|
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | I remember the first year they allowed you to bow hunt from a tree stand in Michigan. I believe it was 1978. I had started baiting my spot during mid summer with apples and continued prior to opening day with both Corn and Sugar beets. Right at daylight on opening day a herd of deer came running into the bait and never once even glanced up to spot me only 15 feet up a nearby tree. I took a nice 4 pointer that morning and my buddy took a spike in that same stand 2 hours later.
FLASH ahead a few years and add 10 more feet up to the stand, and every deer that even approached my bait would first look up like it was a bird watcher. Even the tiny ones that could not have had any close calls with mis-aimed arrows would scane the trees for danger. In those few short years the older deer had been trained to look up in trees for danger and had genetically passed on these danger traits to their offspring to do the same. All this was/is not surprising to me. But what I heard on a TV show about fish the other day did.
They did a 20 year study on Bass to find out if they could/would genetically pass on learned traits. They started in a big stocked pond catching and releasing it's bass. The first time a bass was caught it was tagged with a spaghetti tag. The second time it was caught that tag was trimmed off some. The third time, even more of the tag was trimmed. They noticed immediately that it got harder to catch the bass that had been caught before.
Then right before the spring spawn each season, a sample of all fish (Not caught, once caught, twice caught and three times caught) male and female bass were removed from the pond and their eggs and milt mixed. Each catch study group of their hatched fry were then separated and planted into 4 different ponds to grow during the whole study period. Then all the ponds were fished under strict criterion using the same baits on the same days in the same ways, to determine how hard each study group was to catch. You guessed it. The offspring of the ones caught the most were the harder ones to catch in that group. Proving they did genetically learn to be smarter when choosing to bite/feed on certain things.
I found this to be quit amazing, given a fish has the brain the size of a BB. |
|
| |
|
| Please release all the "Dumb" Walleyes back to Butte des Morts.
Thanks in advance...
Purple Skeeter |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| I'm no expert, but I would argue that learned behavior cannot be transmitted genetically. That would be like me learning to be an awesome chess player and my kid being born knowing how to play chess. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | It can in fish, but takes an unreal number of generations. I'll see if I can find a study to reference; there is a good one out there on trout and grizzly bear scent in the water somewhere.
With deer, I believe it's observed behavior that is mimicked, if I remember my reading correctly. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | sworrall - 2/2/2011 4:54 PM
It can in fish, but takes an unreal number of generations. I'll see if I can find a study to reference; there is a good one out there on trout and grizzly bear scent in the water somewhere.
With deer, I believe it's observed behavior that is mimicked, if I remember my reading correctly.
Yes.
Most fish have an un-real Olfactory gland system that attaches right to their brain. The water they take in constantly washes's over these sensory organs as they separate the oxygen from the water. Salmon and Trout have the most developed olfactory glands of all fish species and for good reason. Finding their way back thousands of miles to their natal streams for one. And they can detect 1 part per trillion in water molecules and know when a bear steps in the water 1/4 mile upstream. I wrote an article about that back in the late 70's after first meeting and then conferring with Dr. Babeneck, the owner of the Dr. Juice product for the article.
As far as learned behavior for a fish? Like I said I was shocked myself at their findings, as a learning behavior involves a higher Brian function then simple smelling and/or instinctive flight response. But given the parametors they used, it's a stretch but points to being genetic in nature. 
Edited by walleye express 2/2/2011 4:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| I'm not saying fish can't learn and adapt.
I would agree that if a certain genetic trait helps a fish survive while others of the same species die because they do not have that trait, then that genetic trait would be passed on to offspring, and you would see a species adapt, but that is not learned behavior. The genetics determined the behavior, not the other way around.
It is an interesting topic though, Dan.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | thumper - 2/3/2011 6:50 AM
I'm not saying fish can't learn and adapt.
I would agree that if a certain genetic trait helps a fish survive while others of the same species die because they do not have that trait, then that genetic trait would be passed on to offspring, and you would see a species adapt, but that is not learned behavior. The genetics determined the behavior, not the other way around.
It is an interesting topic though, Dan.
I agree with that Thumper. I'm thinking it took the Salmon specie millions of years dealing with the bears in their environment to adapt, learn and lastly genetically pass on, that this particular smell spelled death. Because being genetically passed on is the only possible way they'd know and recognize this smell as being dangerous, when being exposed to the smell only involves a small fraction/window in their lives.
Edited by walleye express 2/3/2011 9:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | It was about 10 generations before avoidance behavior to upstream bear scent was recorded if my memory serves. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| sworrall - 2/3/2011 9:13 AM It was about 10 generations before avoidance behavior to upstream bear scent was recorded if my memory serves. Exactly. The fish that were genetically predisposed to avoid the bear scent lived, while the others were/are more prone to being eaten. The "smart" fish lived, furthering their "smart" genes, and the "dumb" fish died ending their "dumb" gene contribution to the species. Overall the species adapted and fewer "dumb" fish remain. There was no learned behavior in this example, however.
Edited by thumper 2/3/2011 9:36 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | thumper - 2/3/2011 9:35 AM sworrall - 2/3/2011 9:13 AM It was about 10 generations before avoidance behavior to upstream bear scent was recorded if my memory serves. Exactly. The fish that were genetically predisposed to avoid the bear scent lived, while the others were/are more prone to being eaten. The "smart" fish lived, furthering their "smart" genes, and the "dumb" fish died ending their "dumb" gene contribution to the species. Overall the species adapted and fewer "dumb" fish remain. There was no learned behavior in this example, however. I totally agree with you Thumper. I do not believe that fish get conditioned to specific lures and colors as much as those who are attracted get caught and eaten. They will appear conditioned because of their short term memories but it really does not happen in the long haul. heck, I have caught walleyes that had my partners jig in their mouth after his line broke. What did that fish learn? It could not have felt very good. People spend too much time giving fish more credit than they deserve and try to equate what they see in nature with human characteristics.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Sunshine - 2/3/2011 11:50 AM
People spend too much time giving fish more credit than they deserve and try to equate what they see in nature with human characteristics.
Now that I totally agree with. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | thumper - 2/3/2011 10:35 AM
sworrall - 2/3/2011 9:13 AM It was about 10 generations before avoidance behavior to upstream bear scent was recorded if my memory serves. Exactly. The fish that were genetically predisposed to avoid the bear scent lived, while the others were/are more prone to being eaten. The "smart" fish lived, furthering their "smart" genes, and the "dumb" fish died ending their "dumb" gene contribution to the species. Overall the species adapted and fewer "dumb" fish remain. There was no learned behavior in this example, however.
I guess my next question is then, are instincts genetically passed along? Or do they get filed away strictly as instincts after a certain time?
Edited by walleye express 2/3/2011 12:38 PM
|
|
| |
Animal/Fish Genetic Training?