Advertisement

Impact, recovery and carryover effect of Roundup® on predator recognition in common spiny loach, Lepidocephalichthys thermalis

  • Sandip D. Tapkir
  • Sanjay S. Kharat
  • Pradeep Kumkar
  • Sachin M. GosaviEmail author
Article

Abstract

Understanding the negative impact of a variety of environmental contaminants on aquatic animals is essential to curb biodiversity loss and stop degradation of ecological functions. Excessive and unrestricted use of pesticides is the most serious threat to aquatic animals including amphibians and fishes. Among the known pesticides, glyphosate based formulations have been shown to have lethal effects on many aquatic organisms. However, negative effects of pesticides on crucial ecological interactions such as prey-predator interactions are relatively unknown from tropics. In many aquatic organisms, recognition of predators is based on odor signatures; and therefore any anthropogenic alteration in water chemistry has the potential to impair recognition and learning of predators. Through a series of behavioral experiments we evaluated the effect of glyphosate based herbicide (Roundup®) on the antipredator behavior of common spiny loach, Lepidocephalichthys thermalis to understand the effects of pesticide-exposure on recognition of conspecific alarm cues, and associative learning to avoid predation. We exposed common spiny loach (for 3 h or 15 days) to sub-lethal concentration (0.5 mg a.e./L) of Roundup® and subsequently with conspecific alarm cues, signaling the proximity of a predator. Unexposed prey fish showed a significant reduction in activity level in response to conspecific alarm cues. Whereas such alarm response was not observed in prey fish that were exposed to Roundup® either for 3 h or 15 days. Such lack of response could be associated with alteration of olfactory function in prey individuals. However, this inability to detect the conspecific alarm cues was found to be transient and exposed fish recovered within 2 days. In subsequent experiments, we showed that Roundup® deactivates the conspecific alarm cues thus making them unavailable for prey to evoke the response. Furthermore, Roundup® mediated degradation of conspecific alarm cues and diminished the associative learning necessary for detection of the invasive/unknown/novel predators. Overall, due to the worldwide occurrence of glyphosate in water bodies, glyphosate mediated behavioral suppression exposes the prey animals to a considerable risk of predation, both by native and non-native predators.

