DOCSLIB.ORG

Fishes in a Changing World: Learning from the Past To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fishes in a Changing World: Learning from the Past To http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in Journal of Fish Biology. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Gordon, T A., Harding, H R., Clever, F K., Davidson, I K., Davison, W. et al. (2018) Fishes in a changing world: learning from the past to promote sustainability of fish populations Journal of Fish Biology, 92(3): 804-827 https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13546 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-66874 Journal of Fish Biology (2018) 92, 804–827 doi:10.1111/jfb.13546, available online at wileyonlinelibrary.com Fishes in a changing world: learning from the past to promote sustainability of fish populations T. A. C. Gordon*#, H. R. Harding†‡#, F. K. Clever§, I. K. Davidson*, W. Davison*, D. W. Montgomery*, R. C. Weatherhead‖, F. M. Windsor¶, J. D. Armstrong**, A. Bardonnet††, E. Bergman‡‡, J. R. Britton§§, I. M. Côté‖‖, D. D’agostino¶¶, L. A. Greenberg‡‡, A. R. Harborne***, K. K. Kahilainen†††, N. B. Metcalfe‡‡‡, S. C. Mills§§§‖‖‖, N. J. Milner¶¶¶, F. H. Mittermayer****, L. Montorio††††, S. L. Nedelec*, J. M. Prokkola‡‡‡‡, L. A. Rutterford*, A. G. V. Salvanes§§§§, S. D. Simpson*, A. Vainikka‡‡‡‡,J.K.Pinnegar‖‖‖‖ and E. M. Santos* *Biosciences, University of Exeter, Geoffrey Pope Building, Stocker Road, Exeter, EX4 4QD, U.K., †School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TQ, U.K., §School of Science and the Environment, John Dalton Building, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, M1 5GD, Manchester, U.K., ‖Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS), Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Penglais, SY23 3DA, U.K., ¶School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, U.K., **Marine Scotland Science, Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory, Faskally, Pitlochry, PH16 5LB, U.K., ††ECOBIOP, UMR 1224, INRA, Univ. Pau & Pays Adour, Saint-Pée sur Nivelle, 64310, France, ‡‡Department of Environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, S-651 88, Karlstad, Sweden, §§Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, BH12 5BB, Poole, U.K., ‖‖Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada, ¶¶School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, U.K., ***Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, North Miami, Florida, 33181, U.S.A., †††Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, The Norwegian College of Fishery Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037, Tromsø, Norway, ‡‡‡Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, MVLS, University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, U.K., §§§CRIOBE USR 3278 EPHE-CNRS-UPVD PSL, BP, 1013 Moorea, 98729, French Polynesia, ‖‖‖Laboratoire d’Excellence “CORAIL”, France, ¶¶¶APEM Ltd, School of Biological Sciences, Bangor, LL57 2UW, Wales, U.K., ****Evolutionary Ecology of Marine Fishes, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105, Kiel, Germany, ††††ESE, Ecology and Ecosystem Health, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35042, Rennes, France, ‡‡‡‡Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 111, FI-80101, Joensuu, Finland, §§§§Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, PO Box 7803, 5020, Bergen, Norway and ‖‖‖‖Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, NR33 0HT, U.K. ‡Author Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: +44 117 394 1212; email: [email protected] #These authors contributed equally to this work. 804 © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Fish Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Fisheries Society of the British Isles. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. FISHES IN A CHANGING WORLD 805 Populations of fishes provide valuable services for billions of people, but face diverse and interacting threats that jeopardize their sustainability. Human population growth and intensifying resource use for food, water, energy and goods are compromising fish populations through a variety of mechanisms, including overfishing, habitat degradation and declines in water quality. The important challenges raised by these issues have been recognized and have led to considerable advances over past decades in managing and mitigating threats to fishes worldwide. In this review, we identify the major threats faced by fish populations alongside recent advances that are helping to address these issues. There are very significant efforts worldwide directed towards ensuring a sustainable future for the world’s fishes and fisheries and those who rely on them. Although considerable challenges remain, bydrawing attention to successful mitigation of threats to fish and fisheries we hope to provide the encouragement and direction that will allow these challenges to be overcome in the future. