Shoaling and schooling
In biology, any group of fish that stay together for social reasons are shoaling, and if the group is swimming in the same direction in a coordinated manner, they are schooling.[1] In common usage, the terms are sometimes used rather loosely.[1] About one quarter of fish species shoal all their lives, and about one half shoal for part of their lives.[2]
Fish derive many benefits from shoaling behaviour including defence against predators (through better predator detection and by diluting the chance of individual capture), enhanced
Fish use many traits to choose shoalmates. Generally they prefer larger shoals, shoalmates of their own species, shoalmates similar in size and appearance to themselves, healthy fish, and kin (when recognized).
The oddity effect posits that any shoal member that stands out in appearance will be preferentially targeted by predators. This may explain why fish prefer to shoal with individuals that resemble themselves. The oddity effect thus tends to homogenize shoals.
Overview
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2021) |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Heringsschwarm.gif/220px-Heringsschwarm.gif)
An aggregation of fish is the general term for any collection of fish that have gathered together in some locality. Fish aggregations can be structured or unstructured. An unstructured aggregation might be a group of mixed species and sizes that have gathered randomly near some local resource, such as food or nesting sites.
If, in addition, the aggregation comes together in an interactive, social way, they may be said to be shoaling.[1][a] Although shoaling fish can relate to each other in a loose way, with each fish swimming and foraging somewhat independently, they are nonetheless aware of the other members of the group as shown by the way they adjust behaviour such as swimming, so as to remain close to the other fish in the group. Shoaling groups can include fish of disparate sizes and can include mixed-species subgroups.
If the shoal becomes more tightly organised, with the fish synchronising their swimming so they all move at the same speed and in the same direction, then the fish may be said to be schooling.[1][3][b] Schooling fish are usually of the same species and the same age/size. Fish schools move with the individual members precisely spaced from each other. The schools undertake complicated manoeuvres, as though the schools have minds of their own.[4]
The intricacies of schooling are far from fully understood, especially the swimming and feeding energetics. Many hypotheses to explain the function of schooling have been suggested, such as better orientation, synchronized hunting, predator confusion and reduced risk of being found. Schooling also has disadvantages, such as excretion buildup in the breathing media and oxygen and food depletion. The way the fish array in the school probably gives energy saving advantages, though this is controversial.[5]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Great_Barracuda_off_the_Netherland_Antilles.jpg/220px-Great_Barracuda_off_the_Netherland_Antilles.jpg)
Fish can be
Shoaling fish can shift into a disciplined and coordinated school, then shift back to an amorphous shoal within seconds. Such shifts are triggered by changes of activity from feeding, resting, travelling or avoiding predators.[4]
When schooling fish stop to feed, they break ranks and become shoals. Shoals are more vulnerable to predator attack. The shape a shoal or school takes depends on the type of fish and what the fish are doing. Schools that are travelling can form long thin lines, or squares or ovals or amoeboid shapes. Fast moving schools usually form a wedge shape, while shoals that are feeding tend to become circular.[4]
These sometimes immense gatherings fuel the
Herring are among the more spectacular schooling fish. They aggregate together in huge numbers. The largest schools are often formed during migrations by merging with smaller schools. "Chains" of schools one hundred kilometres (60 miles) long have been observed of mullet migrating in the Caspian Sea. Radakov estimated herring schools in the North Atlantic can occupy up to 4.8 cubic kilometres (1.2 cubic miles) with fish densities between 0.5 and 1.0 fish/cubic metre (3⁄8 to 3⁄4 fish per cubic yard), totalling about three billion fish in a single school.[10] These schools move along coastlines and traverse the open oceans. Herring schools in general have very precise arrangements which allow the school to maintain relatively constant cruising speeds. Herrings have excellent hearing, and their schools react very rapidly to a predator. The herrings keep a certain distance from a moving scuba diver or a cruising predator like a killer whale, forming a vacuole which looks like a doughnut from a spotter plane.[11]
Many species of large predatory fish also school, including many
"Shoaling behaviour is generally described as a trade-off between the anti-predator benefits of living in groups and the costs of increased foraging competition."[12] Landa (1998) argues that the cumulative advantages of shoaling, as elaborated below, are strong selective inducements for fish to join shoals.[13] Parrish et al. (2002) argue similarly that schooling is a classic example of emergence, where there are properties that are possessed by the school but not by the individual fish. Emergent properties give an evolutionary advantage to members of the school which non members do not receive.[14]
Social interaction
Support for the social and genetic function of aggregations, especially those formed by fish, can be seen in several aspects of their behaviour. For instance, experiments have shown that individual fish removed from a school will have a higher respiratory rate than those found in the school.[15] This effect has been attributed to stress, and the effect of being with conspecifics therefore appears to be a calming one and a powerful social motivation for remaining in an aggregation.[16] Herring, for instance, will become very agitated if they are isolated from conspecifics.[7] Because of their adaptation to schooling behaviour they are rarely displayed in aquaria. Even with the best facilities aquaria can offer they become fragile and sluggish compared to their quivering energy in wild schools.[citation needed]
Foraging advantages
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Upwelling_image1.jpg/300px-Upwelling_image1.jpg)
It has also been proposed that swimming in groups enhances foraging success. This ability was demonstrated by Pitcher and others in their study of foraging behaviour in shoaling
"The reason for this is the presence of many eyes searching for the food. Fish in shoals "share" information by monitoring each other's behaviour closely. Feeding behaviour in one fish quickly stimulates food-searching behaviour in others.[19]
Fertile feeding grounds for forage fish are provided by ocean upwellings.
