High background risk induces risk allocation rather than generalized neophobia in the fathead minnow

To cope with the heterogeneous nature of predation and the trade-off between predator avoidance and foraging, prey animals have evolved several cognitive rules. One of these is the risk allocation hypothesis, which predicts that in environments with long periods of sustained high risk, individuals should decrease their antipredator effort to satisfy their metabolic requirements. The neophobia hypothesis, in turn, predicts increased avoidance of novel cues in high-risk habitats. Despite the recent interest in predator-induced neophobia across different sensory channels, tests of such generalized neophobia are restricted to a single fish taxon, the Cichlidae. Hence, we retested the generalized neophobia hypothesis in fathead minnows Pimephales promelas, a small schooling North American cyprinid fish. From hatching onward, minnows were exposed to conspecific alarm cues, which indicate predation risk, or distilled water in a split-clutch design. After 1 month, shoaling behavior was examined prior and subsequent to a mechanical predator disturbance. Fish previously exposed to elevated background risk formed compact shoals for a shorter time interval after the stimulus compared with controls. These results contrast previous studies of generalized neophobia but match the risk allocation hypothesis. Consequently, risk allocation and generalized neophobia are not ubiquitous cognitive rules but instead evolved adaptations of different taxa to their respective environments. Upon receiving a novel mechanical disturbance, minnow shoals exposed to elevated levels of background risk resume predisturbance shoaling cohesion quicker than low-risk control shoals. This finding is consistent with risk allocation but contrasts generalized neophobia, whereby fish are expected to show elevated responses to all novel cues when risk increases.