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Fish Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Fisheries Society of the British Isles. Key words: challenges; fish; fisheries; future; global change; sustainability. INTRODUCTION Fish populations are of immense global value, shaping ecosystem services for bil- lions of people worldwide (Holmlund & Hammer, 1999; Worm et al., 2006; Cooke et al., 2016). However, our planet is currently facing unprecedented environmental and societal changes that are having dramatic effects on fish and fisheries (Arthington et al., 2016; Waters et al., 2016). Understanding the probable scope of these changes is crucial in allowing us to develop mitigation strategies, manage fish populations, and minimize negative effects for those who rely on them. Moreover, the pivotal position of fishes in aquatic ecosystems renders them important indicators of environmental health (Graham et al., 2015; Lynch et al., 2016). Effective assessment and proactive manage- ment at the ecosystem level has the potential to considerably improve the resilience of aquatic ecosystems to global change, preventing potentially disastrous declines in fish populations (McCauley et al., 2015; Scheffer et al., 2015). The success of such man- agement relies on the ability to identify current and future threats to fishes and using past successes to develop effective tools for future mitigation strategies. This paper was envisioned during the 50th Anniversary Symposium of The Fish- eries Society of the British Isles at the University of Exeter, U.K., in July 2017, by a team of 30 biologists who were challenged to consider the greatest threats fish pop- ulations are facing and how we might ensure sustainability in the future. The authors discussed ideas focused on what threats fishes face today, what can be learnt from pre- vious successes, and how to best address future challenges. This paper was written as a collaborative endeavour, summarizing the outcomes of both this conference and relevant recent literature. We hope that it provides a useful review of current threats, an encouraging summary of recently-developed innovations and management options, and a forward-looking roadmap detailing future challenges facing fish populations worldwide and potential avenues for effective management and sustainability. ISSUES FACING FISHES TODAY Fishes in marine, transitional and freshwater habitats face a multitude of threats ultimately driven by increasing human populations (projected to reach 9·7 billion by 2050; United Nations, 2017) and intensifying resource use including for food provision © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Fish Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Fisheries Society of the British Isles. 2018, 92, 804–827 806 T. A. C. GORDON ET AL. Fitness consequences and population declines s ence Population and u Behavioural effects Reproductive effects Growth effects Physiological effects eq community effects s Con Phenological Predator-prey effects Genetic effects Habitat degradation Hypoxia disruption Changing Aquatic pH Thermal & Alien Emerging Pollution (chemical, noise, light, climates changes hydrological alteration species pathognes microplastic, nanoparticle) Elevated CO2 Increased Increased Agricultural Industrial Coastal & riverine levels fishing pressures aquaculture development development development Increased demand for resources (energy, goods, food, water) Human population growth s e us Ca Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure of threats facing fishes globally. Human population growth as a driver leadsto altered resource use and subsequently to fitness consequences and population declines by a wide rangeof varied and inter-linking mechanisms. (fishing, irrigation, agriculture, livestock production), energy production (hydropower, wind turbines, oil and gas drilling, fracking, biomass harvesting), water usage (drink- ing, sanitation, industry) and other goods (mining, forestry, river channelling). The accumulation of threats has resulted in unprecedented effects on ecosystems, with widespread population declines of fauna and extinctions across many taxa (Foley et al., 2011; Mueller et al., 2012; Young et al., 2016; Ceballos et al., 2017). These threats are manifested through
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preference and Motivation Tests for Body Tactile Stimulation in Fish