-
This copepod has its antenna spread (click to enlarge). The antenna detects the pressure wave of an approaching fish.
-
Copepods are a major food source for forage fish like this Atlantic herring.
-
School of herrings ram-feeding on a school of copepods, with opercula expanded so their red gills are visible
-
Animation showing how herrings hunting in a synchronised way can capture the very alert and evasive copepod
The fish swim in a grid where the distance between them is the same as the jump length of their prey, as indicated in the animation above right. In the animation, juvenile herring hunt the copepods in this synchronised way. The copepods sense with their antennae the pressure-wave of an approaching herring and react with a fast escape jump. The length of the jump is fairly constant. The fish align themselves in a grid with this characteristic jump length. A copepod can dart about 80 times before it tires. After a jump, it takes it 60 milliseconds to spread its antennae again, and this time delay becomes its undoing, as the almost endless stream of herrings allows a herring to eventually snap the copepod. A single juvenile herring could never catch a large copepod.[8]
Reproductive advantages
A third proposed benefit of fish groups is that they serve a reproductive function. They provide increased access to potential mates, since finding a mate in a shoal does not take much energy. And for migrating fish that navigate long distances to spawn, it is likely that the navigation of the shoal, with an input from all the shoal members, will be better than that taken by an individual fish.[4][page needed]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Capelin-iceland.svg/220px-Capelin-iceland.svg.png)
Forage fish often make great migrations between their spawning, feeding and nursery grounds. Schools of a particular stock usually travel in a triangle between these grounds. For example, one stock of herrings have their spawning ground in southern Norway, their feeding ground in Iceland, and their nursery ground in northern Norway. Wide triangular journeys such as these may be important because forage fish, when feeding, cannot distinguish their own offspring.[citation needed]
Capelin are a forage fish of the smelt family found in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. In summer, they graze on dense swarms of plankton at the edge of the ice shelf. Larger capelin also eat krill and other crustaceans. The capelin move inshore in large schools to spawn and migrate in spring and summer to feed in plankton rich areas between Iceland, Greenland, and Jan Mayen. The migration is affected by ocean currents. Around Iceland maturing capelin make large northward feeding migrations in spring and summer. The return migration takes place in September to November. The spawning migration starts north of Iceland in December or January.[22]
Hydrodynamic efficiency
This theory states that groups of fish may save energy when swimming together, much in the way that bicyclists may
It would seem reasonable to think that the regular spacing and size uniformity of fish in schools would result in hydrodynamic efficiencies.[12] While early laboratory-based experiments failed to detect hydrodynamic benefits created by the neighbours of a fish in a school,[19] it is thought that efficiency gains do occur in the wild. More recent experiments with groups of fish swimming in flumes support this, with fish reducing their swimming costs by as much as 20% as compared to when the same fish are swimming in isolation.[25] Landa (1998) argued that the leader of a school constantly changes, because while being in the body of a school gives a hydrodynamic advantage, the leader will be the first to the food.[13] More recent work suggests that, after individuals at the front of the school encounter and ingest more food, they then relocate further back within the school due to the locomotor constraints generated during meal digestion.[26]
Predator avoidance
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Moofushi_Kandu_fish.jpg/300px-Moofushi_Kandu_fish.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Red_Fish_at_Papah%C4%81naumoku%C4%81kea_%28cropped%29.jpg/300px-Red_Fish_at_Papah%C4%81naumoku%C4%81kea_%28cropped%29.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Schooling_response_time_in_face_of_predator.png/300px-Schooling_response_time_in_face_of_predator.png)
It is commonly observed that schooling fish are particularly in danger of being eaten if they are separated from the school.
