Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39323559›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

The impact of predators and vegetation on shoaling in wild zebrafish.

Ishani Mukherjee, Anuradha Bhat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ishani MukherjeeDepartment of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur, West Bengal 741246, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2279-4169
Anuradha BhatDepartment of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur, West Bengal 741246, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7447-2380

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In their natural habitats, animals experience multiple ecological factors and regulate their social responses accordingly. To unravel the impact of two ecological factors on the immediate behavioural response of groups, we conducted experiments on wild zebrafish shoals in arenas with vegetation, predator cues, and both factors simultaneously or neither (control treatments). Analysis of 297 trials revealed that while shoals formed significantly larger subgroups in the presence of predator cues, their subgroup size was comparable to control treatments when they faced predator cues and vegetation. Shoals were highly polarized in open arenas, in the absence of either ecological factors and in the presence of predator cues (with/without vegetation). The presence of vegetation alone, however, significantly reduced shoal polarization. Furthermore, food intake was significantly reduced when predator cues and/or vegetation were present. Tracking individuals revealed that (i) individuals within shoals receiving predator cues had a significantly higher probability to continue being in a group compared with control treatments and (ii) individuals occupying the front positions deviated less from their median position within a shoal as compared with other individuals regardless of predator cues. The adaptability of animals depends on behavioural responses to changing environments, making this study significant in the context of environmental changes.

Indexed as

behavioural plasticitygroup behaviourpredationvegetationwild zebrafish

Identifiers

PMID39323559
PMCPMC11421927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.