Response of juvenile rainbow trout to varying concentrations of chemical alarm cue: response thresholds and survival during encounters with predators

138 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Chemical ecology of predator–prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectusThe present review is one in the special series of reviews on animal–plant interactions. (2010, unknown): “Overall, responses to chemical alarm cues have been shown to have survival benefits for the prey (Mathis and Smith 1993b; Wisenden et al. 1999; Mirza and Chivers 2003a; but for an exception see McCarthy and Dickey 2002).”
The dynamic nature of antipredator behavior: prey fish integrate threat-sensitive antipredator responses within background levels of predation risk (2006, background): “…(i.e., intensity of predator avoidance is proportional to alarm cue concentration (Jachner and Rydz 2002; Dupuch et al. 2004; Zhao and Chivers 2005) or a nongraded or “hypersensitive” (Helfman and Winkelman 1997) response (i.e., Brown et al. 2001b; Mirza and Chivers 2003; Roh et al. 2004).”
Effects of group size on the threat-sensitive response to varying concentrations of chemical alarm cues by juvenile convict cichlids (2006, methodology): “…showing nongraded threat-sensitive responses have typically tested single individuals (fathead minnows, Lawrence and Smith 1989; rainbow trout, Mirza and Chivers 2003) or relatively small shoal sizes (cichlids, Roh et al. 2004; pumpkinseed, Marcus and Brown 2003; fathead minnows, Brown et al.…”