Keywords

Pesticides Chemical cues Tilapia Sub-lethal Learning Glyphosate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank anonymous reviewers and subject editor for constructive comments and highly valuable suggestions on the earlier version of the manuscript. The research was supported by grants from University Grant Commission (UGC) under minor research project, file number 47-914/14 (WRO) New Delhi and Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India under DBT-STAR College scheme awarded to Modern College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Ganeshkhind, Pune. We also thank Aditya Manek, Jayshree Menon, Nikhil Gaitonde, and Anuradha Batabyal for their help to improve the language quality of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable national and institutional guidelines for the care of use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Aktar Md. W, Sengupta D, Chowdhury A (2009) Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip Toxicol 2:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batabyal A, Gosavi SM, Gramapurohit NP (2014) Determining sensitive stages for learning to detect predators in larval bronzed frogs: Importance of alarm cues in learning. J Biosci 39:701–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown GE, Chivers DP (2005) Learning as an adaptive response to predation. In: Barbosa P, Castellanos I (eds) Ecology of Predator/Prey Interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 34–54Google Scholar
  4. Brown GE, Elvidge CK, Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2012) Understanding the importance of episodic acidification on fish predator-prey interactions: does weak acidification impair predator recognition? Sci Total Environ 439:62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown GE, Ferrari MCO, Malka PH, Russo S, Tressider M, Chivers DP (2011) Generalization of predators and non-predators by juvenile rainbow trout: learning what is and what is not a threat. Anim Behav 81:1249–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin Iii FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collen B, Whitton F, Dyer EE, Baillie JE, Cumberlidge N, Darwall WR, Pollock C, Richman NI, Soulsby AM, Böhm M (2014) Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbera M, Hidalgo M, Salvado V, Wieczorek PP (2005) Determination of glyphosate and aminomethilphosphonic acid in natural water using the capillary electrophoresis combined with enrichment step. Anal Chim Acta 540:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahanukar N, Kumkar P, Katwate U, Raghavan R (2015) Badis britzi, a new percomorph fish (Teleostei: Badidae) from the Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa 3941:429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahanukar N, Raghavan R, Ali A, Abraham R, Shaji CP (2011) The status and distribution of freshwater fishes of the Western Ghats, Chapter 3. In: Molur S Smith K,G Daniel BA Darwall WRT (eds) The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India. IUCN, and Coimbatore, India: Zoo Outreach Organisation, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland, Coimbatore, India, (compilers)Google Scholar
  11. Dahanukar N, Raut R, Bhat A (2004) Distribution, endemism and threat status of freshwater fishes in the Western Ghats of India. J Biogeogr 31:123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis DR, Epp KJ, Gabor CR (2012) Predator generalization decreases the effect of introduced predators in the San Marcos Salamander, Eurycea nana Ethology 118:1191–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard A-H, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duke SO, Powles SB (2008) Glyphosate: a once‐in‐a‐century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64:319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duke SO, Powles SB (2009) Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds: now and in the future. AgBioForum 12:346–357Google Scholar
  16. Ferrari MC, Lysak KR, Chivers DP (2010) Turbidity as an ecological constraint on learned predator recognition and generalization in a prey fish. Anim Behav 79:515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2011) Learning about non-predators and safe places: the forgotten elements of risk assessment. Anim Cogn 14:309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP, (2010a) Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724.Google Scholar
  19. Gatti RC (2016) Freshwater biodiversity: a review of local and global threats. ‎Int J Environ Res 73:887–904.Google Scholar
  20. Giri A, Yadav SS, Giri S, Sharma GD (2012) Effect of predator stress and malathion on tadpoles of Indian skittering frog. Aquat Toxicol 106:157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goel PK (2006) Water Pollution: causes, effects and control. New Age International, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzalo A, Lopez P, Martin J (2009) Learning, memory and apparent forgetting of chemical cues from new predators by Iberian green frog tadpoles. Anim Cogn 12:745–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grube A, Donaldson D, Kiely T, Wu L (2011) Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage. Environmental Protection Agency, United States, http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/market_estimates2007.pdf Google Scholar
  24. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeont Electron 4: 9pp. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm
  25. Harris S, Ramnarine IW, Smith HG, Pettersson LB (2010) Picking personalities apart: estimating the influence of predation, sex and body size on boldness in the guppy Poecilia reticulata. Oikos 119:1711–1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hazlett BA (2003) Predator recognition and learned irrelevance in the crayfish Orconectes virilis. Ethology 109:765–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2009) Predation mediated population divergence in complex behaviour of nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius). J Evol Biol 22:544–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herczeg G, Välimäki K (2011) Intraspecific variation in behaviour: effects of evolutionary history, ontogenetic experience and sex. J Evol Biol 24:2434–2444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karn SK, Harada H (2001) Surface water pollution in three urban territories of Nepal, India, and Bangladesh. Environ Manag 28:483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leduc AOHC, Ferrari MCO, Kelly JM, Brown GE (2004) Learning to recognize novel predators under weakly acidic conditions: the effects of reduced pH on acquired predator recognition by juvenile rainbow trout. Chemoecology 14:107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leduc AOHC, Roh E, Breau C, Brown GE (2007) Effects of ambient acidity on chemosensory learning: an example of an environmental constraint on acquired predator recognition in wild juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo solar). Ecol Freshw Fish 16:385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leduc AOHC, Roh E, Harvey MC, Brown GE (2006) Impaired detection of chemical alarm cues by juvenile wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a weakly acidic environment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:2356–2363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liney NR, Seghers BH (1975) Factors affecting the morphology and behavior of guppies in Trinidad. In: Baerends GP, Manning BeerC (eds) A functional and evolution in behaviour. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 92–118Google Scholar
