IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v26y2015i1p178-184..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cue choice and spatial learning ability are affected by habitat complexity in intertidal gobies

Author

Listed:
  • Gemma E. White
  • Culum Brown

Abstract

Variation in the structural complexity of a habitat is known to have significant affects on the evolution of different populations and can shape behavior, morphology, and life-history traits. Here, we investigated whether habitat complexity influences a species’ capacity for spatial learning and cue choice by comparing the performance of 4 goby species from 2 contrasting habitats in a spatial task. Gobies were collected from dynamic, homogenous sandy shores and stable, spatially complex rock pool habitats. We trained fish to use a T-maze to find a hidden reward and asked whether they used local visual landmarks or body-centered methods for orientation (i.e. turn direction) to do so. It was expected that fish from rock pools would learn the spatial task much faster and use different orientation cues than fish from sandy shores. We found that rock pool species learnt the location of the reward arm much faster, made fewer errors and used both types of cues available (visual landmarks and turn direction) to locate the reward, whereas sand species relied on turn direction significantly more than plant landmarks to orientate. The results of this study provide support for the hypothesis that the spatial complexity of habitats in marine environments has a significant effect on the evolution of fish cognition.

Suggested Citation

  • Gemma E. White & Culum Brown, 2015. "Cue choice and spatial learning ability are affected by habitat complexity in intertidal gobies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 178-184.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:178-184.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru178
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:178-184.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.