The social organization of free‐ranging fish shoals

By D. Hoare, Graeme D. Ruxton, J. Godin, Jens Krause. 2000

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b6345a799a1fab4f8f8913f3a785ec2112e686c5

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Context-dependent group size choice in fish (2004, methodology): “For each trial, 10 fish were haphazardly selected from the holding tank, but were size matched to within 5 mm within each trial to avoid association biases caused by body length (Krause & Godin 1994a; Hoare et al. 2000).”
Self-Organization and Collective Behavior in Vertebrates (2003, background): “However, in some instances body length and parasite load may be correlated (Hoare et al., 2000), so it may be difficult to determine what causes the sorting.”
Density distribution and size sorting in fish schools: an individual-based model (2005, background): “Furthermore, it appears that individuals are assorted by familiarity (e.g., Barber and Ruxton, 2000; Griffiths and Magurran, 1999) and body size (Hoare et al., 2000; Krause et al., 1996, 2000; Peukhuri et al., 1997; Svensson et al., 2000).”
Potential banana skins in animal social network analysis (2009, methodology): “Whitehead et al. (2005) and Hoare et al. (2000) suggest methods that might be used to this end, though again care needs to be taken (Krause et al. 2009b) to ensure that the swapping procedure does not introduce unwanted bias into the randomised data sets.”
Minnows and the selfish herd: effects of predation risk on shoaling behaviour are dependent on habitat complexity (2008, background): “Gregarious behaviour is particularly widespread among fishes, with many species forming nonrandom assemblages (shoals) according to species, size, parasite load and familiarity (Pitcher & Parrish 1993; Krause et al. 1996; Hoare et al. 2000; Krause & Ruxton 2002; Griffiths 2003; Griffiths & Ward 2006”
Mechanisms underlying shoal composition in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata (2003, methodology): “Similarly, previous investigations studying shoal structure have largely failed to find fidelity by individuals to a particular group (Helfman 1984, Hoare et al. 2000, see Barber and Ruxton 2000 for an exception).”
Effects of parasites on fish behaviour: a review and evolutionary perspective (2000, background): “The results of Hoare et al. (2000) support this prediction, finding no strong relationship between shoal size and either parasite load or prevalence.”
Body length assortative shoaling in the European minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus (2001, background): “…of Animal Behaviour Previous studies on fish shoals have concentrated on the significance of phenotypic matching amongst shoal members, particularly in terms of body length (Peuhkuri et al. 1997; Krause et al. 1998; Hoare et al. 2000) and the species composition of shoals (Krause & Godin 1994).”
Spatial organization and division of labour in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens (2009, background): “Nonrandom spatial assortment of individuals has been described in a variety of social groups (e.g. fish shoals: Hoare et al. 2000; humpback whales: Weinrich et al. 2006; peafowl leks: Loyau et al. 2007).”
Social recognition in sticklebacks: the role of direct experience and habitat cues (2005, background): “Yet daily encounter rates among individuals of most social fish species may be huge (Hoare et al. 2000).”
Dynamics of fish shoals: identifying key decision rules (2004, result): “Not surprisingly, fish in our study reduce average NND in the presence of a simulated predator as predicted by other analyses (Partridge, 1980; Pitcher and Parrish, 1993; Hoare et al., 2000 ).”