Author
Listed:
- Timo Thünken
- Saskia Hesse
- Theo C.M. Bakker
- Sebastian A. Baldauf
Abstract
Group living is widespread in animals. In nature, groups usually not only differ in phenotypic characteristics but also in the social relationships among group members. Theory predicts that individuals adjusting their shoaling decisions—to join certain groups or not—based on social criteria, such as familiarity or genetic relatedness, can increase their fitness. Although numerous studies report grouping preferences based on social criteria, the benefits actually emerging from such behavioral preferences are less well studied. Here, we examine both shoaling preferences and their consequences in juveniles of Pelvicachromis taeniatus, a monogamous cichlid fish from Western Africa with biparental brood care. After juvenile P. taeniatus have left their parents, they form loose shoals. Then, juveniles may have the option either to stay in their sibling group or to join a novel shoal. Therefore, in a first experiment, we tested whether juveniles prefer to shoal with their familiar sibling group or a group consisting of unfamiliar unrelated individuals. Second, we examined whether the shoaling decision translates into fitness benefits. We used body size as proxy for fitness and compared the growth in groups consisting exclusively of familiar full-siblings with growth in groups consisting of members of different relatedness and familiarity. Juvenile P. taeniatus preferred shoaling with kin over shoaling with non-kin. Growth was significantly higher in kin-only groups than in mixed groups indicating that grouping with familiar kin yields fitness benefits in juvenile P. taeniatus. Our results suggest that individual shoaling decisions based on social criteria can be adaptive.
Suggested Citation
Timo Thünken & Saskia Hesse & Theo C.M. Bakker & Sebastian A. Baldauf, 2016.
"Benefits of kin shoaling in a cichlid fish: familiar and related juveniles show better growth,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(2), pages 419-425.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:419-425.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:419-425.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.