Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About BiO
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Biology Open transfer option
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contact
    • Contact BiO
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Biology Open
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Biology Open

Advanced search

RSS   Twitter   Facebook   YouTube

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About BiO
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Biology Open transfer option
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contact
    • Contact BiO
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
Research Article
Fish learn collectively, but groups with differing personalities are slower to decide and more likely to split
Kyriacos Kareklas, Robert W. Elwood, Richard A. Holland
Biology Open 2018 7: bio033613 doi: 10.1242/bio.033613 Published 16 May 2018
Kyriacos Kareklas
School of Biological Sciences, Medical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 7BL, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kyriacos Kareklas
  • For correspondence: kkareklas01@qub.ac.uk
Robert W. Elwood
School of Biological Sciences, Medical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 7BL, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard A. Holland
School of Biological Sciences, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    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.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    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.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    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).

Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

RSSRSS

Keywords

  • Collective cognition
  • Decision-making
  • Personality
  • Spatial learning
  • Shoaling

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Biology Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Fish learn collectively, but groups with differing personalities are slower to decide and more likely to split
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Biology Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Biology Open web site.
Share
Research Article
Fish learn collectively, but groups with differing personalities are slower to decide and more likely to split
Kyriacos Kareklas, Robert W. Elwood, Richard A. Holland
Biology Open 2018 7: bio033613 doi: 10.1242/bio.033613 Published 16 May 2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Article
Fish learn collectively, but groups with differing personalities are slower to decide and more likely to split
Kyriacos Kareklas, Robert W. Elwood, Richard A. Holland
Biology Open 2018 7: bio033613 doi: 10.1242/bio.033613 Published 16 May 2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article Navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Combinatorial genetic replenishments in myocardial and outflow tract tissues restore heart function in tnnt2 mutant zebrafish
  • Autophagy-related Djatg8 is required for remodeling in planarian Dugesia japonica
  • Nanog regulates Pou3f1 expression at the exit from pluripotency during gastrulation
Show more RESEARCH ARTICLE

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Journal of Experimental Biology

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Advertisement

First person interview – Mary Salcedo

A photo of Mary and a diagram depicting insect wing venation patterns, wing contour and shapes.

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.


Travelling Fellowship – New imaging approach unveils a bigger picture

Highlights from Travelling Fellowship trips

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?


Cover article - Tests of the chromatographic theory of olfaction with highly soluble odors: a combined electro-olfactogram and computational fluid dynamics study in the mouse

A photo of a mouse snout overlaid with a 3D model in blue and green, derived from computational fluid dynamics simulations of airflow through the nasal passages during respiration.

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.


Why you should publish your next paper in BiO

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

preLights logo

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.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About BiO
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Biology Open transfer option

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact BiO
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2019   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992