Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 7, pp 1099–1106 | Cite as

Group structure in a restricted entry system is mediated by both resident and joiner preferences

  • Lyndon A. JordanEmail author
  • Carla Avolio
  • James E. Herbert-Read
  • Jens Krause
  • Daniel I. Rubenstein
  • Ashley J. W. Ward
Original Paper


The benefits of grouping behaviour may not be equally distributed across all individuals within a group, leading to conflict over group membership among established group members, and between residents and outsiders attempting to join a group. Although the interaction between the preferences of joining individuals and existing group members may exert considerable pressure on group structure, empirical work on group living to date has focussed on free entry groups, in which all individuals are permitted entry. Using the humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus, we examined a restricted entry grouping system, in which group residents control membership by aggressively rejecting potential new members. We found that the preferences shown by joining members were not always aligned with strategies that incurred the least harm from resident group members, suggesting a conflict between the preferences of residents and preferences of group joiners. Solitary fish preferred to join familiar groups and groups of size-matched residents. Residents were less aggressive towards familiar group joiners. However, resident aggression towards unfamiliar individuals depended on the size of the joining individual, the size of the resident and the composition of the group. These results demonstrate that animal group structure is mediated by both the preferences of joining individuals and the preferences of residents.


Group living Social organisation Dascyllus aruanus Membership preferences 



We wish to thank Prof. David Booth for advice on the biology and behaviour of Dascyllus spp., and Kylie, Dave, Russ and Jen at One Tree Island Research Station for their assistance in the field. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. LAJ, JEHR, CA, DIR and AJWW were supported by funds supplied by University of Sydney. DIR was also supported by the Class of 1877 Research Fund. Australian ethics approval for this study was granted by the University of Sydney’s Animal Ethics Committee (L04/9-2008/1/4877). After experiments were completed, fishes were returned to where they were caught. Fishes were kept in captivity for a maximum of 4 days.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G (2008) Choice of female groups by male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Ethology 114:479–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander R (1974) The evolution of social behaviour. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asoh K (2003) Gonadal development and infrequent sex change in a population of the humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus in continuous coral-cover habitat. Mar Biol 142:1207–1218Google Scholar
  4. Barber I, Ruxton GD (2000) The importance of stable schooling: do familiar sticklebacks stick together? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:151–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Tzvi O, Kiflawi M, Polak O, Abelson A (2009) The effect of adult aggression on habitat selection by settlers of two coral-dwelling damselfishes. Plos One 4:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth DJ (1992) Larval settlement-patterns and preferences by Domino damselfish Dascyllus albisella Gill. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 155:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth DJ (1995) Juvenile groups in a coral-reef damselfish—density-dependent effects on individual fitness and population demography. Ecology 76:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Booth DJ, Wellington G (1995) Settlement preferences in coral-reef fishes: effects on patterns of adult and juvenile distributions, individual fitness and population structure. In: Joint United-States/Australia Workshop on Recruitment and Population Dynamics of Coral-Reef Fishes (Reefish 95), Kuranda, Australia, pp 274–279Google Scholar
  9. Buston PM, Fauvelot C, Wong MYL, Planes S (2009) Genetic relatedness in groups of the humbug damselfish Dascyllus aruanus: small, similar-sized individuals may be close kin. Mol Ecol 18:4707–4715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Caraco T, Wolf LL (1975) Ecological determinants of group sizes of foraging lions. Am Nat 109:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, McIlrath GM, Maccoll ADC, Kansky R, Chadwick P, Manser M, Skinner JD, Brotherton PNM (1999) Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. J Anim Ecol 68:672–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coates D (1980) Prey-size intake in humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus (Pisces, Pomacentridae) living within social-groups. J Anim Ecol 49:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coolen I (2002) Increasing foraging group size increases scrounger use and reduces searching efficiency in nutmeg mannikins (Lonchura punctulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croft DP, James R, Ward AJW, Botham MS, Mawdsley D, Krause J (2005) Assortative interactions and social networks in fish. Oecologia 143:211–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dugatkin LA, Sih A (1998) Evolutionary ecology of partner choice. In: Dukas R (ed) Cognitive ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 379–403Google Scholar
