Body size and shoaling in fish

By D. Hoare, Jens Krause, N. Peuhkuri, J. Godin. 2000

198 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Social behaviour in sharks and rays: analysis, patterns and implications for conservation (2012, background): “2000 for review) and have been shown to confer individual benefits such as minimizing predation risk through phenotypic oddity and reducing competition and aggression between size classes (Hoare et al. 2000).”
Male sexual harassment and female schooling behaviour in the eastern mosquitofish (2005, unknown): “…response to predators (e.g. Krause & Godin 1996; Evans et al. 2002), food dispersion (e.g. Ryer & Olla 1998; Foster et al. 2001), competition for food (e.g. Krause et al. 1999), body size of schoolmates (e.g. Hoare et al. 2000; Ward & Krause 2001), or familiarity (e.g. Griffiths & Magurran 1997).”
Individual sociability and choosiness between shoal types (2012, unknown): “Shoaling fish often prefer to group with larger shoals made of similar, healthy or familiar individuals (Pitcher & Parrish 1993; Hoare et al. 2000; Krause et al. 2000a, b; Ward et al. 2002; Lee-Jenkins & Godin 2010).”
Association patterns of African elephants in all-male groups: the role of age and genetic relatedness (2011, background): “These results support observations from several studies in other vertebrates showing that animals associate according to age or body size (Hoare et al. 2000; Bon et al. 2001; Ruckstuhl & Neuhaus 2001; Li & Jiang 2008).”