  35. Lushchak OV, Kubrak OI, Storey JM, Storey KB, Lushchak VI (2009) Low toxic herbicide Roundup induces mild oxidative stress in goldfish tissues. Chemosphere 76:932–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magurran AE (1986) Predator inspection behaviour in minnow shoals: differences between populations and individuals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magurran AE, Nowak MA (1991) Another battle of the sexes: the consequences of sexual asymmetry in mating costs and predation risk in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc Lond B 246:31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Magurran AE, Seghers BH, Carvalho GR, Shaw PW (1992) Behavioural consequences of an artificial introduction of guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in N. Trinidad: evidence for the evolution of anti-predator behaviour in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B 248:117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McIntyre JK, Baldwin DH, Beauchamp DA, Scholz NL (2012) Low‐level copper exposures increase visibility and vulnerability of juvenile coho salmon to cutthroat trout predators. Ecol Appl 22:1460–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miron D, Crestani M, Schetinger MR, Morsch VM, Baldisserotto B, Tierno MA, Moraes G, Vieira VL (2005) Effects of herbicide clomazone, quinclorac and metsulfuron methyl on acetylcholinesterase activity in the silver catfish (Rhamdia quelen) (Heptateridae). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 61:398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moore H, Chivers DP, Ferrari MCO (2015) Sub-lethal effects of Roundup™ on tadpole anti-predator responses. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 111:281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, Nelson J, Lipner V, Giordano S, Horowits A, D’Amore M (1992) Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42:750–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pocklington R, Dill LM (1995) Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Anim Behav 49:1122–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pokhrel LR, Karsai I (2015) Long-term sub-lethal effects of low concentration commercial herbicide (glyphosate/pelargonic acid) formulation in Bryophyllum pinnatum. Sci Total Environ 538:279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Polo-Cavia N, Gomez-Mestre I (2014) Learned recognition of introduced predators determines survival of tadpole prey. Funct Ecol 28:432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raghavan R, Dahanukar N, Tlusty M, Rhyne A, Kumar KK, Molur S, Rosser AM (2013) Uncovering an obscure trade: threatened freshwater fishes and the aquarium pet markets. Biol Conserv 164:158–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Relyea RA (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84:1827–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Relyea RA (2005) The lethal impacts of roundup and predatory stress on six species of North American tadpoles. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48:351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Relyea RA (2012) New effects of roundup on amphibians: predators reduce herbicide mortality; herbicides induce antipredator morphology. Ecol Appl 22:634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rema Devi K (2003) Freshwat er fish diversity. In: Venkataraman K (ed.) Natural aquatic ecosystems of india, thematic biodiversity strategy and action plan. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkatta.Google Scholar
  51. Robison AL, Chapman T, Bidwell JR (2018) Predation cues influence metabolic rate and sensitivity to other chemical stressors in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and Daphnia pulex. Ecotoxicology 27:55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roy T, Bhat A (2018) Population, sex and body size: determinants of behavioural variations and behavioural correlations among wild zebrafish Danio rerio. R Soc Open Sci 5:170978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sani A, Idris MK (2006) Acute toxicity of herbicide (glyphosate) in Clarias gariepinus juveniles. Toxicol Rep 3:513–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schoeppner NM, Relyea RA (2005) Damage, digestion, and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences. Ecol Lett 8:505–512.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00744.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seghers BH, Magurran AE (1995) Population differences in the schooling behaviour of the Trinidad guppy, Poecilia reticulata: adaptation or constraint? Can J Zool 73:1100–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sinhorin VD, Sinhorin AP, Teixeira JM, Miléski KM, Hansen PC, Moeller PR, Moreira PS, Baviera AM, Loro VL (2014) Metabolic and behavior changes in surubim acutely exposed to a glyphosate-based herbicide. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 67:659–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strayer DL, Dudgeon D (2010) Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Supekar SC, Gramapurohit NP (2017) Can embryonic skipper frogs (Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis) learn to recognise kairomones in the absence of a nervous system? J Biosci 42:459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Supekar SC, Gramapurohit NP (2018) Larval skipper frogs recognise kairomones of certain predators innately. J Ethol 36:143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tapkir SD, Kharat SS, Kumkar P, Gosavi SM (2017) Effects of the invasive Tilapia on the Common Spiny Loach (Cypriniformes: Cobitidae: Lepidocephalichthys thermalis) - implications for conservation. J Threat Taxa 9:10642–10648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Templeton CN, Shriner WM (2004) Multiple selection pressures influence Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata) antipredator behavior. Behav Ecol 15:673–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tierney KB, Baldwin DH, Hara TJ, Ross PS, Scholz NL, Kennedy CJ (2010) Olfactory toxicity in fishes. Aquat Toxicol 96:2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tierney KB, Ross PS, Jarrard HE, Delaney KR, Kennedy CJ (2006) Changes in juvenile coho salmon electro-olfactogram during and after short-term exposure to current-use pesticides. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:2809–2817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Woodburn AT (2000) Glyphosate: production, pricing and use worldwide. Pest Manag Sci 56:309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woody DR, Mathis A (1998) Acquired recognition of chemical stimuli from an unfamiliar predator: associative learning by adult newts, Notophthalmus viridescens Copeia 1998:1027–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wrubleswski J, Reichert Jr FW, Galon L, Hartmann PA, Hartmann MT (2018) Acute and chronic toxicity of pesticides on tadpoles of Physalaemus cuvieri (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Ecotoxicology 27:360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yadav SS, Giri S, Singha U, Boro F, Giri A (2013) Toxic and genotoxic effects of Roundup on tadpoles of the Indian skittering frog (Euflictis cyanophlyctis) in the presence and absence of predator stress. Aqua Toxicol 132:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyModern College of Arts, Science and CommercePuneIndia
  2. 2.Department of ZoologySavitribai Phule Pune UniversityPuneIndia
  3. 3.Department of Zoology, Post Graduate Research CentreModern College of Arts, Science and CommercePuneIndia
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyMaharashtra College of Arts, Science and CommerceMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations