Risk of predation affects aggregation size: a study with tadpoles of Phrynomantis microps (Anura: Microhylidae)

Spieler, Marko

doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.2030

Cited by 64 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tadpoles of Phyllom ed usa vaillanti (Branch, 1983) and A. americanus (Beiswenger, 1977) formed exclusively diurnal schools. Experiments including the effects of light in tadpoles of P. vaillanti showed that behavior could shift when exposed to light, rather than because of other stimuli (Spieler, 2003). We also observed a strong association between daytime and aggregation behavior in this study.…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The diurnal aggregation behavior in Phasmahyla cochranae tadpoles (Anura: Hylidae)

Leão-Pires

Giaretta²,

Sawaya³

2017

bah

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated schooling behavior of Phasm ahyla cochranae including its periodicity based on periodic regression models. The school structure and differences between day and night were discussed. We found that tadpoles formed aggregative schools, which were significantly more frequent during the day than at night. During the day, from 06:30 to 18:00 h, tadpoles formed one or two polarized schools at the water surface. Based on these results and on observations of specific behaviors, we suggest that daylight may be a significant environmental factor related to schooling behavior in P. cochranae, although this hypothesis needs to be further investigated.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 75%

“…Water transparency, for instance, explained most of the variability in aggregation size of tadpoles of Phrynomantis microps (Spieler, 2003). Tadpoles of Phyllom ed usa vaillanti (Branch, 1983) and A. americanus (Beiswenger, 1977) formed exclusively diurnal schools.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The diurnal aggregation behavior in Phasmahyla cochranae tadpoles (Anura: Hylidae)

Leão-Pires

Giaretta²,

Sawaya³

2017

bah

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By using homogeneous pastures, we minimize as much as possible the effect of environment heterogeneity (44). Direct predation disturbances that may be invoked to explain increases in group density (12,13,45) are also ruled out in this context. Therefore, we are able to argue that this collective behavior mainly results from socially driven individual decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intermittent collective dynamics emerge from conflicting imperatives in sheep herds

Ginelli

Peruani

Pillot

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

148

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the many fascinating examples of collective behavior exhibited by animal groups, some species are known to alternate slow group dispersion in space with rapid aggregation phenomena induced by a sudden behavioral shift at the individual level. We study this phenomenon quantitatively in large groups of grazing Merino sheep under controlled experimental conditions. Our analysis reveals strongly intermittent collective dynamics consisting of fast, avalanche-like regrouping events distributed on all experimentally accessible scales. As a proof of principle, we introduce an agent-based model with individual behavioral shifts, which we show to account faithfully for all collective properties observed. This offers, in turn, an insight on the individual stimulus/ response functions that can generate such intermittent behavior. In particular, the intensity of sheep allelomimetic behavior plays a key role in the group's ability to increase the per capita grazing surface while minimizing the time needed to regroup into a tightly packed configuration. We conclude that the emergent behavior reported probably arises from the necessity to balance two conflicting imperatives: (i) the exploration of foraging space by individuals and (ii) the protection from predators offered by being part of large, cohesive groups. We discuss our results in the context of the current debate about criticality in biology.sheep herds | collective behavior | self-organization | computational modeling | Allelomimetism T he social interactions and behavioral mechanisms involved in the coordination of collective movements in animal groups largely determine the animals' ability to display adapted responses when they face challenges, such as finding, efficiently, food sources (1-4) or safe resting places (5-7) or avoiding predators (8-13). Thus, the diversity of collective motion patterns observed in groupliving species reflects the multiple forms of interactions individuals use for coordinating their behavioral actions (14,15). Deciphering these interactions, their relation with the patterns emerging at the collective level, and their connections with the physiological and ecological constraints peculiar to each group-living species is crucial to understanding the evolution of collective phenomena in biological systems (16-18). So far, only a handful of quantitative datasets have been gathered for large animal groups (19-21). Most of them have focused on elementary cases where the prevailing biological imperative seems to be group cohesion, either to gain protection from potential predators, such as for the spontaneous collective motion exhibited by starling flocks (19,22) and some fish schools (23-25), or for reproductive purposes, as in swarms of midges (21,26).One important and, so far, often neglected aspect of collective motion is the existence of individual-level behavioral shifts, which, in turn, may trigger a transition at the collective level. For instance, in many species of fish, groups regularly alternate between a swarming state, in wh...

show abstract

“…On the other hand, group members incur costs in terms of increased exposure to natural enemies and increased intraspecific competition (Fitzgerald 1993;Rasa 1997;Prokopy and Roitberg 2001). Therefore, the degree of conspecific aggregation should reflect the costs and benefits of group living (Rasa 1997;Spieler 2003;Semeniuk and Dill 2004;Despland and Huu 2007). From this viewpoint, heterospecific individuals may also live together in a group when the benefit of interspecific grouping to individuals overwhelms the cost of interspecific competition between them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Cooperative web sharing against predators promotes group living in spider mites

Yano

2012

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I examined spider mite cooperative web sharing against predation as a factor promoting group living. Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus kanzawai infest leaf surfaces under webs made of silk threads. Experimental observation of predation by the predatory mite Euseius sojaensis on spider mites of different group sizes revealed that fewer spider mites were preyed upon when the webbuilding period before the attack was prolonged, suggesting that established webs help protect spider mites. Moreover, per capita predation on spider mites was diluted in larger groups. This was not due to predator satiation but seemingly because webs had been completed while the initial prey was consumed. Spider mites lived more closely together in the presence of a predator, showing that the degree of group living is facultative. In the presence of a preceding spider mite with an established web, a newcomer spider mite gain protection by taking residence in the established webs; sharing the web was not disadvantageous for the preceding mite. The proportion of individuals preyed upon did not differ between preceding and newcomer mites, suggesting that there was no interference against the latter. These interactions were consistent between heterospecific spider mites. Because there was no detectable indirect interaction between mites sharing fresh webs, cooperative web sharing seemed to be a major force promoting group living in the spider mites. Moreover, the distances between spider mites did not differ between heterospecific and conspecific groups, demonstrating that mites living together do not distinguish between species; hence, heterospecific mites may cooperate and live together in the same manner as conspecifics.

show abstract

Risk of predation affects aggregation size: a study with tadpoles of Phrynomantis microps (Anura: Microhylidae)

Cited by 64 publications

References 59 publications

The diurnal aggregation behavior in Phasmahyla cochranae tadpoles (Anura: Hylidae)

The diurnal aggregation behavior in Phasmahyla cochranae tadpoles (Anura: Hylidae)

Intermittent collective dynamics emerge from conflicting imperatives in sheep herds

Cooperative web sharing against predators promotes group living in spider mites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About