Fish intelligence, development, environment

[neutrino]

Wasn't certain of the best section in which to post this. Put it here because I think it's relevant to cichlids as high on the fish intelligence scale, and wanted it to be accessible and seen in accord with that relevance. But I don't have a problem with it being moved if mods choose to do so. That said:

Maybe just a wee bit of anthropomorphizing in the article, but basically similar to my thinking on it. I don't and never have kept fish in bare tanks.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20140916-how-do-you-entertain-a-fish

There are also studies out there indicating fry living in 'enriched' tank environments-- with substrate and at least some structure in the tank, whether pebbles, rocks, wood, etc-- develop bigger brains than they do in bare tanks. I've also seen a guppy study suggesting bigger brains are compensated for by smaller guts and fewer fry (19%), which was attributed to brain energy consumption. Fine, but as far as I'm concerned, a smarter fish interacting with a more complex environment is 'happier' (whatever that means for a fish) and is likely to display more interesting and varied behavior than a pair of breeder this or that cichlid in a bare and smallish tank.

 

[RD.]

I believe that someone posted this shortly after it was written, perhaps it was even you neutrino? I don't recall, but for the most part I agree with the article - with this exception. I have raised a lot of fish over the years, and for many of them, having substrate, or not, did not seem make a difference one way or the other. I'm not referring to a tank with no structure, or not "enriched", some of them simply had no substrate. Adding substrate, and or subtracting substrate later on in their life, did not seem to change anything behavior wise, or otherwise. At least nothing that I noticed. Some of these tanks had painted bottoms to help lower reflection, others did not. Some fish were later in sand bottoms, some gravel, of various types & colors. I'm pretty observant of my fish, and I didn't notice any difference.

The only fish that I ever kept in a bare tank, at least once past the juvenile stage, were flowerhorn. I'm guessing not many people in this section will object to that. lol

 

[Zanzag]

I keep a goldfish in a bare bottom tank but that's because the bugger eats the substrate if it fits in his mouth and big gravel traps crud too well.

 

[Stanzzzz7]

I agree with the article and Neutrino. I've always been of the belief that a stimulating environment could only be of benefit if done correctly for the species in question.

To touch on Neil's point about substrate, I imagine it depends on the species in question.
I imagine there are fish in the hobby that would not care either way. I also think there are fish like geophagus, thorichthys or any of the other eartheaters that would be enriched by substrate. Also non cichlid fish like banjo catfish or puffers and coolie loach for example.

 

[esoxlucius]

Personally I think that bare aquariums look terrible and I can totally understand that fish in bare tanks may or may not develop differently to fish in beautifully scaped and natural looking environments, if it is indeed true.

But to back up the claim with proper hard evidence, with cichlids for example, wouldn't someone have to watch/record said cichlids in their natural environment for years and years whilst at the same time keeping the same species of cichlid at home in an aquarium, and again watch and record. I mean who's going to do that?

What I often wonder about is whether wild caught fish, who have lived in their natural environment and all of a sudden are stuck in an aquarium, how do they fare compared to tank raised fish who don't know any better?

 

[Stanzzzz7]

Personally I think that bare aquariums look terrible and I can totally understand that fish in bare tanks may or may not develop differently to fish in beautifully scaped and natural looking environments, if it is indeed true.

But to back up the claim with proper hard evidence, with cichlids for example, wouldn't someone have to watch/record said cichlids in their natural environment for years and years whilst at the same time keeping the same species of cichlid at home in an aquarium, and again watch and record. I mean who's going to do that?

What I often wonder about is whether wild caught fish, who have lived in their natural environment and all of a sudden are stuck in an aquarium, how do they fare compared to tank raised fish who don't know any better?

I think fish, wild or captive bred have certain requirements due to there evolutionary path. A captive bred Bolivian ram will dig a spawning pit the same way a wild one will for example.

 

[RD.]

To touch on Neil's point about substrate, I imagine it depends on the species in question.
I imagine there are fish in the hobby that would not care either way. I also think there are fish like geophagus, thorichthys or any of the other eartheaters that would be enriched by substrate. Also non cichlid fish like banjo catfish or puffers and coolie loach for example.

Yes, for sure, and I should have added that.

 

[neutrino]

I believe that someone posted this shortly after it was written, perhaps it was even you neutrino? I don't recall, but for the most part I agree with the article - with this exception. I have raised a lot of fish over the years, and for many of them, having substrate, or not, did not seem make a difference one way or the other. I'm not referring to a tank with no structure, or not "enriched", some of them simply had no substrate. Adding substrate, and or subtracting substrate later on in their life, did not seem to change anything behavior wise, or otherwise. At least nothing that I noticed. Some of these tanks had painted bottoms to help lower reflection, others did not. Some fish were later in sand bottoms, some gravel, of various types & colors. I'm pretty observant of my fish, and I didn't notice any difference.

The only fish that I ever kept in a bare tank, at least once past the juvenile stage, were flowerhorn. I'm guessing not many people in this section will object to that. lol

I've posted similar comments before, mentioned brain studies and posted links, but not that article that I can recall.

I think I can agree on a bare tank with other structure, though it's not my personal preference-- maybe there are fish out there that would change my mind on that. Or just bits and patches of gravel or sand, which I've done in a quickly setup tank (or tub) for overflow fish, fry, etc. I also understand the economics of breeding tanks for a commercial breeding operation. So not saying my way is the only way, just that it's my preference, that there are good reasons for it, and there's more to consider than 'a bare tank is easier to clean'.

 

[dan518]

I have read a few papers and articles about this subject. There seems to be a big difference on how it effects different species, most seem to do better if the tank enrichment is based on there natural habitat. Some of the benefits I have read are reduced nipping and aggression, less stress, bolder more intelligent fish. One study found less growth in enriched tanks though.