Context-dependent group size choice in fish

By D. Hoare, Iain D. Couzin, Jean-Guy J. Godin, Jens Krause. 2004

413 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9cc62abc56d9308c547ba686a399efe47552fdb8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Assortative preferences for stripes in danios (2005, background): “Individuals often assort with respect to characteristics such as body size (Hoare et al. 2004; Wong & Rosenthal 2005), colour (McRobert & Bradner 1998), species (Barber et al.”
Foraging nine-spined sticklebacks prefer to rely on public information over simpler social cues (2005, background): “Not only were group members still present in the study of Hoare et al. (2004), but subjects also received food or predation cues during the testing period, thereby eliciting a concomitant foraging or antipredatory behavior and allowing for an interpretation in terms of competition or risk dilution.”
Individual sociability and choosiness between shoal types (2012, positive): “As a consequence, when alarm cues are present (risk is high) fish form larger groups, while when food cues are present fish form smaller groups (Hoare et al. 2004).”
Collective States, Multistability and Transitional Behavior in Schooling Fish (2013, background): “A key question in the study of collective behavior is whether different group-level patterns result from all individuals responding to the same external factor [27], or individuals changing behavior [1], or whether multiple dynamically-stable collective states coexist for the same individual behavio”
Effects of group size on the threat-sensitive response to varying concentrations of chemical alarm cues by juvenile convict cichlids (2006, background): “Within aquatic vertebrate communities, it is well established that group size influences individual predation risk (Morgan and Godin 1985; Hager and Helfman 1991; Hoare et al. 2004).”
Personality counts: the effect of boldness on shoal choice in three-spined sticklebacks (2009, background): “Observations of shoal activity showed that groups modified their behaviour in relation to that of the focal individual; previous work has indicated that fish are capable of varying their shoaling behaviour in relation to environmental context (Sogard & Olla 1997; Hoare et al. 2004).”
Tuned, driven, and active soft matter (2015, background): “It was observed that fish swarms were of smaller size when food sources were detected [637] and of larger size in reaction to predator attacks [637].”
Provenance and threat-sensitive predator avoidance patterns in wild-caught Trinidadian guppies (2009, background): “Individuals tested alone or in small groups may be at a higher level of predation risk than are individuals in larger groups (Hoare et al. 2004).”
Social behaviour in sharks and rays: analysis, patterns and implications for conservation (2012, background): “Conversely, there are costs associated with grouping behaviour, typically a reduction in foraging efficiency or an increased risk of parasite or disease transmission (Johnson et al. 2002; Hoare et al. 2004) to name a few.”
Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move (2005, background): “We take into account the ability of grouping individuals to modify their motion on the basis of that of local neighbours (social interactions”
Self-Organized Shape and Frontal Density of Fish Schools (2008, result): “A number of patterns of swarming in these models closely resemble those found in real swarms (Huth & Wissel 1994; Hiramatsu et al. 2000; Couzin et al. 2002; Kunz & Hemelrijk 2003; Hoare et al. 2004; Hemelrijk & Kunz 2005).”
Multimodal mixed messages: the use of multiple cues allows greater accuracy in social recognition and predator detection decisions in the mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki (2010, background): “At first glance, these results are potentially confusing because prey fish typically increase their shoaling tendency when confronted by predator cues (Hoare et al. 2004), so one might expect closer association with conspecific cues when cues relating to risk are present.”
The importance of fission–fusion social group dynamics in birds (2014, background): “2010) and to co-vary with the social and ecological environment (Hoare et al. 2004).”