Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Latency distributions on a logarithmic scale for the novel-object and feeding test, as exhibited by individuals (n=50) ranked by their composite boldness score.
- Fig. 2.
Shoal cohesion (probability of splitting) and consequent effects on collective decision-times were influenced by individual boldness differences, but were not linked to majority averages in boldness. (A) The mean boldness of shoal members (5% trimmed to exclude biases by extremely bold or timid fish) had a negative, non-significant, effect on mean decision times between initial and probe trial (black line and marks), but no effect on splitting probability (grey curve and marks) as indicated by regression models (decision times: linear, probability of splitting: binomial). (B) In contrast, the variance in boldness within shoals (mean average deviation of all fish) positively predicted the probability of splitting at probe and initial trials (grey curve and marks) and the mean decision times between initial and probe trial (black line and marks). (C) The level of consistency in splitting between initial and probe trials was greater for shoals with higher variance in boldness (Zero splitting:mean MAD=0.225, one trial: mean MAD=0.279, two trials: mean MAD=1.26; ANOVA, P<0.01) and (D) shoals took longer to reach a decision if they split (split: mean=21.82±3 s.e.m., no split: mean=72.8±12 s.e.m.; Welch's t, P<0.01).
- Fig. 3.
Shoals that made more erroneous trials during training (black bars) also took more days to learn (grey bars), but a greater than chance majority of shoals was able to memorise place. Inset: proportion of shoals reorienting at probe trial, showing place learning. Shoals (n=10) are ordered by increasing number of error counts and marked (cross) if they showed place learning (*P<0.05, binomial-test).
Article Navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
First person interview – Mary Salcedo
Have you seen our interviews with early-career first authors of our papers? In the latest issue, first author Mary Salcedo discusses her latest Methods and Techniques paper in which a newly created method geometrically analyses 789 insect wings.
Find out how Pamela Imperadore’s Travelling Fellowship grant from The Company of Biologists took her to Germany, where she used new imaging techniques to investigate the cellular machinery underlying octopus arm regeneration. Don’t miss the next application deadline for 2020 travel, coming up on 29 November. Where will your research take you?
On the cover, David Coppola, Brent Craven and their colleagues refute a widely-debated theory of olfactory coding first suggested by the Nobel Laureate Lord Adrian over half a century ago.
Biology Open has strong credentials and publishing with us is easy and fast. BiO aims to provide rapid publication for scientifically sound observations and valid conclusions in developmental, cell, experimental and translational biology. Submit your paper here – you’ll be in good company!
Recent cell science highlights in BiO – Masamitsu Sato and colleagues show that the conserved microtubule-associated protein CLASP facilitates bundling of spindle microtubules in early mitosis.
Transfer to Biology Open
If your submission to one of our sister journals, Development, Journal of Cell Science, Journal of Experimental Biology or Disease Models & Mechanisms, is unsuccessful, you can transfer your paper and any reviews directly to Biology Open. The majority of papers transferred with reviews are accepted for publication - find out more.
BiO joins the Review Commons initiative
Biology Open is pleased to be a part of the new and exciting Review Commons initiative, launched by EMBO and ASAPbio. Streamlining the publishing process, Review Commons enables high-quality peer review to take place before journal submission. Papers submitted to Review Commons will be assessed independently of any journal, focusing solely on the paper’s scientific rigor and merit.
preLights - Mammalian Y RNAs are modified at discrete guanosine residues with N-glycans
Connor Rosen discusses his selected preprint by Carolyn Bertozzi, Ryan Flynn and their co-workers on the glycosylation of small non-coding RNAs in mammalian cells.