One potential method by which fish schools might thwart
Schooling behaviour confuses the
A third potential anti-predator effect of animal aggregations is the "many eyes" hypothesis. This theory states that as the size of the group increases, the task of scanning the environment for predators can be spread out over many individuals. Not only does this
A fourth hypothesis for an anti-predatory effect of fish schools is the "encounter dilution" effect. The dilution effect is an elaboration of safety in numbers, and interacts with the confusion effect.[19] A given predator attack will eat a smaller proportion of a large shoal than a small shoal.[41] Hamilton proposed that animals aggregate because of a "selfish" avoidance of a predator and was thus a form of cover-seeking.[42] Another formulation of the theory was given by Turner and Pitcher and was viewed as a combination of detection and attack probabilities.[43] In the detection component of the theory, it was suggested that potential prey might benefit by living together since a predator is less likely to chance upon a single group than a scattered distribution. In the attack component, it was thought that an attacking predator is less likely to eat a particular fish when a greater number of fish are present. In sum, a fish has an advantage if it is in the larger of two groups, assuming that the probability of detection and attack does not increase disproportionately with the size of the group.[44]
Schooling forage fish are subject to constant attacks by predators. An example is the attacks that take place during the African
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/A_tornado_of_fish.jpg/300px-A_tornado_of_fish.jpg)
When threatened, sardines (and other forage fish) instinctively group together and create massive bait balls. Bait balls can be up to 20 metres (66 ft) in diameter. They are short lived, seldom lasting longer than 20 minutes. The fish eggs, left behind at the Agulhas Banks, drift north west with the current into waters off the west coast, where the larvae develop into juvenile fish. When they are old enough, they aggregate into dense shoals and migrate southwards, returning to the Agulhas banks to restart the cycle.[46]
The development of schooling behavior was probably associated with an increased quality of perception, predatory lifestyle and size sorting mechanisms to avoid cannibalism.[36] In filter-feeding ancestors, before vision and the octavolateralis system (OLS) had developed, the risk of predation would have been limited and mainly due to invertebrate predators. Hence, at that time, safety in numbers was probably not a major incentive for gathering in shoals or schools. The development of vision and the OLS would have permitted detection of potential prey. This could have led to an increased potential for cannibalism within the shoal. On the other hand, increased quality of perception would give small individuals a chance to escape or to never join a shoal with larger fish. It has been shown that small fish avoid joining a group with larger fish, although big fish do not avoid joining small conspecifics.[47] This sorting mechanism based on increased quality of perception could have resulted in homogeneity of size of fish in shoals, which would increase the capacity for moving in synchrony.[36]
Predator countermeasures
Predators have devised various countermeasures to undermine the defensive shoaling and schooling manoeuvres of forage fish. The sailfish raises its sail to make it appear much larger so it can herd a school of fish or squid. Swordfish charge at high speed through forage fish schools, slashing with their swords to kill or stun prey. They then turn and return to consume their "catch". Thresher sharks use their long tails to stun shoaling fishes. Before striking, the sharks compact schools of prey by swimming around them and splashing the water with their tails, often in pairs or small groups. Threshers swim in circles to drive schooling prey into a compact mass, before striking them sharply with the upper lobe of its tail to stun them.[48][49] Spinner sharks charge vertically through the school, spinning on their axis with their mouths open and snapping all around. The shark's momentum at the end of these spiralling runs often carries it into the air.[50][51]
-
Sailfish herd with their sails.
-
Swordfish slash with their swords.
-
Thresher sharks strike with their tails.
-
Spinner sharks spin on their long axis.
