Skip to main content
Log in

You Are What you Eat: a Metabolomics Approach to Understanding Prey Responses to Diet-Dependent Chemical Cues Released by Predators

  • Published:
Journal of Chemical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prey responses to predator cues are graded in intensity in accordance with the degree of threat presented by the predator. In systems in which prey gather information on predators by using chemicals, prey often respond more to the odor of predators that have consumed conspecifics, as opposed to heterospecifics. We investigated the response of a prey species, the mud crab, Panopeus herbstii, to urine of blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, fed mud crabs or oysters. Behavioral analysis was combined with metabolomics to characterize bioactive deterrents in the urine of predators fed different diets. Urine from blue crabs fed oysters or mud crabs depressed mud crab foraging when presented singly, with the urine derived from a mud crab diet being more potent. The magnitude of foraging depression increased with urine concentration. When urine from blue crabs fed oysters or mud crabs was combined, response to the urine mixture was no different from that to urine derived only from a mud crab diet. Metabolomics analysis indicated diet-dependent differences were related to a set of shared spectral features that differed in concentration in the respective urines, likely consisting of aromatic compounds, amino acids, and lipids. Taken together, these results suggest mud crabs distinguish diet of, and therefore the risk imposed by, predators through detection of a suite of compounds that together represent what the predator has recently consumed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Breithaupt T, Thiel M (eds) (2011) Chemical communication in crustaceans. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryer PJ, Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2001) Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by slimy sculpins, Cottus cognathus: responses to alarm, disturbance, and predator cues. J Chem Ecol 27:533–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buck LB (1996) Information coding in the vertebrate olfactory system. Annu Rev Neurosci 19:517–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carr WES, Netherton JC III, Gleeson RA, Derby CD (1996) Stimulants of feeding behavior in fish: analysis of tissues of diverse marine organisms. Biol Bull 190:149–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers DP, Mirza RS (2001) Importance of predator diet cues in responses of larval wood frogs to fish and invertebrate predators. J Chem Ecol 27:45–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator-prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5:338–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers DP, Wisenden BD, Smith RJF (1996) Damselfly larvae learn to recognize predators from chemical cues in the predator’s diet. Anim Behav 52:315–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel PC, Derby CD (1988) Behavioral olfactory discrimination of mixtures in the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) based on a habituation paradigm. Chem Senses 13:385–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derby CD, Atema J (1988) Chemoreceptor cells in aquatic invertebrates: peripheral mechanisms of chemical signal processing in decapod crustaceans. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds) Sensory biology of aquatic animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 365–385

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Derby CD, Sorensen PW (2008) Neural processing, perception, and behavioral responses to natural chemical stimuli by fish and crustaceans. J Chem Ecol 34:898–914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dicke M, Grostal P (2001) Chemical detection of natural enemies by arthropods: an ecological perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieterle F, Ross A, Schlotterbek G, Senn H (2006) Probabilistic quotient normalization as robust method to account for dilution of complex biological mixtures. Application in 1 H NMR metabonomics. Anal Chem 78:4281–4290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferland-Raymond B, March RE, Metcalfe CD, Murray DL (2010) Prey detection of aquatic predators: assessing the identity of chemical cues eliciting prey behavioral plasticity. Biochem Sys Ecol 38:169–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Günther UL, Ludwig C, Rüterjans H (2000) NMRLAB—advanced NMR data processing in Matlab. J Magn Reson 145:201–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henry RP, Lucu C, Weihraunh D (2012) Multiple functions of the crustacean gill: osmotic/ionic regulation, acid-base balance, ammonia excretion, and bioaccumulation of toxic metals. Front Physiol 3:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill JM, Weissburg MJ (2013a) Habitat complexity and predator size mediate interactions between intraguild blue crab predators and mud crab prey in oyster reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 488:209–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill JM, Weissburg MJ (2013b) Predator biomass determines the magnitude of non-consumptive effects (NCEs) in both laboratroy and field environments. Oecologia 171:427–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill J, Weissburg M (2014) Crabs interpret the threat of predator body size and biomass via cue concentration and diet. Anim Behav 92:117–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Large SI, Smee DL (2010) Type and nature of cues used by Nucella lapillus to evaluate predation risk. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 396:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lass S, Spaak P (2003) Chemically induced anti-predator defences in plankton: a review. Hydrobiologia 491:221–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurila A, Kujasalo J, Ranta E (1997) Different antipredator behaviour in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:329–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurila A, Kujasalo J, Ranta E (1998) Predator-induced changes in life history in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Oikos 83:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lignot JH, Charmantier G (2015) Osmoregulation and excretion. In: Chang ES, Thiel M (eds) Natural history of crustaceans, physiology, vol Vol IV. Cambridge University Press, NY

    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

  • Livermore A, Hutson M, Ngo V, Hadjisimos R, Derby CD (1996) Elemental and configural learning and the perception of odorant mixtures by the spiny lobster Panulirus argus. Physiol Behav 62:169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minks AK, Roelofs WL, Ritter JE, Persoons CJ (1973) Reproductive isolation of two tortricid moth species by different ratios of a two component sex attractant. Science 180:1073–1074

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons HM, Ludwig MR, Günther UL, Viant MR (2007) Improved classification accuracy in 1- and 2-dimensional NMR metabolomics data using the variance stabilising generalised logarithm transformation. BMC Bioinformatics 8:234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Poulson-Ellestad K, Jones C, Roy J, Viant MR, Fernandez F, Kubanek J, Nunn B (2014) Metabolomics and proteomics reveal impacts of chemically mediated competition on marine plankton. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:9009–9014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preisser EL, Orrock JL, Schmitz OJ (2007) Predator hunting mode and habitat domain alter nonconsumptive effects in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 88:2744–2751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Relyea RA (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84:1827–1838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Relyea RA (2004) Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85:172–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer A, Smee DL (2016) A review of predator diet effects on prey defensive responses. Chemoecology 26:83–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smee DL, Weissburg MJ (2006a) Claming up: environmental forces diminish the perceptive ability of bivalve prey. Ecology 87:1587–1598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smee DL, Weissburg MJ (2006b) Hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) evaluate predation risk using chemical signals from predators and injured conspecifics. J Chem Ecol 32:605–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner AM (2008) Predator diet and prey behavior: freshwater snails discriminate among closely related prey in a predator's diet. Anim Behav 76:1211–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner AM, Montgomery SL (2003) Spatial and temporal scales of predator avoidance: experiments with fish and snails. Ecology 84:616–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voigt R, Atema J (1992) Tuning of chemoreceptor cells of the 2nd antenna of the American lobster (Homarus-Americanus) with a comparison of 4 of its other chemoreceptor organs. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 171:673–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissburg M, Beauvais J (2015) The smell of success: the amount of prey consumed by predators determines the strength and range of cascading non-consumptive effects. Peer J 3:e1426

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Weissburg MJ, Smee DL, Ferner MC (2014) The sensory ecology of non-consumptive effects. Amer Nat 182:141–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Jessica Pruett and Jeff Beauvais were instrumental in collecting urine and animals used during the course of this study and their efforts are greatly appreciated. Martha Schenk and Matthew Tounzen contributed enormously during the early phases of this study, and were supported by the REU program in Aquatic Chemical Ecology at GT. This work was supported by NSF Bio-OCE #1234449 to MJW and JK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Weissburg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weissburg, M., Poulin, R.X. & Kubanek, J. You Are What you Eat: a Metabolomics Approach to Understanding Prey Responses to Diet-Dependent Chemical Cues Released by Predators. J Chem Ecol 42, 1037–1046 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0771-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0771-2

Keywords

Navigation