Discrimination of the larger shoal in the poeciliid fish Girardinus faicatus
Discrimination of the larger shoal in the poeciliid fish Girardinus faicatus
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/08927014.2007.9522574
复制
发表时间：
2007-06-01
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Dadda, M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Agrillo, C.;Dadda, M.
二十年的比较研究表明，动物王国中普遍存在数字能力。特别是，在猿、海豚、鸟类和两栖动物中发现了选择两个数量中较大者的能力（称为追求“更多”的能力）。这种主要的数量歧视还没有在鱼类中进行系统的研究，虽然一些研究表明，鱼类有能力区分不同大小的同类群体。我们调查了雌性金腹鲷对两个鱼群中较大者的自发选择（Girardinus falcatus）的研究，并比较了两种不同的方法，以确定一个有效的程序，研究鱼类的数量能力。雌性topminnows被放置在一个新的和潜在的危险环境中，被发现选择较大的浅滩，这表明去“更多”的能力是类似于在其他非-语言动物这两种方法被证明是不敏感的数值对比之间的差异，然而，结合两个实验的结果，我们发现，当组的大小不同的一个人，选择较大的浅滩是显着高于预测的机会最多三个鱼在较大的浅滩（即2比1和3比2，但不是4比3或更大）。当两个鱼群的数量比为1：2时，选择在4对2的比较中显著高于机会，但在8对4的比较中则不然。
Two decades of comparative studies have shown that numerical abilities are widespread in the animal kingdom. In particular, the ability to select the larger of two quantities (known as the ability to go for "more") has been found in apes, dolphins, birds and amphibians. This primary quantity discrimination has not been investigated in fish in a systematic way although several studies suggest that fish have the ability to distinguish among different-sized groups of conspecifics. We investigated the spontaneous choice for the larger of two shoals in female goldbelly topminnows (Girardinus falcatus) and compared two different methods to determine an efficient procedure for studying the numerical competence of fish.Female topminnows that were placed in a novel and potentially dangerous environment were found to choose the larger shoal suggesting that the capacity to go for "more" was similar to that observed in other non-verbal animals. The two methods proved not to be sensitive in revealing differences between the numerical contrasts, however, combining the results of the two experiments, we found that when groups differed in size by one individual, choice of the larger shoal was significantly above that predicted by chance up to a maximum of three fish in the larger shoal (i.e. 2 vs 1 and 3 vs 2 but not 4 vs 3 or larger). When presented with two shoals with a 1:2 numerical ratio, choice was significantly above chance in 4 vs 2 but not in 8 vs 4 comparisons.