-
↑ A team of common bottlenose dolphins cooperate to make schooling fish jump in the air. In this vulnerable position the fish are easy prey for the dolphins.[52]
Some predators, such as dolphins, hunt in groups of their own. One technique employed by many dolphin species is herding, where a pod will control a school of fish while individual members take turns ploughing through and feeding on the more tightly packed school (a formation commonly known as a bait ball). Corralling is a method where fish are chased to shallow water where they are more easily captured. In South Carolina, the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin takes this one step further with what has become known as strand feeding, where the fish are driven onto mud banks and retrieved from there.[53]
During the
Subsets of bottlenose dolphin populations in Mauritania are known to engage in interspecific cooperative fishing with human fishermen. The dolphins drive a school of fish towards the shore where humans await with their nets. In the confusion of casting nets, the dolphins catch a large number of fish as well. Intraspecific cooperative foraging techniques have also been observed, and some propose that these behaviours are transmitted through cultural means. Rendell & Whitehead have proposed a structure for the study of culture in cetaceans.[54]
Some whales
External videos | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() |
-
A pair of humpback whales, a species of rorqual, lunge feeding
-
Gannets "divebomb" at high speed
How fish school
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Barracuda_Tornado.jpg/220px-Barracuda_Tornado.jpg)
Fish schools swim in disciplined phalanxes, with some species, such as herrings, able to stream up and down at impressive speeds, twisting this way and that, and making startling changes in the shape of the school, without collisions. It is as if their motions are choreographed, though they are not. There must be very fast response systems to allow the fish to do this. Young fish practice schooling techniques in pairs, and then in larger groups as their techniques and senses mature. The schooling behaviour develops instinctively and is not learned from older fish. To school the way they do, fish require sensory systems which can respond with great speed to small changes in their position relative to their neighbour. Most schools lose their schooling abilities after dark, and just shoal. This indicates that vision is important to schooling. The importance of vision is also indicated by the behaviour of fish who have been temporarily blinded. Schooling species have eyes on the sides of their heads, which means they can easily see their neighbours. Also, schooling species often have "schooling marks" on their shoulders or the base of their tails, or visually prominent stripes, which provide reference marks when schooling,[57] similar in function to passive markers in artificial motion capture. However fish without these markers will still engage in schooling behaviour,[58] though perhaps not as efficiently.[citation needed]
Other senses are also used. Pheromones or sound may also play a part but supporting evidence has not been found so far. The
Describing shoal structure
It is difficult to observe and describe the three dimensional structure of real world fish shoals because of the large number of fish involved. Techniques include the use of recent advances in fisheries acoustics.[59]
Parameters defining a fish shoal include:
- Shoal size – The number of fish in the shoal. A remote sensing technique has been used near the edge of the continental shelf off the east coast of North America to take images of fish shoals. The shoals – most likely made up of Atlantic herring, scup, hake, and black sea bass – were said to contain "tens of millions" of fish and stretched for "many kilometers".[60]
- Density – The density of a fish shoal is the number of fish divided by the volume occupied by the shoal. Density is not necessarily a constant throughout the group. Fish in schools typically have a density of about one fish per cube of body length.[61]
-
Low density
-
High density
-
Low polarity
-
High polarity
- Polarity – The group polarity describes the extent to which the fish are all pointing in the same direction. In order to determine this parameter, the average orientation of all animals in the group is determined. For each animal, the angular difference between its orientation and the group orientation is then found. The group polarity is the average of these differences.[62]
- Nearest neighbour distance – The nearest neighbour distance (NND) describes the distance between the centroid of one fish (the focal fish) and the centroid of the fish nearest to the focal fish. This parameter can be found for each fish in an aggregation and then averaged. Care must be taken to account for the fish located at the edge of a fish aggregation, since these fish have no neighbour in one direction. The NND is also related to the packing density. For schooling fish the NND is usually between one-half and one body length.[citation needed]
- Nearest neighbour position – In a polar coordinate system, the nearest neighbour position describes the angle and distance of the nearest neighbour to a focal fish.[citation needed]
- Packing fraction – The packing fraction is a parameter borrowed from physics to define the organization (or state i.e. solid, liquid, or gas) of 3D fish groups. It is an alternative measure to density. In this parameter, the aggregation is idealized as an ensemble of solid spheres, with each fish at the center of a sphere. The packing fraction is defined as the ratio of the total volume occupied by all individual spheres divided by the global volume of the aggregation. Values range from zero to one, where a small packing fraction represents a dilute system like a gas.[63]
- Integrated conditional density – This parameter measures the density at various length scales and therefore describes the homogeneity of density throughout an animal group.[63]
- Pair distribution function – This parameter is usually used in physics to characterize the degree of spatial order in a system of particles. It also describes the density, but this measure describes the density at a distance away from a given point. Cavagna et al. found that flocks of starlings exhibited more structure than a gas but less than a liquid.[63]
Modelling school behaviour
Boids simulation – needs Java
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg/16px-Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg.png)
Mathematical models
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2021) |
The observational approach is complemented by the mathematical modelling of schools. The most common mathematical models of schools instruct the individual animals to follow three rules:
- Move in the same direction as your neighbour
- Remain close to your neighbours
- Avoid collisions with your neighbours
An example of such a simulation is the
Many current models use variations on these rules. For instance, many models implement these three rules through layered zones around each fish.- In the zone of repulsion very close to the fish, the focal fish will seek to distance itself from its neighbours in order to avoid a collision.