    animals Article Preference and Motivation Tests for Body Tactile Stimulation in Fish Ana Carolina dos Santos Gauy 1,2, Marcela Cesar Bolognesi 1,2, Guilherme Delgado Martins 1 and Eliane Gonçalves-de-Freitas 1,2,* 1 Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Rua Cristóvão Colombo, 2265, São José do Rio Preto 15054-000, SP, Brazil; [email protected] (A.C.d.S.G.); [email protected] (M.C.B.); [email protected] (G.D.M.) 2 CAUNESP—Centro de Aquicultura da UNESP, Jaboticabal 14884-900, SP, Brazil * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Body tactile stimulation, such as human massage therapy, is a way to relieve stress in humans and other animals, therefore it could improve animal health and welfare. This physical stimulation can also be done through artificial devices, as a sensory enrichment. However, before using it in an artificial environment, it is imperative to test whether animals perceive such enrichment as positive (searching for it spontaneously) or negative (avoiding it). Here, we tested whether the Nile tilapia fish search for or avoid tactile stimulation. We used a rectangular PVC frame, filled with vertical plastic sticks sided with silicone bristles that provided tactile stimulation when fish passed through them. We carried out preference and motivation tests, in which fish could choose to cross through the device with and without tactile stimulus. The same procedure was repeated after fish were exposed to either isolation or social stress. We found that fish crossed less by tactile device than by open areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Evolutionary Approach to Pain Perception in Fishes
    Brown, Culum (2016) Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes. Animal Sentience 3(5) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1029 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.011: Brown Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Culum Brown Biological Sciences Macquarie University Abstract: Arguments against the fact that fish feel pain repeatedly appear even in the face of growing evidence that they do. The standards used to judge pain perception keep moving as the hurdles are repeatedly cleared by novel research findings. There is undoubtedly a vested commercial interest in proving that fish do not feel pain, so the topic has a half-life well past its due date. Key (2016) reiterates previous perspectives on this topic characterised by a black-or-white view that is based on the proposed role of the human cortex in pain perception. I argue that this is incongruent with our understanding of evolutionary processes. Keywords: pain, fishes, behaviour, physiology, nociception Culum Brown [email protected] studies the behavioural ecology of fishes with a special interest in learning and memory. He is Associate Professor of vertebrate evolution at Macquarie University, Co-Editor of the volume Fish Cognition and Behavior, and Editor for Animal Behaviour of the Journal of Fish Biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Consciousness in Teleosts: There Is Something It Feels Like to Be a Fish
    Woodruff, Michael L. (2017) Consciousness in teleosts: There is something it feels like to be a fish. Animal Sentience 13(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1198 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2017.010: Woodruff on Fish Feel Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been reviewed, revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html [Editorial note: Animal Sentience and does not publish primary research reports of findings from experiments that hurt animals. In the context of open peer commentary, however, including criticism of findings from such experiments, secondary references to findings already published elsewhere are unavoidable.] Consciousness in teleosts: There is something it feels like to be a fish Michael L. Woodruff Departments of Biomedical Sciences and Psychology, East Tennessee State University Abstract: Ray-finned fish are often excluded from the group of non-human animals considered to have phenomenal consciousness. This is generally done on the grounds that the fish pallium lacks a sufficiently expansive gross parcellation, as well as even minimally sufficient neuronal organization, intrinsic connectivity, and reciprocal extrinsic connections with the thalamus to support the subjective experience of qualia.
    [Show full text]
  • Contingency Checking and Self-Directed Behaviors in Giant Manta Rays: Do Elasmobranchs Have Self-Awareness?
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297913466 Contingency checking and self-directed behaviors in giant manta rays: Do elasmobranchs have self-awareness? Article in Journal of Ethology · March 2016 DOI: 10.1007/s10164-016-0462-z CITATIONS READS 25 833 2 authors: Csilla Ari Dominic P D'Agostino University of South Florida University of South Florida 55 PUBLICATIONS 735 CITATIONS 106 PUBLICATIONS 2,118 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Effect of ketone supplementation on CNS diseases View project Non-adenosine nucleosides, LPS and WAG/Rij rats View project All content following this page was uploaded by Csilla Ari on 11 February 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Contingency checking and self-directed behaviors in giant manta rays: Do elasmobranchs have self-awareness? Csilla Ari & Dominic P. D’Agostino Journal of Ethology ISSN 0289-0771 J Ethol DOI 10.1007/s10164-016-0462-z 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website.
