The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
Identifieur interne : 001148 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001147; suivant : 001149The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
Auteurs : A. J. W. Ward ; J. Krause ; P. J. B. HartSource :
- Journal of Fish Biology [ 0022-1112 ] ; 2003-12.
Abstract
A number of recent papers have investigated the potential of familiarity to organize the distributions of free‐ranging animals. It is not clear, however, to which extent individual recognition or a more general recognition of a group odour is responsible for familiarity preferences. First, we tested the sensory basis of the recognition of familiars in three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). When allowed to choose between a familiar and an unfamiliar stimulus shoal on the basis of both visual and chemical communication, visual communication only and chemical communication only, the preference of focal fish for familiars was shown to be dependent on the presence of chemical cues. We subsequently investigated the mechanisms underlying such association preferences, specifically the effects of recent habitat and diet on preferences. Experimental fish were divided into four treatment groups consisting of two environment treatments (saline and freshwater) and two diet treatments (Daphnia spp. and chironimid larvae). Focal fish subsequently showed significant association preferences for groups of unfamiliar fish that had undergone the same environment or diet treatment as themselves, suggesting self‐referent matching. These data indicate that individual recognition is not a pre‐requisite for the expression of familiarity preferences.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.216ao.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)</title><author><name sortKey="Ward, A J W" sort="Ward, A J W" uniqKey="Ward A" first="A. J. W." last="Ward">A. J. W. Ward</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Krause, J" sort="Krause, J" uniqKey="Krause J" first="J." last="Krause">J. Krause</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>2School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hart, P J B" sort="Hart, P J B" uniqKey="Hart P" first="P. J. B." last="Hart">P. J. B. Hart</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.216ao.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001148</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001148</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)</title><author><name sortKey="Ward, A J W" sort="Ward, A J W" uniqKey="Ward A" first="A. J. W." last="Ward">A. J. W. Ward</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Krause, J" sort="Krause, J" uniqKey="Krause J" first="J." last="Krause">J. Krause</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>2School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hart, P J B" sort="Hart, P J B" uniqKey="Hart P" first="P. J. B." last="Hart">P. J. B. Hart</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Fish Biology</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno><idno type="eISSN">1095-8649</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12">2003-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">63</biblScope><biblScope unit="supplement">s1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="244">244</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="244">244</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno></series><idno type="istex">9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.216ao.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JFB216AO</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-1112</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">A number of recent papers have investigated the potential of familiarity to organize the distributions of free‐ranging animals. It is not clear, however, to which extent individual recognition or a more general recognition of a group odour is responsible for familiarity preferences. First, we tested the sensory basis of the recognition of familiars in three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). When allowed to choose between a familiar and an unfamiliar stimulus shoal on the basis of both visual and chemical communication, visual communication only and chemical communication only, the preference of focal fish for familiars was shown to be dependent on the presence of chemical cues. We subsequently investigated the mechanisms underlying such association preferences, specifically the effects of recent habitat and diet on preferences. Experimental fish were divided into four treatment groups consisting of two environment treatments (saline and freshwater) and two diet treatments (Daphnia spp. and chironimid larvae). Focal fish subsequently showed significant association preferences for groups of unfamiliar fish that had undergone the same environment or diet treatment as themselves, suggesting self‐referent matching. These data indicate that individual recognition is not a pre‐requisite for the expression of familiarity preferences.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>A. J. W. Ward</name><affiliations><json:string>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>J. Krause</name><affiliations><json:string>2School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.).</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>P. J. B. Hart</name><affiliations><json:string>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>JFB216AO</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>abstract</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>A number of recent papers have investigated the potential of familiarity to organize the distributions of free‐ranging animals. It is not clear, however, to which extent individual recognition or a more general recognition of a group odour is responsible for familiarity preferences. First, we tested the sensory basis of the recognition of familiars in three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). When allowed to choose between a familiar and an unfamiliar stimulus shoal on the basis of both visual and chemical communication, visual communication only and chemical communication only, the preference of focal fish for familiars was shown to be dependent on the presence of chemical cues. We subsequently investigated the mechanisms underlying such association preferences, specifically the effects of recent habitat and diet on preferences. Experimental fish were divided into four treatment groups consisting of two environment treatments (saline and freshwater) and two diet treatments (Daphnia spp. and chironimid larvae). Focal fish subsequently showed significant association preferences for groups of unfamiliar fish that had undergone the same environment or diet treatment as themselves, suggesting self‐referent matching. These data indicate that individual recognition is not a pre‐requisite for the expression of familiarity preferences.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.78</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>488 x 703 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1358</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>17483</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>110276</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>34</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>190</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)</title><genre><json:string>abstract</json:string></genre><host><volume>63</volume><publisherId><json:string>JFB</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>1</total><last>244</last><first>244</first></pages><issn><json:string>0022-1112</json:string></issn><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1095-8649</json:string></eissn><title>Journal of Fish Biology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>marine & freshwater biology</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>applied sciences</json:string><json:string>agriculture, fisheries & forestry</json:string><json:string>fisheries</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.216ao.x</json:string></doi><id>9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068</id><score>0.03232246</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2003</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">A. J. W.</forename><surname>Ward</surname></persName><affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">J.</forename><surname>Krause</surname></persName><affiliation>2School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.).</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">P. J. B.