Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 135, Issue 4, pp 315–325 | Cite as

The sensory basis of fish schools: Relative roles of lateral line and vision

  • Brian L. Partridge
  • Tony J. Pitcher


Quantitative analyses of the effects of temporary blindfolding (BL) or lateralis section (LS) on the schooling performance of saithe (Pollachius virens) are reported. Comparison of effects of the sensory deprivations on school structure and dynamics allow determination of the relative roles of the lateral lines and vision in normal schooling. Extended 3-dimensional records were made of the positions of sensorily deprived individuals in normal schools as well as whole schools with sensory treatments.
  1. 1.

    Blinding had little effect on the position experimental fish took up with respect to their neighbors within the school (Fig. 2). In contrast, lateralis section resulted in a great increase in the frequency of neighbors at 90° bearing (directly alongside) (Fig. 2).

  2. 2.

    Both BL and LS fish exhibited different characteristic nearest neighbor distances (NNDs) than controls, with blinding increasing NND and lateralis section decreasing NND (Fig. 4).

  3. 3.

    Importance of the lateral line in transmission of a fright response and sudden velocity changes within a school is demonstrated by experiments in which schools were intentionally startled. In schools of LS fish there exist significant relationships between latency to startle and the distance and angle between a fish and the startling object. Such relationships are not seen in normal schools: with intact lateral lines, fish respond with similar latencies to objects in all directions (Fig. 5).

  4. 4.

    Fish which are blindfolded are able nonetheless to match short-term changes in velocity of their neighbors and actually show higher correlations than do controls (Fig. 8 b). Lateralis section does not reduce correlations between fish and neighbors (Fig. 8 d) probably because LS fish take up positions at which they can best determine neighbors' velocities by vision alone.


We conclude that the role of the lateral line in schooling is much greater than has been recognised previously. Our experiments suggest that characteristic NND in a travelling school is maintained by opposing forces of attraction and repulsion mediated by stimuli perceived by the visual and lateralis systems respectively. School structure and dynamics depend upon both senses, with vision primarily important for the maintenance of position and angle between fish and the lateral lines primarily important for monitoring the swimming speed and direction of travel of neighbors.


Lateral Line Schooling Performance Swimming Speed Relative Role Neighbor Distance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