    [Show full text]
  • If a Fish Can Pass the Mark Test, What Are the Implications For
    SHORT REPORTS If a fish can pass the mark test, what are the implications for consciousness and self- awareness testing in animals? 1 1 1,2 1 Masanori KohdaID *, Takashi HottaID , Tomohiro Takeyama , Satoshi Awata , Hirokazu Tanaka1,3, Jun-ya Asai1, Alex L. Jordan1,4* 1 Laboratory of Animal Sociology, Department of Biology and Geosciences, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan, 2 Department of Biosphere-Geosphere Science, Okayama University of Science, Okayama, Japan, 3 Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Department of Behavioural Ecology, University of Bern, Hinterkappelen, Switzerland, 4 Department of Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Konstanz, Germany a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] (MK); [email protected] (ALJ) a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract The ability to perceive and recognise a reflected mirror image as self (mirror self-recognition, MSR) is considered a hallmark of cognition across species. Although MSR has been reported in mammals and birds, it is not known to occur in any other major taxon. Potentially OPEN ACCESS limiting our ability to test for MSR in other taxa is that the established assay, the mark test, Citation: Kohda M, Hotta T, Takeyama T, Awata S, requires that animals display contingency testing and self-directed behaviour. These behav- Tanaka H, Asai J-y, et al. (2019) If a fish can pass the mark test, what are the implications for iours may be difficult for humans to interpret in taxonomically divergent animals, especially consciousness and self-awareness testing in those that lack the dexterity (or limbs) required to touch a mark. Here, we show that a fish, animals? PLoS Biol 17(2): e3000021.
    [Show full text]
  • Quo Vadimus Welfare of Aquatic Animals: Where Things Are, Where
    ICES Journal of Marine Science (2018), doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsy067 Quo Vadimus Welfare of aquatic animals: where things are, where they are going, and what it means for research, aquaculture, recreational angling, and commercial fishing 1, ,‡ 2,‡ 3,‡ 4,‡ 5 Howard I. Browman * , Steven J. Cooke , Ian G. Cowx , Stuart W. G. Derbyshire Alexander Kasumyan5,‡, Brian Key6,‡ James D. Rose7,‡ Alexander Schwab8,‡, Anne Berit Skiftesvik1,‡, E. Don Stevens9,‡, Craig A. Watson10,‡, and Robert Arlinghaus11,12,‡ 1Marine Ecosystem Acoustics Group, Institute of Marine Research, Austevoll Research Station, Saugeneset 16, 5392 Storebø, Norway 2Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada 10 3Hull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull HU67RX, UK 4Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Singapore 11570, Singapore 5Department of Ichthyology, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia 6School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia 7Department of Zoology and Physiology and Neuroscience Program, University of Wyoming, Department 3166, 1000 East University Avenue, 15 Laramie, WY 80521, USA 8Im Wyga¨rtli 10, 4114 Hofstetten SO, Switzerland 9Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown PEI C1A 4P3, Canada 10Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Ruskin, FL 33570, USA 11Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Mu¨ggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, 20 Germany 12Division of Integrative Fisheries Management, Albrecht-Daniel-Thaer Institute for Agriculture and Horticulture, Faculty of Life Sciences, and Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Invalidenstrasse 42, Berlin 10115, Germany *Corresponding author: tel: þ47 98 86 07 78; e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1-2015 Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics Culum Brown Macquarie University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_asie Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Comparative Psychology Commons, and the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brown, C. (2015). Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics. Animal cognition, 18(1), 1-17. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics Culum Brown Macquarie University KEYWORDS fish cognition, sentience, welfare, pain, intelligence, ethics ABSTRACT Fish are one of the most highly utilised vertebrate taxa by humans; they are harvested from wild stocks as part of global fishing industries, grown under intensive aquaculture conditions, are the most common pet and are widely used for scientific research. But fish are seldom afforded the same level of compassion or welfare as warm-blooded vertebrates. Part of the problem is the large gap between people’s perception of fish intelligence and the scientific reality. This is an important issue because public perception guides government policy. The perception of an animal’s intelligence often drives our decision whether or not to include them in our moral circle. From a welfare perspective, most researchers would suggest that if an animal is sentient, then it can most likely suffer and should therefore be offered some form of formal protection. There has been a debate about fish welfare for decades which centres on the question of whether they are sentient or conscious.
