The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Provenance, shoal size and the sociobiology of predator-evasion behaviour in minnow shoals
Abstract
An investigation of the predator-evasion behaviour of minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) shoals confronted with a pike (Esox lucius) showed that individual minnows generally chose the behaviour that minimized their chance of being eaten by the predator. As soon as the pike had been detected, minnows switched from dispersed small shoals to a single compact school. They then commenced inspection behaviour, during which individuals or groups approached the predator. This inspection served to confirm recognition of the pike and provide information on its behaviour. Avoidance and skittering behaviour took place when the pike began stalking. It was only when the predator escalated its attack and struck at the shoal that the minnows performed their most costly predator evasion tactics, such as flash expansion and fountain. After such tactics individuals often became separated from the shoal and as such were most vulnerable to capture. As a last resort, individual minnows hid among stones. Minnows from provenances with and without pike exhibited a similar repertoire of antipredator behaviour patterns, but those sympatric with the predator integrated their tactics more effectively and regained pre-exposure behaviour sooner after each encounter. Shoal size had an important effect on the execution of tactics. Minnows in shoals of 10 were more likely than minnows in shoals of 20 or 50 to abandon schooling behaviour and seek cover as individuals.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hamilton, W. D. (1971) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5 · Cited by 3,506
Cited by
Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus
Lima, S. L., & Dill, L. M. (1990) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z90-092 · Cited by 8,196
From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare
Dawkins, M. S. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00077104 · Cited by 1,014
Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment
Stankowich, T., & Blumstein, D. T. (2005) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3251 · Cited by 981
Functions of Shoaling Behaviour in Teleosts
Pitcher, T. J. (1986) · The Behaviour of Teleost Fishes · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-8261-4_12 · Cited by 962
Self-citationVolunteering leads to rock–paper–scissors dynamics in a public goods game
Semmann, D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Milinski, M. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01986 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Authors
- Magurran, A. E., & Pitcher, T. J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1987-01-22
- Volume
- 229
- Issue
- 1257
- Pages
- 439-465
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 2053-9193
- OpenAlex
- W2020698668
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 49.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Provenance, shoal size and the sociobiology of predator-evasion behaviour in minnow shoals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.1987.0004
- The paper
- Magurran, A. E., & Pitcher, T. J. (1987). Provenance, shoal size and the sociobiology of predator-evasion behaviour in minnow shoals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1987.0004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.