- In the slightly further away zone of alignment, a focal fish will seek to align its direction of motion with its neighbours.
- In the outmost zone of attraction, which extends as far away from the focal fish as it is able to sense, the focal fish will seek to move towards a neighbour.
The shape of these zones will necessarily be affected by the sensory capabilities of the fish. Fish rely on both vision and on hydrodynamic signals relayed through its lateral line. Antarctic krill rely on vision and on hydrodynamic signals relayed through its antennae.
In a masters thesis published in 2008, Moshi Charnell produced schooling behaviour without using the alignment matching component of an individual's behaviour.[67] His model reduces the three basic rules to the following two rules:
- Remain close to your neighbours
- Avoid collisions with your neighbours
In a paper published in 2009, researchers from Iceland recount their application of an interacting particle model to the capelin stock around Iceland, successfully predicting the spawning migration route for 2008.[68]
Evolutionary models
In order to gain insight into why animals evolve
Mapping the formation of schools
In 2009, building on recent advances in
The researchers imaged
Leadership and decision-making
Fish schools are faced with decisions they must make if they are to remain together. For example, a decision might be which direction to swim when confronted by a predator, which areas to stop and forage, or when and where to migrate.[80]
Other open questions of shoaling behaviour include identifying which individuals are responsible for the direction of shoal movement. In the case of migratory movement, most members of a shoal seem to know where they are going. Observations on the foraging behaviour of captive golden shiner (a kind of minnow) found they formed shoals which were led by a small number of experienced individuals who knew when and where food was available.[83] If all golden shiners in a shoal have similar knowledge of food availability, there are a few individuals that still emerge as natural leaders (being at the front more often) and behavioural tests suggest they are naturally bolder.[84] Smaller golden shiners appear more willing than larger ones to be near the front of the shoal, perhaps because they are hungrier.[85] Observations on the common roach have shown that food-deprived individuals tend to be at the front of a shoal, where they obtain more food[86][87] but where they may also be more vulnerable to ambush predators.[88] Individuals that are wary of predation tend to seek more central positions within shoals.[89]
Shoal choice
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Glass_fish.jpg/220px-Glass_fish.jpg)
Experimental studies of shoal preference are relatively easy to perform. An aquarium containing a choosing fish is sandwiched between two aquaria containing different shoals, and the choosing fish is assumed to spend more time next to the shoal it prefers. Studies of this kind have identified several factors important for shoal preference.[citation needed]
Fish generally prefer larger shoals.[90][91] This makes sense, as larger shoal usually provide better protection against predators. Indeed, the preference for larger shoals seems stronger when predators are nearby,[92][93] or in species that rely more on shoaling than body armour against predation.[94] Larger shoals may also find food faster, though that food would have to be shared amongst more individuals. Competition may mean that hungry individuals might prefer smaller shoals or exhibit a lesser preference for very large shoals, as shown in sticklebacks.[95][96]
Fish prefer to shoal with their own species. Sometimes, several species may become mingled in one shoal, but when a predator is presented to such shoals, the fish reorganize themselves so that each individual ends up being closer to members of its own species.[97]
Fish tend to prefer shoals made up of individuals that match their own size.[98][99][100] This makes sense as predators have an easier time catching individuals that stand out in a shoal. Some fish may even prefer shoals of another species if this means a better match in current body size.[101] As for shoal size however, hunger can affect the preference for similarly sized fish; large fish, for example, might prefer to associate with smaller ones because of the competitive advantage they will gain over these shoalmates. In golden shiner, large satiated fish prefer to associate with other large individuals, but hungry ones prefer smaller shoalmates.[102]
