The confusion effect—from neural networks to reduced predation risk

The confusion effect is often cited as an antipredatory benefit of group living and has been demonstrated by numerous studies across a range of taxa. However, there have been relatively few studies examining the mechanisms behind the effect and no experimental test of its supposed theoretical basis (information degradation in neural networks) using a natural predator--prey pairing. In agreement with other studies, we demonstrate that attack success of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) is reduced by an increase in Daphnia magna group size. Neural network models attempt to explain this trend with multiple prey inducing poor neural mapping of target prey, thus leading to an increase in the spatial error of each attack. We explicitly tested this prediction and demonstrate that the decrease in attack success by sticklebacks does correspond to an increase in spatial targeting error with larger prey group size. Finally, we show that the number of targets, rather than the density or area occupied by the group, has the greatest effect on reducing the rate of attack. These results are discussed in the context of the information processing constraints of predators, the ultimate cause of the confusion effect. Copyright 2008, Oxford University Press.

[1]  J. Grover,et al.  The unselfish swarm , 1994 .

[2]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus , 1990 .

[3]  J. M. Cullen,et al.  Experiments on whether schooling by their prey affects the hunting behaviour of cephalopods and fish predators , 2009 .

[4]  Anne E. Magurran,et al.  Provenance, shoal size and the sociobiology of predator-evasion behaviour in minnow shoals , 1987, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[5]  W. Cresswell,et al.  Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in redshanks, Tringa totanus , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  Osamu Ohguchi,et al.  Prey density and selection against oddity by three-spined sticklebacks , 1981 .

[7]  M. Milinski Do all members of a swarm suffer the same predation , 2010 .

[8]  Graeme D. Ruxton,et al.  Confusion of predators does not rely on specialist coordinated behavior , 2007 .

[9]  R. R. Krausz Living in Groups , 2013 .

[10]  M. Milinski Can an experienced predator overcome the confusion of swarming prey more easily? , 1979, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  M. Milinski Experiments on selection by predators against spatial oddity of their prey , 2010 .

[12]  D. Krakauer Groups confuse predators by exploiting perceptual bottlenecks: a connectionist model of the confusion effect , 1995, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[13]  Jonathan M. Jeschke,et al.  Effects of predator confusion on functional responses. , 2005 .

[14]  R. C. Miller The Significance of the Gregarious Habit , 1922 .

[15]  W. Hamilton Geometry for the selfish herd. , 1971, Journal of theoretical biology.

[16]  K. Jensen,et al.  Predator evasion in Daphnia: the adaptive value of aggregation associated with attack abatement , 2002, Oecologia.

[17]  M. Milinski A predator's costs of overcoming the confusion-effect of swarming prey , 1984, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  Manfred Milinski,et al.  Optimal foraging of sticklebacks on swarming prey , 1979, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  Andrew L Jackson,et al.  The Confusion Effect in Predatory Neural Networks , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[20]  G. Ruxton,et al.  Artificial Neural Network Properties Associated with Wiring Patterns in the Visual Projections of Vertebrates and Arthropods , 2006, The American Naturalist.