    [Show full text]
  • Attitudes of Clinical Psychologists Towards the Reporting of Nonhuman Animal Abuse Laetitia Geoffroy-Dallery Antioch University, New England
    Antioch University AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses Dissertations & Theses 2018 Attitudes of Clinical Psychologists Towards the Reporting of Nonhuman Animal Abuse Laetitia Geoffroy-Dallery Antioch University, New England Follow this and additional works at: https://aura.antioch.edu/etds Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Geoffroy-Dallery, Laetitia, "Attitudes of Clinical Psychologists Towards the Reporting of Nonhuman Animal Abuse" (2018). Dissertations & Theses. 438. https://aura.antioch.edu/etds/438 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student & Alumni Scholarship, including Dissertations & Theses at AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations & Theses by an authorized administrator of AURA - Antioch University Repository and Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Running Head: ATTITUDES TOWARD REPORTING OF NONHUMAN ANIMAL ABUSE Attitudes of Clinical Psychologists Towards the Reporting of Nonhuman Animal Abuse by Laetitia Geoffroy-Dallery A.L.B., Harvard University, 2013 M.S., Antioch University New England, 2016 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Psychology in the Department of Clinical Psychology at Antioch University New England, 2018 Keene, New Hampshire ATTITUDES TOWARD REPORTING NONHUMAN ANIMAL ABUSE ii Department of Clinical Psychology DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PAGE The undersigned have examined the dissertation entitled: ATTITUDES OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS TOWARDS THE REPORTING OF NONHUMAN ANIMAL ABUSE presented on July 16, 2018 by Laetitia Geoffroy-Dallery Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Psychology and hereby certify that it is accepted*. Dissertation Committee Chairperson: Martha B.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Fish Welfare Matters: the Evidence for Fish Sentience
    WHY FISH WELFARE MATTERS: THE EVIDENCE FOR FISH SENTIENCE © Flickr com/Taro Taylor WHAT IS SENTIENCE? Sentience refers to having the awareness and cognitive (mental) ability necessary to have emotions1. This means sentient beings don’t just detect, observe or react to the things around them, but they can also feel something in response. Emotional states make evolutionary sense: some (e.g. pleasure) incentivise and reward you for behaviours that benefit your survival and chances of reproduction, and others (e.g. fear) reinforce the negative experience of doing something harmful and make you more likely to remember and avoid that in the future2. It is therefore unsurprising that the capacity for ‘feelings’ has evolved in different animal groups. WHY DOES SENTIENCE MATTER? As sentient beings can feel positive and negative emotions, happiness and fear, and can experience pain, we have a duty of care for the welfare of those that we farm and keep in captive environments. One animal group that has historically been forgotten in discussions of animal sentience and suffering, is fish. But fish are used in enormous numbers by humans for food, experimentation and as pets. Globally, up to 3 trillion fish are caught from the wild and up to 160 billion are farmed for human consumption each year3. This is around 40 times more animals than all the farmed land animals combined (which is approximately 74 billion4). This is having a devastating impact on wild fish populations, the aquatic environment, and crucially – fish welfare. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT FISH ARE SENTIENT ANIMALS? There is a growing body of scientific evidence to show that fish are sentient5-11.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleaner Wrasse Pass the Mark Test. What Are the Implications for Consciousness And
