Shoal choice behaviour in fish: The relationship between assessment time and assessment quality

Behaviour

Volumn 134, Issue 13-14, 1997, Pages 1051-1062

  Krause, Jens ^a   Rubenstein, Dan ^b   Brown, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031491811     PISSN: 00057959     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156853997x00395     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Atkinson, J., Campbell, F.W. & Francis, M.R. (1976). The magic number 4 ± 0: a new look at visual numerosity judgments. - Perception 5, p. 327-334.
2. Brown, D. & Rothery, P. (1993). Models in biology: mathematics, statistics and computing. - John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
3. Eaton, R.C. & Emberley, D.S. (1991). How stimulus direction determines the trajectory of the Mauthner-initiated escape response in a teleost fish. - J. exp. Biol. 161, p. 469-487.
4. Godin, J.-G.J. (1986). Antipredator function of shoaling in teleost fishes: a selective review. - Naturaliste can. 113, p. 241-250.
5. Hager, M.C. & Helfman, G.S. (1991). Safety in numbers: shoal size choice by minnows under predator threat. - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, p. 271-276.
6. Jevons, W.S. (1871). The power of numerical discrimination. - Nature, Lond. 3, p. 281-282.
7. Krause, J. & Godin, J.-G.J. (1994). Shoal choice in banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus, Teleostei, Cyprinodontidae): The effects of predation risk, fish size, species composition and size of shoals. - Ethology 98, p. 128-136.
8. _, _ & Brown, D. (1996a). Phenotypic variability within and between fish shoals. - Ecology 77, p. 1586-1591.
9. _, _ & _ (1996b). Size-assortativeness in multi-species fish shoals. - J. Fish Biol. 49, p. 221-225.
10. _, _ & Rubenstein, D. (in press). Group choice as a function of group size differences and assessment time in fish: the influence of species vulnerability to predation. - Ethology.
11. _ & Tegeder, R.W.N. (1994). The mechanism of aggregation behaviour in fish shoals: individuals try to minimise approach time to neighbours. - Anim. Behav. 48, p. 353-359.
12. Pitcher, T.J. (1986). The behaviour of teleost fish. - Chapman & Hall, London.
13. _ & Parrish, J.K. (1993). Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. - In: Behaviour of teleost fishes (T.J. Pitcher, ed.). Chapman and Hall, London, p. 363-439.
14. Pulliam, H.R. & Caraco, T. (1984). Living in groups: Is there an optimal group size? - In: Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn (J.R. Krebs & N.B. Davies, eds). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, p. 122-147.
15. Ranta E., Peuhkuri, N. & Laurila, A. (1994). A theoretical exploration of antipredatory and foraging factors promoting phenotype-assorted fish schools. - Ecoscience 1, p. 99-106.
16. Rubenstein, D.I. (1978). On predation, competition and the advantages of group living. -In: Perspectives in ethology (P.P.G. Bateson & P.H. Klopfer, eds). Plenum Press, New York, p. 205-231.
17. Tegeder, R.W. & Krause, J. (1995). Density dependence and numerosity in fright stimulated aggregation behaviour of shoaling fish. - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 350, p. 381-390.
18. Will, U. (1991). The amphibian Mauthner cell. - Brain. Behav. Evolut. 37, p. 317-332. Behaviour 134, 1063-1076