Positive interspecific associations consistent with social information use shape juvenile fish assemblages

Abstract

Danylchuk. 2020. Positive interspecific associations consistent with social information use shape juvenile fish assemblages. Ecology 101(2):

Use of waggle dance information in honey bees is linked to gene expression in the antennae, but not in the brain

“…Information and its use in animals is an important topic in behaviour, ecology, and evolution because information is a critical currency that allows animals to make adaptive decisions in a given situation (e.g., Dall et al, 2005; Danchin et al, 2004; Hoppitt & Laland, 2013; Rieucau & Giraldau, 2011). The decision of when to utilize social versus private information to best exploit potential opportunities while avoiding costs is crucial for success and has been studied within a variety of both social and nonsocial animals (e.g., Bonnie & Earley, 2007; Grüter & Ratnieks, 2011; Haak et al, 2020; Taborsky & Oliveira, 2012; Weimerskirch et al, 2010; Wray et al, 2012). However, it is still unclear whether and how molecular and neurosensory factors determine an individual's preference for social or private information.…”

Model‐based decomposition of environmental, spatial and species‐interaction effects on the community structure of common fish species in 772 European lakes

“…A dominance of positive correlations was also obvious for the piscivorous pikeperch in the p/a dataset of our study, supporting the results from the Ontario lakes (MacDougall et al., 2018) that the occurrence of predators might profit from an increase in prey numbers. Additionally, it has been suggested that positive interspecific interactions between species might emerge from the shared use of social information in juvenile fish communities (Haak et al., 2020). In our dataset, positive correlations were often found between species of the same family (Cyprinidae), which is the most species‐rich fish family in European lakes (Kottelat & Freyhof, 2007).…”

Trait–environment relationships differ between mixed‐species flocking and nonflocking bird assemblages

“…However, co‐occurrence of closely related species remains a paradox because classic interspecific competition theory predicts that niche conservatism is responsible for high niche overlap between such species, but this overlap should prevent their coexistence (Harper et al 1961, MacArthur and Levins 1967). Moving away from a focus on competition, recent work has highlighted that positive interactions can also contribute to assembly of closely related flocking species, such as facilitation in mixed‐species bird flocks (hereafter, “flocks,” Goodale et al 2010), Müllerian mimicry rings of butterflies (Elias et al 2008), and heterospecific groups of juvenile fish (Haak et al 2019). Indeed, positive relationships can allow species‐rich assemblages in which the species are more similar to each other than would be expected randomly (Gross 2008, Burns and Schmitt 2011, Sridhar et al 2012).…”