Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42878039›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2026

Coevolutionary attack and avoidance strategies in predators and grouping prey.

Daisy A B Cooper, James E Herbert-Read

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Daisy A B CooperDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0054-0053
James E Herbert-ReadDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Whitten Programme in Aquatic Biology
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The formation of groups by prey is one of the most widespread evolutionary responses to predation. However, while the anti-predation benefits provided to prey within groups have been extensively explored in the literature, the subsequent response of predators to grouping behaviour has lacked attention. In particular, what strategies predators use to attack grouping prey, and whether predation strategies have evolved to explicitly exploit the behaviour of prey groups, remains underexplored. In this review, we discuss the behavioural strategies predators have evolved to counteract the collective defences of prey groups, and in some cases capitalize on the prey's grouping behaviour. Specifically, we focus on the different strategies predators use to break apart and disrupt groups, while also exploring how predators capitalize on cohesion and coordinated movement to increase the likelihood of a successful attack. Overall, this review challenges the assumption that grouping is universally advantageous for prey, showing that predators have evolved a variety of successful strategies to overcome, and even exploit, grouping prey. This article is part of the theme issue 'Multi-predator feeding aggregations in the pelagic waters'.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionFood ChainPredatory BehaviorAnimalsarms racedefencegroup livinghuntingpredationpredator–preysocial

Identifiers

PMID42878039
PMCPMC13670071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.