Cited by 84Animal Behavior and ReproductionZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFish biology, ecology, and behavior

Sex-specific perceptual spaces for a vertebrate basal social aggregative behavior

Open access
Engeszer, Raymond E., Wang, George, Ryan, Michael J., Parichy, David M.·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Loose aggregations of fishes, or shoals, are a basal social organization of vertebrates and offer a valuable opportunity to determine how individual perceptions influence group formation. We used zebrafish, Danio rerio , to comprehensively investigate the preference space for shoaling related to adult pigment pattern variation, presented in the form of 17 zebrafish pigment pattern mutants or closely related species. We examined all combinations of these phenotypes in 2,920 initial and replicated preference tests, and used as subjects both domesticated laboratory stocks and wild-caught fish. By using multidimensional scaling and other approaches, we show that laboratory and wild zebrafish exhibit similar preferences, yet, unexpectedly, these preferences differ markedly between sexes, and also from how human observers perceive the same pigment patterns. Whereas zebrafish males respond to two traits (species and stripe patterning) in deciding whether to join a shoal, zebrafish female preferences do not correlate with a priori identifiable traits, and neither perceptual world is correlated with that of human observers. The observed zebrafish sex differences run counter to the most commonly accepted explanations for the individual selective advantages gained by shoaling. More generally, these data describe very different perceptual worlds between sexes and reveal the importance of sex differences in social group formation, as well as the critical importance of defining species specificity in visual signaling.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0708778105

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The resulting iridophore subtypes likely allow the zebrafish to alter its skin patterning to make it more or less distinctive, a trait crucial for the fish to be able to join shoals or obscure itself.

    “The resulting iridophore subtypes likely allow the zebrafish to alter its skin patterning to make it more or less distinctive, a trait crucial for the fish to be able to join shoals or obscure itself48,49”

    From In situ differentiation of iridophore crystallotypes underlies zebrafish stripe patterning (2020) · cites this paper as [49]

    The paper reports that adult pigment-pattern variation affects shoaling preferences, particularly males’ responses to stripe patterning (p. 1; Results, p. 2). It describes iridophores as components of zebrafish stripes and interstripes (Results, p. 1), but does not show that iridophore subtypes let fish alter their patterns or obscure themselves. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [29]Ingwer B, Groenen PJF (2005) Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications (Springer, New York).
  2. [30]Kruskal JB, Wish M (1978) Multidimensional Scaling (SAGE, Newbury Park, CA).
  3. [36]Maynard-Smith J (2003) Animal Signals (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Engeszer, R. E., Wang, G., Ryan, M. J., & Parichy, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-01-22
Volume
105
Issue
3
Pages
929-933
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2051947514
Cited by
84
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0541733)
  • University of Washington
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM062182)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Zebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish biology, ecology, and behavior
Keywords
shoaling behavior, zebrafish, sex differences, visual perception, pigmentation patterns, social aggregation, preference space, visual signaling, species specificity, wild fish
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Female, Fishes, Humans, Male, Phenotype, Sex Characteristics, Social Behavior, Space Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review