Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:41:00.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Costs and Benefits of Swarming Behaviour in Mysids: Does Orientation and Position in the Swarm Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

D.A. Ritz  and
E.B. Metillo
D.A. Ritz
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Box 252–05, GPO Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
E.B. Metillo
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Box 252–05, GPO Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mysids (Paramesopodopsis rufa) were tethered in both swarm and school formations in a flow tank to test whether food capture was influenced by orientation or position in the aggregation. Neither orientation nor position exerted a significant influence on food capture success. However, the two formations differed in that certain positions in the polarized configuration were significantly correlated. In addition individuals at the front of the aggregation captured more food (though non-significantly) with a significantly higher degree of variation. This experiment has demonstrated the feasibility of measuring food capture success in different locations within an aggregation of crustaceans.

Type
Short Communications
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , August 1998 , pp. 1011 - 1014
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clark, C.W. & Mangel, M., 1984. Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain environment. American Naturalist, 123, 626–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W.D., 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 31, 295–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamner, W.M., 1984. Aspects of schooling in Euphausia superba. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 4, 67–74. [Special Issue no. 1.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, J., Bumann, D. & Todt, D., 1992. Relationship between the position preference and nutritional state of individuals in schools of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 30, 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murtaugh, P.A., 1981. Size-selective predation on Daphnia by Neomysis mercedis. Ecology, 62, 894–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murtaugh, P.A., 1984. Variable gut residence time: problems in inferring feeding rate from stomach fullness of a mysid crustacean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 41, 1287–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'brien, D.P., 1988a. Direct observations of clustering (schooling and swarming) behaviour in mysids (Crustacea: Mysidacea). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 42, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'brien, D.P., 1988b. Surface schooling behaviour of the coastal krill Nyctiphanes australis (Crustacea: Euphausiacea) off Tasmania, Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 42, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'brien, D.P., 1989. Analysis of the internal arrangement of individuals within crustacean aggregations (Euphausiacea, Mysidacea). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 128, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'brien, D.P. & Ritz, D.A., 1988. The escape responses of gregarious mysids (Crustacea; Mysidacea): towards a general classification of escape responses in aggregated crustaceans. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 116, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, D.A., 1991. Benefits of a good school. New Scientist, 1761, 41–43.Google Scholar
Ritz, D. A., 1994. Social aggregation in pelagic invertebrates. Advances in Marine Biology, 30, 155–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, D.A., 1997. Costs and benefits as a function of group size: experiments on a swarming mysid, Paramesopodopsis rufa Fenton. In Animal groups in three dimensions (ed. J.K., Parrish and W.M., Hamner), pp. 194–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, D.A., Osborn, J.E. & Ocken, A.E.J., 1997. Influence of food and predatory attack on mysid swarm dynamics. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 77, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, C.J. & Pitcher, T.J., 1989. The influence of hunger and ration level on shoal density, polarization and swimming speed of herring, Clupea harengus L. Journal of Fish Biology, 35, 459–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romey, W.L., 1995. Position preferences within groups: do whirligigs select positions which balance feeding opportunities with predator avoidance. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 37, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romey, W.L., 1997. Why are some members more likely to be on the outside of the group: testing the evolutionary predictions. In Animal groups in three dimensions (ed. J.K., Parrish and W.M., Hamner), pp. 174–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryer, C.H. & Olla, B.L., 1992. Social mechanisms facilitating exploitation of spatially variable ephemeral food patches in a pelagic marine fish. Animal Behaviour, 44, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, A.J., 1981. Techniques of analysis of variance in experimental marine biology and ecology. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review, 19, 513–605.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. & Labarbera, M., 1978. Simple flow tanks for research and teaching. Bioscience, 28, 638–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar