Unified effects of aggregation reveal larger prey groups take longer to find

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 278, Issue 1720, 2011, Pages 2985-2990

  Ioannou, Christos C ^a,b   Bartumeus, Frederic ^c   Krause, Jens ^d,e   Ruxton, Graeme D ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c CENTRE D ESTUDIS AVANÇATS DE BLANES CEAB CSIC   (Spain)

^d LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGY AND INLAND FISHERIES   (Germany)

^e HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aggregation; Conspicuousness; Detection; Encounter; Predator prey; Visual angle

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATION BEHAVIOR; ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; DETECTION METHOD; ENCOUNTER RATE; GROUP SIZE; LARVA; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY LOCATION; TELEOST; TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELING; VISUAL CUE;

CHIRONOMIDAE; GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS;

EID: 80052220791     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0003     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Krause, J. & Ruxton, G. D. 2002 Living in groups. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Riipi, M., Alatalo, R. V., Lindstrom, L. & Mappes, J. 2001 Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations. Nature 413, 512-514. (doi:10.1038/35097061)
3. Ioannou, C. C. & Krause, J. 2008 Searching for prey: the effects of group size and number. Anim. Behav. 75, 1383-1388. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.09.012)
4. Turner, G. F. & Pitcher, T. J. 1986 Attack abatement: a model for group protection by combined avoidance and dilution. Am. Nat. 128, 228-240. (doi:10.1086/284556)
5. Uetz, G. W. & Hieber, C. S. 1994 Group size and predation risk in colonial web-building spiders: analysis of attack abatement mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. 5, 326-333. (doi:10.1093/beheco/5.3.326)
6. Vine, I. 1971 Risk of visual detection and pursuit by a predator and the selective advantage of flocking behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 30, 405-422. (doi:10.1016/0022-5193(71)90061-0)
7. Travis, J. M. J. & Palmer, S. C. F. 2005 Spatial processes can determine the relationship between prey encounter rate and prey density. Biol. Lett. 1, 136-138. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0293)
8. Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. 1990 Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619-640. (doi:10.1139/z90-092)
9. Holling, C. S. 1959 Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91, 385-398. (doi:10.4039/Ent91385-7)
10. Hutchinson, J. M. C. & Waser, P. M. 2007 Use, misuse and extensions of 'ideal gas' models of animal encounter. Biol. Rev. 82, 335-359. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00014.x)
11. Thompson, H. R. 1956 Distribution of distance to nth neighbour in a population of randomly distributed individuals. Ecology 37, 391-394. (doi:10.2307/1933159)
12. Strickler, J. R., Udvadia, A. J., Marino, J., Radabaugh, N., Ziarek, J. & Nihongi, A. 2005 Visibility as a factor in the copepod-planktivorous fish relationship. Sci. Mar. 69, 111-124.
13. Wright, D. I. & O'Brien, W. J. 1984 The development and field test of a tactical model of the planktivorous feeding of white crappie (Pomoxia annularis). Ecol. Monogr. 54, 65-98. (doi:10.2307/1942456)
14. Aksnes, D. L. & Giske, J. 1993 A theoretical model of aquatic visual feeding. Ecol. Model. 67, 233-250. (doi:10.1016/0304-3800(93)90007-F)
15. Grand, T. C. & Dill, L.M. 1999 The effect of group size on the foraging behaviour of juvenile coho salmon: reduction of predation risk or increased competition? Anim. Behav. 58, 443-451. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1174)
16. Krause, J. & Godin, J. G. J. 1995 Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim. Behav. 50, 465-473. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1995.0260)
17. Confer, J. L. & Blades, P. I. 1975 Omnivorous zooplankton and planktivorous fish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 571-579. (doi:10.4319/lo.1975.20.4.0571)
18. Kerfoot, W. 1982 A question of taste: crypsis and warning coloration in freshwater zooplankton communities. Ecology 63, 538-554. (doi:10.2307/1938969)
19. Rasband, W. S. 2004 IMAGE J, v. 1.34s. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
20. Wetterer, J. K. 1989 Mechanisms of prey choice by planktivorous fish: perceptual constraints and rules of thumb. Anim. Behav. 37, 955-967. (doi:10.1016/0003-3472(89)90140-1)
21. O'Brien, W. J., Slade, N. A. & Vinyard, G. L. 1976 Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57, 1304-1310. (doi:10.2307/1935055)
22. Murray, S.O., Boyaci, H. & Kersten, D. 2006 The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 429-434. (doi:10.1038/nn1641)
23. Roth, G. 1987 Visual behavior in salamanders. New York, NY: Springer.
24. Wertlen, A., Niggebrugge, C., Vorobyev, M. & Hempel de Ibarra, N. 2008 Detection of patches of coloured discs by bees. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 2101-2104. (doi:10.1242/jeb.014571)
25. Spaethe, J., Tautz, J. & Chittka, L. 2001 Visual constraints in foraging bumblebees: flower size and color affect search time and flight behavior. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 3898-3903. (doi:10.1073/pnas.071053098)
26. Smith, C., Barber, I., Wootton, R. J. & Chittka, L. 2004 A receiver bias in the origin of three-spined stickleback mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 949-955. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2690)
27. Ruxton, G. D. 2005 Increasing search rate over time may cause a slower than expected increase in prey encounter rate with increasing prey density. Biol. Lett. 1, 133-135. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0292)
28. Ioannou, C. C., Ruxton, G. D. & Krause, J. 2008 Search rate, attack probability, and the relationship between prey density and prey encounter rate. Behav. Ecol. 19, 842-846. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arn038)
29. Thomas, G. 1974 The influences of encountering a food object on subsequent searching behaviour in Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Anim. Behav. 22, 941-952. (doi:10.1016/0003-3472(74)90017-7)
30. Vine, I. 1973 Detection of prey flocks by predators. J. Theor. Biol. 40, 207-210. (doi:10.1016/0022-5193(73)90127-6)
31. Treisman, M. 1975 Predation and the evolution of gregariousness. I. Models for concealment and evasion. Anim. Behav. 23, 779-800. (doi:10.1016/0003-3472(75)90106-2)
32. Ruxton, G. D., Jackson, A. L. & Tosh, C. R. 2007 Confusion of predators does not rely on specialist coordinated behavior. Behav. Ecol. 18, 590-596. (doi:10.1093/ beheco/arm009)