Introduction:

Animals, in order to survive, must adapt to changes in their environment. The evolution of
animals, governing their ability to stay alive, was explained by Charles Darwin. He said: It is not
the strongest of the species that survives it is the one that is the most adaptable to change. A
creature that is unable to conform to the situations given to them in their environment will not
adapt, and will thus be unable to outlive and outsmart its counterparts in the wild. This article
discusses the ability for a particular species of fish, the African Cichlid, to be flexible and more
cognitively aware and able to adapt due to the way they were rationed their food as they
matured. It has been found that animals enduring a less consistent environment have more
cognitive flexibility and find it much easier to adapt to adverse conditions than those who spent
most of their growing and even adult lives in consistent and rarely-changing living conditions.
Neural stimulation from events that are unexpected and even unwanted are as beneficial for
humans as they are for animals in the wilderness. The cichlids who did not have a consistent
source of food were naturally forced to be resourceful and to adapt to their situation. This
environmental change early in their life taught them how to adequately adjust their behavior in
order to survive when faced with a variable environment. The fish in this study were tested by
either being supplied with consistently high, consistently low, or varying amounts of food. The
fish were tested cognitively, and were even eventually able to associate a visual cue with being
fed.
Materials and Methods:
African cichlids, which are found to be independent juvenile fish by as little as 28 days after
theyve spawned, were used in this experiment. 130 fish of this species were raised in their own
individual tank environment which had a layer of sand, a source of shelter, and given an
environment through a filter which made it as natural as possible. Seven different groups of
female fish produced the offspring for the experiment, and, in the case of siblings, the fish were
spread evenly between treatments. The treatments were as follows: (1): high food rationing in
both early and late stages of life (2): low food rationing in both early and late stages of life, (3):
a high food ration in early life, which is then switched to low food rationing later in life, or (4): a
low food rationing early in life which is then switched to a high food rationing later in life. The
switch in rationing was either switched at 77 days which was considered to be one-third
through the juvenile period of life, or after 133 days, which is two-thirds through this process.
The two different time periods were used in order to rule out any period of time that is more
sensitive for the fish. Each tank contained 25 centimeters of tube that had an entrance through
which food may enter. Visual cues which included a red cross and a blue square were presented
to the fish, in front of which a parcel of food was distributed in order to establish a positive
cue. Half of the fish had the red cross as the positive cue, while the other half used the blue
square. They were trained for a period of a week. After determining that the fish were not lured
simply by the pellet being dropped in the water, they were tested to see if they would choose
their positive cue within a given amount of time, which was determined to be twelve
minutes. They were tested to respond to the cues with or without food. Only twelve fish were
excluded from the study from failure to meet protocol.
Results:
Both juveniles and adults reacted similarly to this form of testing. The food received before and
after the rationing switches did not seem to influence the amount of times that the fish
responded positively and to the correct cue. Despite this fact, the fish that were not supplied a
constant supply of food (either consistently high or consistently low) were shown to have
performed better. This was also not related to the overall rationing of food given to the fish
while they were still juvenile, which was measured by correct choices related to the mass of the
fish.
Discussion:
African Cichlids who experienced changing rations in food early in their life definitely
outperformed the fish that had constantly low or constantly high food rations. Their ability to
learn and adapt was greater than those who were not used to changing environments and
conditions. This study suggests that cognitive ability advanced for these fish was improved by
changes in environment. Though the overall mass of the fish which is indicative of amount of
food received throughout life did not change their cognitive abilities, it was proven that this
factor changed the amount of time it took for the fish to leave its shelter to advance towards
the visual cues. In short, fish without a consistent environment learned to be more weary and
were more hypersensitive to what was going on around them. Poor nutrition early in juvenile
stages impacted the fish negatively in learning just as it would affect any other mammal, such
as song learning in birds. The findings of this study clearly suggest that changes in environment
and the habitat of an animal can, in turn, make the animal more intelligent. Animals forced into
situations which make them think and cope with changes have a greater cognitive ability, thus,
by definition, making them smarter. Coping mechanisms are more advanced in the animals that
were not subject to normal living conditions.