  16. Forrester GE (1990) Factors influencing the juvenile demography of a coral-reef fish. Ecology 71:1666–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrester GE (1991) Social rank, individual size and group composition as determinants of food-consumption by humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus. Anim Behav 42:701–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giraldeau LA, Gillis D (1988) Do lions hunt in group sizes that maximize hunters daily food returns. Anim Behav 36:611–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grand TC, Dill LM (1999) The effect of group size on the foraging behaviour of juvenile coho salmon: reduction of predation risk or increased competition? Anim Behav 58:443–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths SW, Brockmark S, Hojesjo J, Johnsson JI (2004) Coping with divided attention: the advantage of familiarity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:695–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heg D, Bachar Z, Brouwer L, Taborsky M (2004) Predation risk is an ecological constraint for helper dispersal in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:2367–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ (2002) Competition for shelter space causes density-dependent predation mortality in damselfishes. Ecology 83:2855–2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaeger RG (1981) Dear enemy recognition and the costs of aggression between salamanders. Am Nat 117:962–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones GP (1987a) Competitive interactions among adults and juveniles in a coral-reef fish. Ecology 68:1534–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones GP (1987b) Some interactions between residents and recruits in 2 coral-reef fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 114:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan L, Wong M, Balshine S (2010) The effects of familiarity and social hierarchy on group membership decisions in a social fish. Biology Letters. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.073 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Karplus I, Katzenstein R, Goren M (2006) Predator recognition and social facilitation of predator avoidance in coral reef fish Dascyllus marginatus juveniles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 319:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katzir G (1981) Aggression by the damselfish Dascyllus aruanus L towards conspecifics and heterospecifics. Anim Behav 29:835–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford university Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Krebs JR, Ryan JC, Charnov EL (1974) Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging—study of patch use by chickadees. Anim Behav 22:953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lima SL (1995) Collective detection of predatory attack by social foragers—fraught with ambiguity. Anim Behav 50:1097–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lima SL, Zollner PA, Bednekoff PA (1999) Predation, scramble competition, and the vigilance group size effect in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinez FA, Marschall EA (1999) A dynamic model of group-size choice in the coral reef fish Dascyllus albisella. Behavioral Ecology 10:572–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgan MJ (1988) The influence of hunger, shoal size and predator presence on foraging in bluntnose minnows. Anim Behav 36:1317–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pitcher TJ, Magurran AE, Winfield IJ (1982) Fish in larger shoals find food faster. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:149–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pitcher TJ, Green DA, Magurran AE (1986) Dicing with death—predator inspection behavior in minnow shoals. J Fish Biol 28:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? In: Krebs CJ, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 122–147Google Scholar
  38. Rubenstein DI (1981) Individual variation and competition in the everglades pygmy sunfish. J Anim Ecol 50:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sale PF (1971) Extremely limited home range in a coral reef fish, Dascyllus aruanus (Pisces, Pomacentridae). Copeia 1971:325–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slotow R, Paxinos E (1997) Intraspecific competition influences food return-predation risk trade-off by White-crowned Sparrows. Condor 99:642–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stephens PA, Russell AF, Young AJ, Sutherland WJ, Clutton-Brock TH (2005) Dispersal, eviction, and conflict in meerkats (Suricata suricatta): an evolutionarily stable strategy model. Am Nat 165:120–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweatman HPA (1983) Influence of conspecifics on choice of settlement sites by larvae of 2 pomacentrid fishes (Dascyllus aruanus and Dascyllus reticulatus) on coral reefs. Mar Biol 75:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sweatman HPA (1985) The influence of adults of some coral-reef fishes on larval recruitment. Ecol Monogr 55:469–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taborsky M (1984) Broodcare helpers in the cichlid fish Lamprologus brichardi—their costs and benefits. Anim Behav 32:1236–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2003) The effects of kin and familiarity on interactions between fish. Fish Fish 4:348–358Google Scholar
  46. Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2005) Foraging benefits of shoaling with familiars may be exploited by outsiders. Anim Behav 69:329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ward AJW, Krause J (2001) Body length assortative shoaling in the European minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus. Anim Behav 62:617–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Willmer PG (1985) Thermal ecology, size effects, and the origins of communal behaviour in Cerceris Wasps. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:151–160Google Scholar
  49. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyndon A. Jordan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carla Avolio
    • 2
  • James E. Herbert-Read
    • 2
  • Jens Krause
    • 3
  • Daniel I. Rubenstein
    • 4
  • Ashley J. W. Ward
    • 2
  1. 1.Evolution and Ecology Research CentreUNSWSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Ecology of FishesHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations