Comparing the non-lethal and lethal effects of predation risk ‬on goldfish anti-predatory behavior

References

• Agrawal AA. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science. 294:321–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amano M, IiGo M, Yamamori K, 2005. Effects of feeding time on approaching behavior to food odor in goldfish. Fish Sci. 71:183–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosnan SF, Early RL, Dugatkin LA. 2003. Observational learning and predator inspection in Guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology. 109:823–833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JS. 1992. Patch use under predation risk: I. Models Predictions. 29:301–309.
   Google Scholar
• Brown JS. 1988. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 22:37–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal. 80:385–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JS, Mitchell WA. 1989. Diet selection on depletable resources. Oikos. 54:33–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JS, Kotler BP. 2004. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett. 7:999–1014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnov EL. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 9:129–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cresswell W. 2008. Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. Ibis. 150:3–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugatkin LA. 1988. Do guppies play TIT FOR TAT during predator inspection visits? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 23:395–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugatkin LA, Godin J-GJ. 1992. Predator inspection, shoaling and foraging under predation hazard in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulate. Environ Biol Fish. 34:265–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop R. 2006. Avoidance learning in goldfish (Carassius auratus) and trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and implications for pain perception. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 97:255–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawlena D, Strickland MS, Bradford MA, Schmitz OJ. 2012. Fear of predation slows plant-litter decomposition. Sci. 336:1434–1438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeinghaus DJ, Pelicice FM. 2010. Lethal and nonlethal effects of predators on stream fish species and assemblages: a synthesis of predation experimen. Am Fish Soc Symp. 73:619–648.
   Google Scholar
• Holopainen IJ, Tonn WM, Paszkowski CA. 1997. Tales of two fish: the dichotomous biology of crucian carp (Carassius carassius (L.)) in northern Europe. Ann Zool Fenn. 34:1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Hugie DM. 2003. The waiting game: a “battle of waits” between predator and prey. Behav Ecol. 14:807–817.
   Google Scholar
• Hugie DM, Dill LM. 1994. Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J Fish Biol. 45:151–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummel RE. 2011. Electronic properties of materials. New York (NY): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ingrum J, Nordell S, Dole J. 2010. Effects of habitat complexity and group size on perceived predation risk in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Ethology Ecol Evol. 22:119–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kacelnik A, Krebs JR, Bernstein C. 1992. The ideal free distribution and predator-prey populations. Trends Ecol Evol. 7:50–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz MW, Abramsky Z, Kotler B, Altstein O, Rosenzweig ML. 2010. Playing the waiting game: predator and prey in a test environment. Evol Ecol Res. 12:793–801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz M, Abramsky Z, Kotler B, Rosenzweig M, Alteshtein O, and Vasserman G. 2013. Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment. Am Naturalist. 181:381–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz MW, Abramsky Z, Kotler BP,, Roth I, Althestein O, Rosenzweig ML. 2014. A predator–prey behavioral game: how does number of food patches influence foraging tactics? Evol Ecol Res. 16:1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushlan JA. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. In: Sprunt IV, Ogden JC, Winckler S, editors. Wading birds. New York, NY: National Audubon Society; p. 249–297.
   Google Scholar
• Laundre JW, Hernandez L, Ripple WJ. 2010. The landscape of fear: ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol J. 3:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Lima SL. 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Stress Behav. 27:215–290.
   Google Scholar
• Lima SL. 2002. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:70–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lima SL, Dill LM. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool. 68:619–640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magurran A. 1984. Gregarious goldfish. New Scientist. 103:32–33.
   Google Scholar
• Magurran A, Girling SL. 1986. Predator model recognition and response habituation in shoaling minnows. Anim Behav. 34:510–518.
   Google Scholar
• Morin PJ. 2011. Communities, in community ecology, 2nd Ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson EH, Matthews CE, Rosenheim JA. 2004. Predators reduce prey population growth by inducing changes in prey behavior. Ecology. 85:1853–1858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peacor SD, Werner EE. 2001. The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:3904–3908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitcher T, Magurran A. 1983. Shoal size, patch profitability and information exchange in foraging goldfish. Anim Behav. 31:546–555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preisser EL, Bolnick DJ, Benard MF. 2005. Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology. 86:501–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenzweig ML, Macarthur RH. 1963. Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Am Nat. 97:209–223.
   Google Scholar
• Sih A. 1980. Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Sci. 210:1041–1043.
   Google Scholar
• Sih A. 1982. Optimal patch use: variations in selective pressure for efficient foraging. Am Nat. 120:666–685.
   Google Scholar
• Sih A. 1997. To hide or not to hide? Refuge use in a fluctuating environment. Trends Ecol Evol. 12:375–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenberg M, Persson A. 2005. The effects of spatial food distribution and group size on foraging behaviour in a benthic fish. Behav processes. 70:41–50.
   Google Scholar
• Stiling P. 2002. Potential non-target effects of a biological control agent, prickly pear moth, cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in North America, and possible management actions. Biol Invasions. 4:273–281.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor RJ. 1984. Predation. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Vargas JP, López JC, Salas C, Thinus-Blan C. 2004. Encoding of geometric and featural spatial information by goldfish (Carassius auratus). J Comp Psychol. 118:206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir LK, Grant JWA. 2004. The causes of resource monopolization: interaction between resource dispersion and mode of competition. Ethology. 110:63–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida M, Nagamine M, Uematsu K. 2005. Comparison of behavioral responses to a novel environment between three teleosts, bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, crucian carp Carassius langsdorfii, and goldfish Carassius auratus. Fish Sci. 71:314–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar