DOI: 10.5061/dryad.rv15dv4cc
title: Acquired predator recognition via epidermal alarm cues but not dietary alarm cues by isolated pupfish

description: We tested whether Shoshone pupfish Cyprinodon nevadensis shoshone and
 Amargosa River pupfish C. n. amargosae respond behaviourally to
 conspecific chemical alarm cues released when epidermal tissue is damaged
 by a predator. We found that both subspecies reduced activity and
 vertical position in the water column in response to alarm cues. We then
 tested if pupfish can use alarm cues to acquire recognition of a
 novel predator. We trained pupfish with (1) water + odour of largemouth
 bass fed a diet of earthworms, (2) alarm cues from skin extract (epidermal
 alarm cues) + odour of bass fed a diet of earthworms, or (3)
 water + odour of bass fed a diet of pupfish (dietary alarm cues). Pupfish
 responded to epidermal alarm cues but not to dietary alarm cues.
 Pupfish were retested with the odour of bass that were fed an earthworm
 diet. Pupfish that had previously received epidermal alarm cues
 reduced vertical position and activity relative to the other two
 treatments. This is the first demonstration of acquired
 recognition of a novel predator by a pupfish, the first report of partial
 predator naiveté, and opens the possibility of
 predator-recognition training as a tool for management and
 conservation of endangered desert fishes.
description: Behavioral observation of fish in lab aquaria.
 Statistical treatments are described in the manuscript.
description: Microsoft Excel.
description: # Acquired predator recognition via epidermal alarm cues but not dietary
 alarm cues by isolated pupfish ## Description of the data and file
 structure There are two data files. The first file WIsenden et bal pupfish
 alarm reactions contains data from the first experiment testing alarm
 reactions by Amargosa and Shoshone pupfish to conspecific alarm cues
 derived from skin extract. Column headings are: * Subspecies = which
 subspecies was being tested, either Shoshone pupfish *Cyprinodon
 nevadensis shoshone*, of Amargosa River pupfish, *C.n. amargosae* * Am1Sh2
 = the treatment code used by the stats package to identify which
 subspecies was tested * Treatment = which chemical cue was added to the
 tank, which was either consubspecific alarm cue derived from skin extract,
 or water (control) * Specific treatment = the treatment in text rather
 than number code * Pre_Activity = The number of grid lines crossed in the
 5-min pre-stimulus observation period * Post_Activity = The number of grid
 lines crossed in the 5-min post-stimulus period after the test cue was
 added * PreVert_Total = pre-stimulus score of vertical distribution using
 the grid drawn on the front of the tank. This is total of observations
 taken every 10 s for 5 min. After revision, we changed the analysis to the
 average grid position from 1-5. * PostVert_Total = post-stimulus vertical
 distribution score, summed over the 5 min. Data reported in the revised ms
 used the average score. * Sex: F for female and M for Male * TL_mm = total
 length in mm * Notes: stuff that happened The second file Wisenden et al.
 SH Learning contains the data from the second experiment testing if
 Shoshone pupfish could use alarm cues to acquire recognition of the odor
 of a novel predator. Behaviors recorded for both experiments were changes
 in activity and vertical distribution before (PreAct, PreVD) and after
 (PostAct, PostVD) introduction of test cue. All the other column headings
 are intuitive, to us, but just in case, here they are: * Conditioning date
 = the date mm/dd/yy when the conditioning trial was conducted. *
 Conditioning trial = the number assigned to the trial * Conditioning
 treatment = the combination of cues presented to pupfish during the trial.
 The odor of largemouth bass fed a diet of earthworms (to control for diet
 effects) + alarm cue derived from pupfish skin, bass odor (earthworm diet)
 + water to control for previous exposure to bass odor, and bass odor on a
 pupfish diet, which potentially contains dietary alarm cues. *
 TreatmentEpi1W2Diet3 = numerical codes for the three treatments in the
 conditioning trials * Cond_ ** = values from conditioning trials * Test_
 ** = values from test trials when each fish was retested with bass odor
 (earthworm diet) * VD = vertical distribution scored as the horizontal row
 in the grid occupied by the fish either before (pre) or after (post)
 exposure to the cue. Note that after revision we switched from using the
 total scores to using the average scores * Act = activity scored by the
 number of grid lines crossed in each 5-min observation period either
 before (pre) or after (post) exposure to cue * Sex: either female or male
 * Length = total length in cm, converted to mm during analysis * Notes =
 stuff that happened. For example, we ran out of Shoshone males and had to
 complete the expt using Amargosa males, as indicated