Ental distribution of `bouts’ as a function of the potential crossing

Ental distribution of `bouts’ as a function of the potential crossing pool in the Ward et al. study in a similar manner to figure 5b. Here, we can see that the large-scale pattern of movements is also different in the Ward et al. study from our own–the most common bout sizes are small, involving only one or two fish. The distribution of bout sizes in simulations of model S2 mimic this pattern in figure 6c, lending further support to this model in this context. evidence that hierarchical leader ollower dynamics existed when all group sizes were analysed together (Fisher omnibus test and Kendall linearity coefficient Monte Carlo test x 2 ?93.9, d.f. ?68, p ?0.02) but this result did not hold when group sizes were analysed separately (see the electronic supplementary material for details).3. DiscussionOur model comparison approach revealed that humbug damselfish responded to the local movements of neighbours and made their PD168393 cost decisions to move according to `dynamic’ information. They did not use static or global information based on the numbers of fish on either coral patch to inform their decisions to move. Observing the dynamic behaviours of neighbours allows individuals to gather information based on recent events rather than relying on static information from previous decisions that may be unreliable under current environmental conditions [46]. This is important as in some cases, changing environmental variables such as the distribution of food, predators or mates, can quickly alter the benefits afforded by different areas available to move to [47]. In such situations, the relatively small amounts of `up-to-date’ information, such as recent movements, may be preferable to the more robust but slower changing information given by the spatial distribution of conspecifics. Our results suggested a timescale for the salience of dynamic information of approximately 3.5 s. Longer intervals between moves were associated with an increased probability of movement in opposite directions, though many of these longer intervals occurred when the fish were all on the same side of the tank. Overall, there were insufficient data2.3. Leadership and hierarchical movement decisionsIndividuals that crossed more times by themselves were also the individuals that were more likely to lead other fish when crossing in groups (Pearson r ?0.16, p ?0.01). These fish were also more likely to be the larger individuals (Pearson r ?0.15, p ?0.01) in the group. We also found tentativeto draw conclusions about the rules of interaction after the dynamic saliency period. This dynamic information strategy may be used under different contexts to inform animals’ decisions. Chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) appear to watch the departing movements of others when deciding to move from resting sites [48]. Humans are typically more likely to start crossing a road if their immediate neighbours are already crossing [49]. Sometimes, this can subsequently lead individuals to abandon crossing events when vehicles are approaching, hinting at the disadvantage of dynamic information use in this case [49]. Many anti-predatory responses involve individuals’ rapid movements away from a predator which may act as cue informing conspecifics of a detected threat [50?2]. The different models favoured by our experimental data and that from a previous and PD168393 price closely related study on the same species [41] suggests that these fish change the cues they attend to in response to a different environmen.Ental distribution of `bouts’ as a function of the potential crossing pool in the Ward et al. study in a similar manner to figure 5b. Here, we can see that the large-scale pattern of movements is also different in the Ward et al. study from our own–the most common bout sizes are small, involving only one or two fish. The distribution of bout sizes in simulations of model S2 mimic this pattern in figure 6c, lending further support to this model in this context. evidence that hierarchical leader ollower dynamics existed when all group sizes were analysed together (Fisher omnibus test and Kendall linearity coefficient Monte Carlo test x 2 ?93.9, d.f. ?68, p ?0.02) but this result did not hold when group sizes were analysed separately (see the electronic supplementary material for details).3. DiscussionOur model comparison approach revealed that humbug damselfish responded to the local movements of neighbours and made their decisions to move according to `dynamic’ information. They did not use static or global information based on the numbers of fish on either coral patch to inform their decisions to move. Observing the dynamic behaviours of neighbours allows individuals to gather information based on recent events rather than relying on static information from previous decisions that may be unreliable under current environmental conditions [46]. This is important as in some cases, changing environmental variables such as the distribution of food, predators or mates, can quickly alter the benefits afforded by different areas available to move to [47]. In such situations, the relatively small amounts of `up-to-date’ information, such as recent movements, may be preferable to the more robust but slower changing information given by the spatial distribution of conspecifics. Our results suggested a timescale for the salience of dynamic information of approximately 3.5 s. Longer intervals between moves were associated with an increased probability of movement in opposite directions, though many of these longer intervals occurred when the fish were all on the same side of the tank. Overall, there were insufficient data2.3. Leadership and hierarchical movement decisionsIndividuals that crossed more times by themselves were also the individuals that were more likely to lead other fish when crossing in groups (Pearson r ?0.16, p ?0.01). These fish were also more likely to be the larger individuals (Pearson r ?0.15, p ?0.01) in the group. We also found tentativeto draw conclusions about the rules of interaction after the dynamic saliency period. This dynamic information strategy may be used under different contexts to inform animals’ decisions. Chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) appear to watch the departing movements of others when deciding to move from resting sites [48]. Humans are typically more likely to start crossing a road if their immediate neighbours are already crossing [49]. Sometimes, this can subsequently lead individuals to abandon crossing events when vehicles are approaching, hinting at the disadvantage of dynamic information use in this case [49]. Many anti-predatory responses involve individuals’ rapid movements away from a predator which may act as cue informing conspecifics of a detected threat [50?2]. The different models favoured by our experimental data and that from a previous and closely related study on the same species [41] suggests that these fish change the cues they attend to in response to a different environmen.