Emergence of Oblong School Shape: Models and Empirical Data of Fish

The main benefit of the oblong shape of schools of fish is supposed to be the protection against predation. Models of self-organised travelling groups have shown that this shape may arise as a side effect of the avoidance of collisions with group members. These models were developed for schools of fish in open water, whereas the oblong shape of schools of real fish has mostly been observed in schools in tanks. Therefore, it is not known how school shape in a tank originates neither in models nor in real fish. To find out what causes this shape, we use the combination of a theoretical and an empirical study. We test the predictions produced by our earlier models regarding the effect of school size on the school shape both in a model of self-organised schooling in a tank and empirically. Empirically, we study the 3D positions of all individuals in the schools of 10‐60 real mullets (Chelon labrosus). We calculate for each individual its distance to its nearest neighbour and its velocity and we measure per school its length and width. The relation between school shape and size in the model and in the real mullets supports our prediction and thus supports the hypothesis that school shape may be emergent from the avoidance of collisions during coordinated travelling.

[1]  Vicsek,et al.  Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[2]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  D. V. Radakov.  Schooling in the ecology of fish , 1973 .

[4]  I. Couzin,et al.  Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move , 2005, Nature.

[5]  Roger Jovani,et al.  Breeding synchrony in colonial birds: from local stress to global harmony , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  Jens Krause,et al.  Mortality risk of spatial positions in animal groups: The danger of being in the front , 1997 .

[7]  François Gerlotto,et al.  The three-dimensional morphology and internal structure of clupeid schools as observed using vertical scanning multibeam sonar , 2003 .

[8]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  Density distribution and size sorting in fish schools: an individual-based model , 2005 .

[9]  C. Breder.  Equations Descriptive of Fish Schools and Other Animal Aggregations , 1954 .

[10]  Joseph J. Hale,et al.  Collective Motion and Cannibalism in Locust Migratory Bands , 2008, Current Biology.

[11]  Petter Fossum,et al.  Pretty patterns but a simple strategy: predator- prey interactions between juvenile herring and Atlantic puffins observed with multibeam sonar , 2001 .

[12]  Neha Bhooshan,et al.  The Simulation of the Movement of Fish Schools , 2001 .

[13]  T. Pitcher.  Functions of Shoaling Behaviour in Teleosts , 1986 .

[14]  D. Sumpter,et al.  From Compromise to Leadership in Pigeon Homing , 2006, Current Biology.

[15]  Joseph J. Hale,et al.  From Disorder to Order in Marching Locusts , 2006, Science.

[16]  Charles M. Breder,et al.  Studies on social groupings in fishes. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 117, article 6 , 1959 .

[17]  François Gerlotto,et al.  Three-dimensional structure and avoidance behaviour of anchovy and common sardine schools in central southern Chile , 2004 .

[18]  W. Foster,et al.  Group transmission of predator avoidance behaviour in a marine insect: The trafalgar effect , 1981, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  Self-Organized Shape and Frontal Density of Fish Schools , 2008 .

[20]  Pawel Romanczuk,et al.  Collective motion due to individual escape and pursuit response. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[21]  Hauke Reuter,et al.  SELFORGANIZATION OF FISH SCHOOLS : AN OBJECT-ORIENTED MODEL , 1994 .

[22]  Christophe Becco,et al.  Experimental evidences of a structural and dynamical transition in fish school , 2006 .

[23]  Christian A. Yates,et al.  Inherent noise can facilitate coherence in collective swarm motion , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  B. Partridge,et al.  The effect of school size on the structure and dynamics of minnow schools , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  J. Godin,et al.  Context-dependent group size choice in fish , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  T. Pitcher,et al.  The sensory basis of fish schools: Relative roles of lateral line and vision , 1980, Journal of comparative physiology.

[27]  Julia K. Parrish,et al.  Self-Organisation and Evolution of Social Systems: Traffic rules of fish schools: a review of agent-based approaches , 2005 .

[28]  G. Theraulaz,et al.  Analyzing fish movement as a persistent turning walker , 2009, Journal of mathematical biology.

[29]  Andreas Huth,et al.  THE SIMULATION OF FISH SCHOOLS IN COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA , 1994 .

[30]  I. Couzin,et al.  Cannibal crickets on a forced march for protein and salt. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Steven V. Viscido,et al.  Individual behavior and emergent properties of fish schools: a comparison of observation and theory , 2004 .

[32]  Nobuo Sannomiya,et al.  A simulation study on schooling behaviour of fish in a water tank , 1995 .

[33]  Richard James,et al.  Modelling density‐dependent fish shoal distributions in the laboratory and field , 2005 .

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

[35]  G. Parisi,et al.  Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  G. Parisi,et al.  Empirical investigation of starling flocks: a benchmark study in collective animal behaviour , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[37]  D. Stoyan,et al.  Fractals, random shapes and point fields : methods of geometrical statistics , 1996 .

[38]  G. Huse,et al.  Modelling changes in migration pattern of herring: collective behaviour and numerical domination , 2002 .

[39]  Edward A. Codling,et al.  Navigation in human crowds; testing the many-wrongs principle , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[40]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  Self-organised complex aerial displays of thousands of starlings: a model , 2009, 0908.2677.

[41]  Paul J. B. Hart,et al.  Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  I. Couzin,et al.  Self-Organization and Collective Behavior in Vertebrates , 2003 .

[43]  I. Couzin,et al.  Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[44]  Alethea Barbaro,et al.  Modelling and simulations of the migration of pelagic fish , 2009 .

[45]  T. Pitcher,et al.  The three-dimensional structure of fish schools , 1980, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[46]  D. Cushing,et al.  Why do Fish School? , 1968, Nature.

[47]  Craig W. Reynolds.  Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral model , 1987, SIGGRAPH.

[48]  S. Gueron,et al.  Self-organization of front patterns in large wildebeest herds , 1993 .

[49]  D. Grünbaum.  Schooling as a strategy for taxis in a noisy environment , 1998, Evolutionary Ecology.

[50]  J. Videler.  Fish Swimming , 1993, Springer Netherlands.

[51]  J. R. Nursall.  Some Behavioral Interactions of Spottail Shiners (Notropis hudsonius), Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens), and Northern Pike (Esox lucius) , 1973 .

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

[53]  B. Partridge.  Lateral Line Function and the Internal Dynamics of Fish Schools , 1981 .

[54]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Artificial Fish Schools: Collective Effects of School Size, Body Size, and Body Form , 2003, Artificial Life.

[55]  M. Keenleyside,et al.  Some Aspects of the Schooling Behaviour of Fish , 1955 .

[56]  Helbing,et al.  Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. , 1995, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.