lateralis section


temporary blindfolding


nearest neighbor distance

NN1, NN2, NN3

nearest neighbor, second nearest neighbor and so on


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Backus, R.H.: Sound production in marine animals. U.S. Navy J. Underwater Acoust.8(2), 1–32 (1958)Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, W.: The sense-organs and perceptions of fish: with remarks on the supply of bait. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K.1, 225–256 (1889)Google Scholar
  3. Breder, C.M., Jr.: Studies on the structure of the Fish School. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.98, 7–28 (1951)Google Scholar
  4. Breder, C.M., Jr.: Equations descriptive of fish schools and other animal aggregations. Ecology35, 361–370 (1954)Google Scholar
  5. Breder, C.M., Jr.: Studies on the social groupings of fish. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.117, 397–481 (1959)Google Scholar
  6. Cahn, P.H.: Sensory factors in the side-to-side spacing and positional orientation of Tuna,Euthynnus affinis. U.S. Fish. Bull.70, 197–204 (1972)Google Scholar
  7. Cahn, P.H., Shaw, E., Evans, F.C.: Lateral line nerve maturation related to development of schooling in the atherinid fishMenidia. Bull. Mar. Sci.18, 660–670 (1972)Google Scholar
  8. Cullen, J.M., Shaw, E., Baldwin, H.: Methods for measuring the 3-D structure of fish schools. Anim. Behav.13, 534–543 (1965)Google Scholar
  9. Disler, N.N.: Lateral line sense organs and their importance in fish behavior. Transi, from Russian, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. (1963)Google Scholar
  10. Harden-Jones, F.R.H.: Further observations on the movements of herring schools in relation to the tidal current. J. Con. Int. Explor. Mer.27, 52–76 (1968)Google Scholar
  11. Hunter, J.R.: Communication of velocity changes in jack mackerelTrachurus symmetricus schools. Anim. Behav.17, 507–514 (1969)Google Scholar
  12. Keenleyside, M.: Aspects of schooling behavior in fish. Behaviour8, 183–248 (1955)Google Scholar
  13. Kendall, M.G.: Time-series. London: Griffen 1973Google Scholar
  14. McNicholl, R.G., McKay, W.C.: Effect of DDT and MS222 on learning a simple response in rainbow trout. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.32, 661–665 (1975)Google Scholar
  15. Major, P.F., Dill, L.M.: The three dimensional structure of airborne bird flocks. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.4, 111–122 (1978)Google Scholar
  16. Moulton, J.M.: Swimming sounds and the schooling of fish. Biol. Bull.119, 210–223 (1960)Google Scholar
  17. Nursall, J.M.: Some behavioral interactions of spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius), yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and Northern pike (Esox lucius). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.30, 1161–1178 (1973)Google Scholar
  18. Olst, J.C. van, Hunter, J.R.: Some aspects of the organisation offish schools. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.27, 1225–1238 (1970)Google Scholar
  19. Oshima, Y.: An experiment on the shoaling behavior of fish: the case when two homotypic shoals consisting of large and small individuals met with each other. J. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish.16, 195–200 (1950)Google Scholar
  20. Parker, G.H.: The function of the lateral line organ in fishes. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish.24, 183–207 (1904)Google Scholar
  21. Parker, G.H., Heusen, J. van: The reception of mechanical stimuli by the skin, lateral line organs and ears in fishes, especially inAmeiurus. Am. J. Physiol.44, 463–489 (1917)Google Scholar
  22. Parr, E.A.: A contribution to the theoretical analysis of the behavior of fishes. Occas. Pap. Bingham Ocean. Coll.1, 1–32 (1927)Google Scholar
  23. Partridge, B.L.: Sensory aspects of schooling. D. Phil. thesis. University of Oxford. 520 pp. (1978)Google Scholar
  24. Partridge, B.L.: The effect of school size on the structure and dynamics of minnow schools. Anim. Behav.28 (1980)Google Scholar
  25. Partridge, B.L., Cullen, J.M.: A low-cost interactive coordinate plotter. Behav. Res. Methods. Instrum.9, 473–479 (1977)Google Scholar
  26. Partridge, B.L., Dawkins, R., Amlaner, C.: Voltage controlled oscillators: inexpensive alternative to analog-digital converters. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum.10, 712–714 (1978)Google Scholar
  27. Partridge, B.L., Pitcher, T.J., Cullen, J.M., Wilson, J.: The 3-dimensional structure of fish schools. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. (in press) (1980)Google Scholar
  28. Pitcher, T.J.: The 3-dimensional structure of schools of the minnowPhoxinus phoxinus. Anim. Behav.21, 673–686 (1973)Google Scholar
  29. Pitcher, T.J.: Sensory information and the organisation of behaviour in a shoaling cyprinid fish. Anim. Behav.27, 126–149 (1979)Google Scholar
  30. Pitcher, T.J., Partridge, B.L., Wardle, C.S.: A blind fish can school. Science194, 963–965 (1976)Google Scholar
  31. Shaw, E.: The schooling of fishes. Sci. Am.206, 128–138 (1962)Google Scholar
  32. Shaw, E.: Some new thoughts on the schooling of fishes. FAO Fish. Rep.62, 217–233 (1968)Google Scholar
  33. Shaw, E.: Schooling in fishes: critique and review. In: Development and evolution of behavior. Aronson E.R., Tobach, E., Lehrman, D.S., Rosenblatt, J.S. (eds.), pp. 452–480. San Francisco: Freeman 1970Google Scholar
  34. Shaw, E.: Schooling fishes. Am. Sci.66, 166–175 (1978)Google Scholar
  35. Siegel, S.: Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. London: McGraw Hill 1956Google Scholar
  36. Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J.: Biometry. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman 1969Google Scholar
  37. Wardle, C.S.: Eimits offish swimming speed. Nature255, 725–727 (1975)Google Scholar
  38. Wardle, C.S., Anthony, P.D.: Experimental methods used for the study of fish behavior in large tanks. I.C.E.S. CM1973, b:22 (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian L. Partridge
    • 1
  • Tony J. Pitcher
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordGreat Britain
  2. 2.School of Biological and Environmental StudiesNew University of UlsterColeraineN. Ireland, Great Britain

Personalised recommendations