</forename><surname>Hart</surname></persName><affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Fish Biology</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-1112</idno><idno type="eISSN">1095-8649</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12"></date><biblScope unit="volume">63</biblScope><biblScope unit="supplement">s1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="244">244</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="244">244</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.216ao.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JFB216AO</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2003</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>A number of recent papers have investigated the potential of familiarity to organize the distributions of free‐ranging animals. It is not clear, however, to which extent individual recognition or a more general recognition of a group odour is responsible for familiarity preferences. First, we tested the sensory basis of the recognition of familiars in three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). When allowed to choose between a familiar and an unfamiliar stimulus shoal on the basis of both visual and chemical communication, visual communication only and chemical communication only, the preference of focal fish for familiars was shown to be dependent on the presence of chemical cues. We subsequently investigated the mechanisms underlying such association preferences, specifically the effects of recent habitat and diet on preferences. Experimental fish were divided into four treatment groups consisting of two environment treatments (saline and freshwater) and two diet treatments (Daphnia spp. and chironimid larvae). Focal fish subsequently showed significant association preferences for groups of unfamiliar fish that had undergone the same environment or diet treatment as themselves, suggesting self‐referent matching. These data indicate that individual recognition is not a pre‐requisite for the expression of familiarity preferences.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2003-12">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-02-8">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</doi><issn type="print">0022-1112</issn><issn type="electronic">1095-8649</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JFB"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY">Journal of Fish Biology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12000"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jfb.2003.63.issue-s1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="63">63</numbering><numbering type="supplement">s1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2003-12">December 2003</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="abstract" position="0024400" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.216ao.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JFB216AO"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="1"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Abstracts of Oral Papers not published in the Supplement</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2003-12-19"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2003-12-19"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-02-28"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="244">244</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="244">244</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JFB.JFB216ao.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="0"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (<i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i>)</title><title type="shortAuthors"><sc>Paper Abstracts</sc></title><title type="short"><sc>Paper Abstracts</sc></title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a128"><personName><givenNames>A. J. W.</givenNames><familyName>Ward</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a129"><personName><givenNames>J.</givenNames><familyName>Krause</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a128"><personName><givenNames>P. J. B.</givenNames><familyName>Hart</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a128"><unparsedAffiliation>(<sup>1</sup>Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a129"><unparsedAffiliation><sup>2</sup>School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.).</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>A number of recent papers have investigated the potential of familiarity to organize the distributions of free‐ranging animals. It is not clear, however, to which extent individual recognition or a more general recognition of a group odour is responsible for familiarity preferences. First, we tested the sensory basis of the recognition of familiars in three‐spined stickleback (<i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i>). When allowed to choose between a familiar and an unfamiliar stimulus shoal on the basis of both visual and chemical communication, visual communication only and chemical communication only, the preference of focal fish for familiars was shown to be dependent on the presence of chemical cues. We subsequently investigated the mechanisms underlying such association preferences, specifically the effects of recent habitat and diet on preferences. Experimental fish were divided into four treatment groups consisting of two environment treatments (saline and freshwater) and two diet treatments (<i>Daphnia</i> spp. and chironimid larvae). Focal fish subsequently showed significant association preferences for groups of unfamiliar fish that had undergone the same environment or diet treatment as themselves, suggesting self‐referent matching. These data indicate that individual recognition is not a pre‐requisite for the expression of familiarity preferences.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Paper Abstracts</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A. J. W.</namePart><namePart type="family">Ward</namePart><affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Krause</namePart><affiliation>2School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.).</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P. J. B.</namePart><namePart type="family">Hart</namePart><affiliation>(1Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH U.K.;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="abstract" displayLabel="abstract"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2003-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">A number of recent papers have investigated the potential of familiarity to organize the distributions of free‐ranging animals. It is not clear, however, to which extent individual recognition or a more general recognition of a group odour is responsible for familiarity preferences. First, we tested the sensory basis of the recognition of familiars in three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). When allowed to choose between a familiar and an unfamiliar stimulus shoal on the basis of both visual and chemical communication, visual communication only and chemical communication only, the preference of focal fish for familiars was shown to be dependent on the presence of chemical cues. We subsequently investigated the mechanisms underlying such association preferences, specifically the effects of recent habitat and diet on preferences. Experimental fish were divided into four treatment groups consisting of two environment treatments (saline and freshwater) and two diet treatments (Daphnia spp. and chironimid larvae). Focal fish subsequently showed significant association preferences for groups of unfamiliar fish that had undergone the same environment or diet treatment as themselves, suggesting self‐referent matching. These data indicate that individual recognition is not a pre‐requisite for the expression of familiarity preferences.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Fish Biology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0022-1112</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1095-8649</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1095-8649</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JFB</identifier><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>63</number></detail><detail type="supplement"><caption>Suppl. no.</caption><number>s1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>244</start><end>244</end><total>1</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1095-8649.2003.216ao.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JFB216AO</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Science Ltd/Inc</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Eau/explor/EsturgeonV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001148 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001148 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Eau
|area= EsturgeonV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:9BBE4A469AEA1B96B0C04A4B62D8B78B9BDFA068
|texte= The effects of habitat‐ and diet‐based cues on association preferences in the three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.27. |  |