Fish prefer to shoal with individuals with which the choosing fish is already familiar. This has been demonstrated in
Sticklebacks and killifish have been shown to prefer shoals made up of healthy individuals over parasitized ones, on the basis of visual signs of parasitism and abnormal behaviour by the parasitized fish.[112][113][114][115] Zebrafish prefer shoals that consist of well-fed (greater stomach width) fish over food-deprived ones.[116]
Fish prefer to join shoals that are actively feeding.[120][121] Golden shiner can also detect the anticipatory activity of shoals that expect to be fed soon, and preferentially join such shoals.[122] Zebrafish also choose shoals that are more active.[123]
Commercial fishing
The schooling behaviour of fish is exploited on an industrial scale by the
Further examples
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Blacksmithfish_300.jpg/220px-Blacksmithfish_300.jpg)
Blacksmith fish live in loose shoals. They have a symbiotic relationship with the parasite eating senorita fish. When they encounter a shoal of senorita fish, they stop and form a tight ball and hang upside down (pictured), each fish waiting its turn to be cleaned. The senorita fish pick dead tissues and external parasites, like parasitic copecods and isocods, from the skin of other fishes.[citation needed]
Some shoals engage in
Piranha have a reputation as fearless fish that hunt in ferocious packs. However, recent research, which "started off with the premise that they school as a means of cooperative hunting", discovered that they were in fact rather fearful fish, like other fish, which schooled for protection from their predators, such as cormorants, caimans and dolphins. Piranhas are "basically like regular fish with large teeth".[125]
See also
- Allee effect
- Antipredator adaptation
- Cellular automaton
- Krill#Swarming
- Lek (mating arena)
- Mobile Bay jubilee
- Optimal foraging theory
- Predator satiation
- Schreckstoff
- The Blue Planet
- The Shoals of Herring
Notes
- ^ Other collective nouns used for fish include a draught of fish, a drift of fish, or a scale of fish. Collective nouns used for specific fish or marine animal species groups include a grind of blackfish, a troubling of goldfish, glean of herrings, bind or run of salmon, shiver of sharks, fever of stingrays, taint of tilapia, hover of trouts and pod of whales.[citation needed]
- ^ Shoaling is a special case of aggregating, and schooling is a special case of shoaling. While schooling and shoaling mean different things within biology, they are often treated as synonyms by non-specialists, with speakers of British English tending to use "shoaling" to describe any grouping of fish, while speakers of American English tend to use "schooling" just as loosely.[1]
References
- ^ a b c d e Pitcher and Parish 1993, page 365.
- Bibcode:1978AmSci..66..166S.
- ISBN 0-86542-256-7
- ^ ISBN 978-0-13-100847-2
- ISBN 978-0-412-42930-9
- ^ Breder, C. M. Jr. (1967). "On the survival value of fish schools". Zoologica. 52: 25–40.
- ^ S2CID 8032766.
- ^ a b Kils, U. (1992). "The ecoSCOPE and dynIMAGE: Microscale tools for in situ studies of predator-prey interactions". Arch Hydrobiol Beih. 36: 83–96.
- National Coalition for Marine Conservation: Forage fish
- ISBN 978-0-7065-1351-6
- doi:10.1139/z99-124. Archived from the original(PDF) on 17 December 2008.
- ^ .
- ^ S2CID 12674762.
- S2CID 377484.
- PMID 27655821.
- S2CID 22329892.
- S2CID 6340986.
- S2CID 6799134.
- ^ a b c Pitcher and Parish 1993
- ^ "Wind Driven Surface Currents: Upwelling and Downwelling".
- Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg
- .
- S2CID 49732151.
- PMID 15132738.
- PMID 25620833.
- PMID 29576472.
- ^ a b Aparna, Bhaduri (2011) Mockingbird Tales: Readings in Animal Behavior OpenStax College.
- S2CID 2244463.
- S2CID 4184043.
- S2CID 53163951.
- .
- S2CID 22967420.
- ^ PMID 23740485.
- ^ .
- PMID 21748447.
- ^ .
- PMID 11222136.
- PMID 17335346.
- S2CID 53202810.
- S2CID 53205760.
- JSTOR 1297632.
- PMID 5104951.
- S2CID 84738064.
- .
- ^ "Marine Scientists Scratch Heads Over Sardines". Archived from the original on 25 September 2004.
- ^ a b c d e "Sardine Run Shark Feeding Frenzy Phenomenon in Africa". Archived from the original on 2 December 2008.
- S2CID 30973104.
- ^ Seitz, J.C. Pelagic Thresher. Florida Museum of Natural History. Retrieved on December 22, 2008.
- PMID 23874415.
- ISBN 978-92-5-101384-7.
