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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G (2008) Choice of female groups by male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Ethology 114:479–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander R (1974) The evolution of social behaviour. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383

    Article  Google 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 142:1207–1218

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barber I, Ruxton GD (2000) The importance of stable schooling: do familiar sticklebacks stick together? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:151–155

    Article  CAS  Google 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 4:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Booth DJ (1992) Larval settlement-patterns and preferences by Domino damselfish Dascyllus albisella Gill. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 155:85–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Booth DJ (1995) Juvenile groups in a coral-reef damselfish—density-dependent effects on individual fitness and population demography. Ecology 76:91–106

    Article  Google 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 274–279

  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 18:4707–4715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Caraco T, Wolf LL (1975) Ecological determinants of group sizes of foraging lions. Am Nat 109:343–352

    Article  Google 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 68:672–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Coates D (1980) Prey-size intake in humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus (Pisces, Pomacentridae) living within social-groups. J Anim Ecol 49:335–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Coolen I (2002) Increasing foraging group size increases scrounger use and reduces searching efficiency in nutmeg mannikins (Lonchura punctulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:232–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Croft DP, James R, Ward AJW, Botham MS, Mawdsley D, Krause J (2005) Assortative interactions and social networks in fish. Oecologia 143:211–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dugatkin LA, Sih A (1998) Evolutionary ecology of partner choice. In: Dukas R (ed) Cognitive ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 379–403

    Google Scholar 

  16. Forrester GE (1990) Factors influencing the juvenile demography of a coral-reef fish. Ecology 71:1666–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Forrester GE (1991) Social rank, individual size and group composition as determinants of food-consumption by humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus. Anim Behav 42:701–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Giraldeau LA, Gillis D (1988) Do lions hunt in group sizes that maximize hunters daily food returns. Anim Behav 36:611–613

    Article  Google 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 58:443–451

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 271:695–699

    Article  CAS  Google 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 271:2367–2374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ (2002) Competition for shelter space causes density-dependent predation mortality in damselfishes. Ecology 83:2855–2868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jaeger RG (1981) Dear enemy recognition and the costs of aggression between salamanders. Am Nat 117:962–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones GP (1987a) Competitive interactions among adults and juveniles in a coral-reef fish. Ecology 68:1534–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones GP (1987b) Some interactions between residents and recruits in 2 coral-reef fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 114:169–182

    Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Google 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 319:215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Katzir G (1981) Aggression by the damselfish Dascyllus aruanus L towards conspecifics and heterospecifics. Anim Behav 29:835–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford university Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Krebs JR, Ryan JC, Charnov EL (1974) Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging—study of patch use by chickadees. Anim Behav 22:953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lima SL (1995) Collective detection of predatory attack by social foragers—fraught with ambiguity. Anim Behav 50:1097–1108

    Article  Google 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 46:110–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Martinez FA, Marschall EA (1999) A dynamic model of group-size choice in the coral reef fish Dascyllus albisella. Behavioral Ecology 10:572–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Morgan MJ (1988) The influence of hunger, shoal size and predator presence on foraging in bluntnose minnows. Anim Behav 36:1317–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pitcher TJ, Magurran AE, Winfield IJ (1982) Fish in larger shoals find food faster. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:149–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pitcher TJ, Green DA, Magurran AE (1986) Dicing with death—predator inspection behavior in minnow shoals. J Fish Biol 28:439–448

    Article  Google 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 122–147

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rubenstein DI (1981) Individual variation and competition in the everglades pygmy sunfish. J Anim Ecol 50:337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sale PF (1971) Extremely limited home range in a coral reef fish, Dascyllus aruanus (Pisces, Pomacentridae). Copeia 1971:325–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Slotow R, Paxinos E (1997) Intraspecific competition influences food return-predation risk trade-off by White-crowned Sparrows. Condor 99:642–650

    Article  Google 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 165:120–135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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 75:225–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sweatman HPA (1985) The influence of adults of some coral-reef fishes on larval recruitment. Ecol Monogr 55:469–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taborsky M (1984) Broodcare helpers in the cichlid fish Lamprologus brichardi—their costs and benefits. Anim Behav 32:1236–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2003) The effects of kin and familiarity on interactions between fish. Fish Fish 4:348–358

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2005) Foraging benefits of shoaling with familiars may be exploited by outsiders. Anim Behav 69:329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ward AJW, Krause J (2001) Body length assortative shoaling in the European minnow, Phoxinus phoxinus. Anim Behav 62:617–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Willmer PG (1985) Thermal ecology, size effects, and the origins of communal behaviour in Cerceris Wasps. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:151–160

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyndon A. Jordan.

Additional information

Communicated by: C. St. Mary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jordan, L.A., Avolio, C., Herbert-Read, J.E. et al. Group structure in a restricted entry system is mediated by both resident and joiner preferences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64, 1099–1106 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0924-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Group living
  • Social organisation
  • Dascyllus aruanus
  • Membership preferences