effects of species composition on schooling preferences in glowlight tetras
DESCRIPTION
Effects of species composition on schooling preferences in glowlight tetras. By Avery Nagy-MacArthur, Cybele Sabitry & Samantha Shaw. Introduction. Schooling is an important form of social organization among fish Predator avoidance “dilution effect” increases as school size increases - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Effects of species composition on schooling preferences in glowlight tetras
By Avery Nagy-MacArthur, Cybele Sabitry & Samantha Shaw
Introduction
• Schooling is an important form of social organization among fish– Predator avoidance
• “dilution effect” increases as school size increases• Confusion effect
– Increase feeding success • Improves detection of food resources• Increases competition between individuals within school• Overcome interspecific competition by schooling to access
resources defended by competitor
Introduction
• Schools may be composed of a single species or variety of species– Conspecific fish school only with their own species– Heterospecific fish school with other species
• Heterospecific schooling may be advantageous for duller fish if they can associate with brighter fish
• Advantage depends on relative composition of school
dull fish < bright fish
Are schooling preferences dependent on relative school composition?
Test subjectsGlowlight tetra
(Hemigrammus erythrozonus)
• Heterospecific schooler
Neon tetra(Cheirodon innesi)
• Conspecific schooler
Hypothesis
• Schooling preference will change based on species composition of available schools– As the proportion of conspecifics in an available
school increases, glowlight tetras will increase their preference for the school composed completely of neon tetras
Procedure
• Offered test fish two different schools• Acclimated test fish for 3-5 minutes• Every 30 s recorded position of fish, for 15 min• Reversed jars and switched test subject• 4 trials for each of three treatments
= 12 tests total (24 test fish)
Split treatment4 glowlight tetras4 neon tetras
8 neon tetras
Conspecific-weighted treatment6 glowlight tetras2 neon tetras 8 neon tetras
Heterospecific-weighted treatment2 glowlight tetras6 neon tetras
8 neon tetras
Results
2 glowlights & 6 neons
No fish 8 neons 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
.
perc
ent ti
me
Heterospecific-weighted treatment
4glowlights & 4neons No fish 8neons0
10
20
30
40
50
60
perc
ent ti
me
Split treatment
6glowlights & 2neons No fish 8 neon0
10
20
30
40
50
60
perc
ent ti
me
Conspecific-weighted treatment
Discussion
• High variation in data• Possible trend for??– More time spent with heterospecifics when the
proportion of conspecifics is low– Increasing proportion of conspecifics may
increase time spent with mixed school
BUT…
– Our sample size was small (24 test fish used)– We couldn’t control for sex or age of test fish– May have repeatedly sampled some test fish due to small
source population– External environmental influences (shadows, reflections,
etc)
Other influences on schooling:
– Fish may prefer familiar heterospecifics over foreign conspecifics
– Variation in size may have influenced schooling preference
– Social hierarchies developed while kept as a group could have caused test fish to avoid certain individuals regardless of species
Suggestions for further research
• Taking into account importance of chemical cues • Controlling for size differences• Larger sample size• Better control over environmental conditions of fish
both during and outside of experiment
QUESTIONS ?