2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-015-2573-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of body color luminance and behavioral characteristics on predation risk in salmonid fishes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It can be inferred that the probability of branches impairing the predator's movement (e.g., Frampton et al 1995;Babbit and Tanner 1998) was actually low, mainly because the branches were floating or suspended, enabling the white-spotted charr, which usually swims at the bottom, to move freely. Another explanation for the results of this study could be that the white-spotted charr's behavior was simply in line with their previously recorded behavior, mainly referring to their natural preference for higher structural complexity (Miyamoto 2016). That is why two bunches (0.2 m 2 per 1.0 m 2 of pond bottom) did not effectively mitigate predation, probably as a consequence of reduced refuge space for prey, whereby safe areas become saturated and prey are pushed out into the open where they are more vulnerable to predation (Forrester and Steele 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It can be inferred that the probability of branches impairing the predator's movement (e.g., Frampton et al 1995;Babbit and Tanner 1998) was actually low, mainly because the branches were floating or suspended, enabling the white-spotted charr, which usually swims at the bottom, to move freely. Another explanation for the results of this study could be that the white-spotted charr's behavior was simply in line with their previously recorded behavior, mainly referring to their natural preference for higher structural complexity (Miyamoto 2016). That is why two bunches (0.2 m 2 per 1.0 m 2 of pond bottom) did not effectively mitigate predation, probably as a consequence of reduced refuge space for prey, whereby safe areas become saturated and prey are pushed out into the open where they are more vulnerable to predation (Forrester and Steele 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Additionally, predator avoidance behavior might be more relevant in situations where the predatory style is pursuit, instead of ambush (Flynn and Ritz 1999). Previous reports suggested that juvenile masu salmon will use an artificial shelter as part of their hiding behavior when exposed to predation stimuli (Miyamoto 2016;Miyamoto and Araki 2020). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that masu salmon often used structures for shelter in the current study as well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Kahilainen et al (2016a) contrast the visual pigments in the eyes of deep and shallow water-living morphs of Arctic charr and European whitefish, and showed significant differences between species that logically equate to differences in visual capacity under different light regimes. In contrast, Miyamoto (2016) investigated the effect of skin colouration on predation risk in White-spotted charr, contrasting risk with that of other related species. This work showed a clear functional link between colouration and predation risk.…”
Section: Evolutionary Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Colour patterns support differences in coping styles (Kittilsen et al, 2009; Brännäs et al, 2016) or in the physiological adjustments necessary to avoid predation and match with environmental variability (e.g. Miyamoto, 2016; Jacquin et al, 2017; Zastavniouk, Weir, & Fraser, 2017). In salmonids, pigmentation and colour are also known to interact with social hierarchies, to influence mate choice and affect fitness (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%