- ^ "Carcharhinus brevipinna, Spinner Shark". MarineBio.org. Retrieved 9 May 2009.
- ^ PMID 15695203.
- ^ "Coastal Stock(s) of Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin: Status Review and Management," Proceedings and Recommendations from a Workshop held in Beaufort, North Carolina, 13 September 1993 – 14 September 1993. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. pp. 56–57.
- S2CID 24052064.
- ISBN 9780375411410.
- PMID 19158011.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-415-37562-7
- ^ BBC News Online, Robofish accepted by wild fish shoal, 09:54 GMT, Thursday, 1 July 2010 10:54 UK
- ^ a b "One fish, two fish: New MIT sensor improves fish counts". Phys.org. Retrieved 13 September 2014.
- S2CID 140558930.
- S2CID 84810154.
- .
- ^ PMID 18586280.
- ^ "Self driven particle model". PhET. Retrieved 13 September 2014.
- S2CID 546350.
- S2CID 15918052.
- ^ Charnell, M. (2008)"Individual-based modelling of ecological systems and social aggregations". Download[permanent dead link]
- .
- S2CID 14414033.
- S2CID 12133884.
- PMID 15757680.
- PMID 17472913.
- S2CID 46988508.
- PMID 21540037.
- S2CID 10203872.
- PMID 26473039.
- S2CID 140558930.
- S2CID 6478019.
- ^ a b "Scientists IDs genesis of animal behavior patterns". Retrieved 13 September 2014.
- ^ Sumpter, D. "Collective Behavior".
- ^ PMID 22412869.
- S2CID 11362054.
- S2CID 4945309.
- S2CID 56117643.
- .
- S2CID 13140673.
- S2CID 32061496.
- .
- S2CID 54287659.
- S2CID 86589740.
- .
- S2CID 30901973.
- JSTOR 1447157.
- .
- ^ van Havre, N.; FitzGerald, G J (1988). "Shoaling and kin recognition in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.)". Biology of Behaviour. 13: 190–201.
- .
- .
- S2CID 53177367.
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- S2CID 23085058.
- PMID 10687820.
- PMID 20666898.
- PMID 20557623.
- S2CID 29725205.
- S2CID 31326304.
- .
- S2CID 53175064.
- S2CID 39806095.
- .
- .
- S2CID 21197916.
- S2CID 25036232.
- S2CID 53254313.
- S2CID 145533152.
- S2CID 85131321.
- .
- .
- S2CID 84055118.
- S2CID 53165127.
- JSTOR 1445113.
- ^ Fountain, Henry (24 May 2005). "Red-Bellied Piranha Is Really Yellow". New York Times. Retrieved 13 September 2014.
- .
- ^ Zimmermann, Tim (July 2006). "Behold the Humboldt squid". Outside Online. Retrieved 13 September 2014.
- ^ "The Curious Case of the Cannibal Squid – National Wildlife Federation". Retrieved 13 September 2014.
- ^ Thomas, Pete (26 March 2007). "Warning lights of the sea". Los Angeles Times.
Further reading
- Bonabeau, E; Dagorn, L (1995). "Possible universality in the size distribution of fish schools" (PDF). Physical Review. 51 (6): R5220–R5223. PMID 9963400.
- Boinski S and Garber PA (2000) On the Move: How and why Animals Travel in Groups University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-06339-3
- Breder, CM (1954). "Equations Descriptive of Fish Schools and Other Animal Aggregations". Ecology. 35 (3): 361–370. JSTOR 1930099.
- Childress S (1981) Mechanics of Swimming and Flying Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-28071-6
- Camazine S, Deneubourg JL, ISBN 978-0-691-11624-2 – especially Chapter 11
- Evans, SR; Finniea, M; Manica, A (2007). "Shoaling preferences in decapod crustacea". Animal Behaviour. 74 (6): 1691–1696. S2CID 53150496.
- Delcourt, J; Poncin, P (2012). "Shoals and schools: back to the heuristic definitions and quantitative references". Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 22 (3): 595–619. S2CID 18306602.
- Gautrais, J., Jost, C. & Theraulaz, G. (2008) Key behavioural factors in a self-organised fish school model. Annales Zoologici Fennici 45: 415–428.
- Godin, JJ (1997) Behavioural Ecology of Teleost Fishes Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-850503-7
- Ghosh S and Ramamoorthy CV (2004) Design for Networked Information Technology Systems Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-95544-5
- Hager, MC; Helfman, GS (1991). "Safety in numbers: shoal size choice by minnows under predatory threat". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 29 (4): 271–276. S2CID 30901973.
