Disturbance cue communication is shaped by emitter diet and receiver background risk in Trinidadian guppies

Abstract

In animal communication systems, individuals that detect a cue (i.e., ‘receivers’) are often influenced by characteristics of the cue emitter. For instance, in many species, receivers avoid chemical cues that are released by emitters experiencing disturbance. These chemical ‘disturbance cues’ appear to benefit receivers by warning them about nearby danger, such as a predator’s approach. While the active ingredients in disturbance cues have been largely unexplored, by-products of metabolized protein are thought to play a role for some species. If so, the content (quality) and volume (quantity) of the emitter’s diet should affect their disturbance cues, thus altering how receivers perceive the cues and respond. Guppies Poecilia reticulata are a species known to discriminate among disturbance cues from different types of donors, but dietary variation has yet to be explored. In this study, we found evidence that diet quality and quantity can affect disturbance cues released by guppy emitters (i.e., experimental ‘donors’). Receivers discriminated between donor cue treatments, responding more strongly to cues from donors fed a protein-rich bloodworm diet (experiment 1), as well as an overall larger diet (experiment 2). We also found that receivers exposed to higher background risk were more sensitive to disturbance cue variation, with the strongest avoidance responses displayed by high-risk receivers toward disturbance cues from donors fed the high-quality diet. Therefore, diet, and perhaps protein specifically, affects either the concentration or composition of disturbance cues released by guppies. Such variation may be important in information signalling in social species like the guppy.

Chemical disturbance cues in aquatic systems: a review and prospectus

“…However, in a latter study, reagent-grade urea [CO(NH 2 ) 2 ] was found to elicit avoidance responses in both species, and at an intensity matching their responses to conspecific disturbance cues (Brown et al 2012). More recently, Goldman et al (2021) found support for the hypothesis that the disturbance cues of guppies are affected by diet. Receivers responded more intensely to disturbance cues from donors that were fed a protein-rich diet and an overall larger diet.…”

“…Brown et al (2010) observed responses to alarm cues in Trinidadian guppies that differed based on the donor population, suggesting that local diet specializations might drive populationspecificity in alarm cue production. Similarly, Goldman et al (2021) found that that diet quality and quantity influence disturbance cue production in guppies, which could similarly shape responses to conspecific vs. heterospecific disturbance cues.…”

Blue‐tailed skinks have predation‐dependent threat discrimination

“…While some previous studies of discrimination under different levels of background predation found greater discrimination at higher risk levels, these studies used stimuli that were related to predators of the respective study species (Burger & Gochfeld, 1990; Goldman et al, 2021). In the Burger and Gochfeld (1990) study, walking humans were the experimental treatment for black iguanas in a region where they were hunted by humans.…”

“…In the Burger and Gochfeld (1990) study, walking humans were the experimental treatment for black iguanas in a region where they were hunted by humans. In the Goldman et al (2021) study, guppies discriminated between alarm cues from conspecifics that warned of nearby danger. Similarly, polymorphic frogs ( Discoglossus galganoi ) were approached by plastic snake models to quantify FID (Zamora‐Camacho & Aragón, 2022).…”

“…Black iguanas from high human exposure areas, often subjected to human predation, can distinguish between direct and tangential approaches, whereas iguanas from no human exposure areas are less able (Burger & Gochfeld, 1990). Guppies experimentally exposed to higher levels of predation risk are better able to discriminate between disturbance cues chemically released by other guppies as a warning of nearby danger (Goldman et al, 2021). Furthermore, damselfish ( Pomacentrus chrysurus ) from a high predation risk environment had a higher intensity antipredator response to predator odor than fish from a low‐risk background following conditioning (Chivers et al, 2014).…”