The tendency of predators to preferentially attack phenotypically odd prey in groups (the oddity effect) is a clear example of how predator cognition can impact behaviour and morphology in prey. Through targeting phenotypically odd prey, predators are thought to avoid the cognitive constraints that delay and limit the success of attacks on homogenous prey groups (the confusion effect). In addition to influencing which prey a predator will attack, the confusion and oddity effects would also predict that attacks on odd prey can occur more rapidly than attacking the majority prey type, as odd prey are more easily targeted, but this prediction has yet to be tested. Here, we used kerri tetra fish, Inpaichthys kerri, presented with mixed phenotypic groups of Daphnia dyed red or black to investigate whether odd prey in groups are preferentially attacked and whether these attacks were faster than those on the majority prey type. In agreement with previous work, odd prey were targeted and attacked more often than expected from their frequency in the prey groups, regardless of whether the odd prey was red in a group of black prey or vice versa. However, no difference was found in the time taken to attack odd vs. majority prey items, contrary to our predictions. Our results suggest that the time taken to make an attack is determined by a wider range of factors or is subject to greater variance than the choice of which prey is selectively targeted in a group.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Despite the potential benefits gained from behavioural lateralisation, defined as the asymmetrical expression of cognitive functioning, this trait demonstrates widespread variation within and between populations. Numerous methodologies have been applied to investigate lateralisation, although whether different methodologies give consistent results has been relatively understudied. In this study, we assess (1) the repeatability of individual Poecilia reticulata’s lateralisation indexes between a classic detour assay (I-maze), quasi-circular mirror maze and novel detour assay (a radially symmetric Y-maze); (2) whether the methodological standard of analysing only the first ten turns in a detour assay accurately quantifies lateralisation; and (3) whether lateralisation indexes produced can be adequately explained by random chance by comparing the observed data to a novel unbiased ‘coin-toss’ randomisation model. We found (1) the two detour assays to produce generally consistent results in terms of relative lateralisation (directionality) but differed in terms of absolute laterality (intensity). The mirror assay, however, demonstrated no similarity to either assay. (2) The first ten turns were generally reflective of all turns undertaken during the 15-min trial but reducing the number of turns did exaggerate lateralisation indexes. (3) The observed laterality indexes from the assays were found to be similar to corresponding datasets produced by the randomisation model, with significant deviations likely explained by individuals’ propensity to perform consecutive turns in the same direction. These results demonstrate the need to increase the number of observed turning choices to reduce the likelihood of producing spurious or exaggerated lateralisation indexes from random chance or external influences. Significance statement Published studies investigating lateralisation, or ‘handedness’, in fish species have used a diverse array of methodologies. Given the variability in methodologies being employed and the widespread variation in the extent fish are lateralised and in which direction (left or right), it is important to assess whether different methods produce consistent laterality indexes. From assessing individual Poecilia reticulata in three laterality assays, the direction of lateralisation was found to correlate between the two detour assays measuring turn choice, although the absolute strength of this laterality was not consistent. There were no correlations between these assays and in an individual’s eye-use when viewing their reflection in a mirror maze assay. However, further investigation using a novel unbiased ‘coin-toss’ randomisation model to simulate replica datasets for each assay brings into question whether patterns of laterality found in the observed population differ significantly from random chance.

No abstract