smith R.J.F. 1995. Chemical alarm signals: predator detterents or predator attractants? The American Naturalist 145, 994-1005

New J.G., Fewkes L.A., Khan A.N. 2001. Strike feeding behavior in the muskellunge, Esox masquinongy: contributions of the lateral line and visual sensory systems. Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 1207-1221

Nilsson P.A., Brönmark C . 1999. Foraging among cannibals and kleptoparasites: effects of prey size on pike behavior. Behavioral Ecology 10, 557-566

Pfeiffer W. 1960. Über die Schreckreaktion bei Fischen und die Herkunft des Schreckstoffes. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie 43, 578–614

Schutz F. 1956. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die Schreckreaktion bei Fischen und deren Verbreitung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie 38, 84–135

Wisenden B.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422

Wisenden B.D., Chivers D.P. 2006. The role of public chemical information in antipredator behaviour. In: Communication in fishes. Edited by Ladich F., Collins S.P., Moller P., Kapoor B.G. New Hampshire, p. 259-278

Wisenden B.D., Karst J., Miller J., Miller S., Fuselier L. 2007. Anti-predator behaviour in response to conspecific chemical alarm cues in an esociform fish, Umbra limi (Kirtland 1840).  Environmental Biology of Fishes 82, 85-92

Category: Olfaction & Gustation | Views: 2340 | Added by: nickyurchenko | Tags: olfactory behaviour, microsmatic fish, musky, Esox lucius, Northern pike | Rating: 0.0/0





«  July 2012  »




  • Your Website Free
  • Customized Browsers