- Hemelrijk, CK; Hildenbrandt, H; Reinders, J; Stamhuis, EJ (2010). "Emergence of Oblong School Shape: Models and Empirical Data of Fish" (PDF). Ethology. 116 (11): 1–14. .
- Hoare, DJ; Krause, J (2003). "Social organisation, shoal structure and information transfer". Fish and Fisheries. 4 (3): 269–279. .
- Inada Y (2001) "Steering mechanism of fish schools" Complexity International, Vol 8, Paper ID Download
- Inagaki, T; Sakamoto, W; Aoki, I (1976). "Studies on the Schooling Behavior of Fish—III Mutual Relationship between Speed and Form in Schooling Behavior". Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries. 42 (6): 629–635. .
- Kato N and Ayers J (2004) Bio-mechanisms of Swimming and Flying Springer. ISBN 978-4-431-22211-8
- Kennedy J, Eberhart, RC and Shi Y (2001) Swarm Intelligence Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 978-1-55860-595-4
- Krause, J (2005) Living in Groups Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-850818-2
- Krause, J (2005). "Positioning behaviour in fish shoals: a cost–benefit analysis". doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1993.tb01194.x. Archived from the originalon 5 January 2013.
- Krause, J; Ruxton, GD; Rubenstein, D (2005). "Is there always an influence of shoal size on predator hunting success?". ]
- Litvak, MK (1993). "Response of shoaling fish to the threat of aerial predation". S2CID 30214279.
- Lurton X (2003) Underwater Acoustics Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-42967-8
- Moyle PB and Van Dyck CM (1995) Fish: An Enthusiast's Guide University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-20165-1
- ISBN 978-0-521-46024-8
- S2CID 377484.
- Partridge, BL (1982). "The structure and function of fish schools" (PDF). Scientific American. Vol. 246, no. 6. pp. 114–123. PMID 7201674. Archived from the original(PDF) on 3 July 2011.
- Pitcher, TJ (1983). "Heuristic definitions of fish shoaling behavior". Animal Behaviour. 31 (2): 611–613. S2CID 53195091.
- Pitcher TJ and Parish JK (1993) "Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts" In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 363–440
- S2CID 6340986.
- Pitcher TJ (2010) "Fish schooling" In: Steele JH, Thorpe SA and Turekian KK (Eds.) Marine Biology, Academic Press, pages 337–349. ISBN 978-0-08-096480-5.
- Pryor K and Norris KS (1998) Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-21656-3
- Ross DA (2000) The Fisherman's Ocean Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-2771-6
- Scalabrin, C; Massé, J (1993). "Acoustic detection of the spatial and temporal distribution of fish shoals in the Bay of Biscay". Aquatic Living Resources. 6 (3): 269–283. .
- Seno, H; Nakai, K (1995). "Mathematical analysis on fish shoaling by a density-dependent diffusion model". Ecological Modelling. 79 (3): 149–157. .
- Simmonds EJ and MacLennan, DN (2005) Fisheries Acoustics Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-0-632-05994-2
- Suppi R, Fernandez D and Luque E (2003) Fish schools: PDES simulation and real-time 3D animation in Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics: 5th International Conference, PPAM 2003, Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-21946-0
- Vicsek, A; Zafeiris, A (2012). "Collective motion". Physics Reports. 517 (3–4): 71–140. S2CID 119109873.
- White TI (2007) In Defense of Dolphins Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-5779-7
- Wolf, NG (1985). "Odd fish abandon mixed-species groups when threatened". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 17 (1): 47–52. S2CID 11935938.
- Wootton, RJ (1998) Ecology of Teleost Fishes Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-64200-5
External links
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png)
- Collective Animal Behavior website organized around David Sumpter's book (2008) by the same name
- STARFLAG project: Description of starling flocking project
- Center for Biologically Inspired Design at Georgia Tech
- David Sumpter's research website
- Iain Couzin's research website
- Website of Julia Parrish, an animal aggregation researcher
- Pelagic Fisheries Research Program (2002) Current status and new directions for studying schooling and aggregation behavior of pelagic fish
- Clover, Charles (2008) Fish can count to four – but no higher Telegraph Media Group.
- Herring Migratory Behaviour
- Example of schooling simulation
- Bhaduri, Aparna (2010) Schooling in Fish OpenStax College. Updated 16 July 2010.