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/397067; this version posted August 21, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. PLoS Biology 2 Cleaner wrasse pass the mark test. What are the implications for consciousness and 4 self-awareness testing in animals? 6 Masanori Kohda1*, Takashi Hotta1, Tomohiro Takeyama1, 2, Satoshi Awata1, Hirokazu 8 Tanaka1,3, Jun-ya Asai1, L. Alex Jordan1,4* 10 1 Laboratory of Animal Sociology, Department of Biology and Geosciences, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan. 2 Department of Biosphere-Geosphere Science, Okayama 12 University of Science, Okayama, Japan. 3 Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Department of Behavioural Ecology, University of Bern, Hinterkappelen, Switzerland. 4 Department of 14 Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Konstanz, Germany. 16 *Corresponding authors: E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 18 20 Short title: The mark test in fish 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/397067; this version posted August 21, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Abstract 22 The ability to perceive and recognise a reflected mirror image as self (mirror self-recognition, 24 MSR) is considered a hallmark of cognition across species. Although MSR has been reported in mammals and birds, it is not known to occur in any other major taxon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Watery World of Fishes
    THE THE WATERY THE WATERY WORLD OF WATERY WORLD OF FISHES WORLD OF FISHESFISHES This booklet provides teachers with the information they need to teach students about the sentience and capabilities of fishes. FACT SHEET: FACTS AND FISHES © May 2019 Voiceless 2 Paddington Street Paddington NSW 2021 T: +612 9357 0723 [email protected] Follow us: Voiceless.Institute voiceless.org.au @VoicelessNews voiceless.org.au ABOUT VOICELESS Voiceless, the animal protection institute, is an independent non-profit think tank working to promote respect and compassion for animals. By encouraging critical-thinking on animal protection issues and growing the field of animal law, Voiceless is equipping today’s youth to become tomorrow’s decision-makers. CONTACT If you would like to get in touch with us about this fact sheet or find out more about our education work, please contact: [email protected] Thank you to Professor Culum Brown, Dr Cat Dorey and Dr Dinesh Wadiwel for their assistance in reviewing this booklet. Want to keep reading on this topic? This information and more can be found in Jonathan Balcombe’s book, What a Fish Knows (Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016). Voiceless is a proud partner of the Humane Education Coalition Disclaimer: Voiceless Limited ACN 108 494 631 (‘Voiceless’) is a company limited by guarantee. Voiceless is not a legal practice and does not give legal advice to individuals or organisations. While Voiceless has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of information, including images, presented in this publication, Voiceless does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of that information.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Intelligence - Wikipedia
    Fish intelligence - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_intelligence Fish intelligence Fish intelligence is "...the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving, combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual skills"[1] as it applies to fish. According to Culum Brown from Macquarie University, "Fish are more intelligent than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of ‘higher’ vertebrates including non-human The elephantnose fish has the highest primates."[2] brain-to-body oxygen consumption ratio Fish hold records for the relative brain weights of of all known vertebrates vertebrates. Most vertebrate species have similar brain-to- body mass ratios. The deep sea bathypelagic bony-eared assfish,[3] has the smallest ratio of all known vertebrates.[4] At the other extreme, the electrogenic elephantnose fish, an The bony-eared assfish has the smallest African freshwater fish, has one of the largest brain-to-body brain-to-body weight ratio of all known weight ratios of all known vertebrates (slightly higher than vertebrates humans) and the highest brain-to-body oxygen consumption ratio of all known vertebrates (three times that for humans).[5] Contents Brain Memory Tool use Construction Social intelligence Deception Distraction display False courtship behaviour Death feigning Cooperation Numeracy Social learning Latent learning Cleaner fish Play Food stocking 1 of 14 10/08/2018, 3:59 PM Fish intelligence - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_intelligence
    [Show full text]