@article{fdi:010062450,
  title = {{E}ffects of successive predator attacks on prey aggregations},
  author = {{L}ett, {C}hristophe and {S}emeria, {M}. and {T}hiebault, {A}. and {T}remblay, {Y}ann},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{W}e study the cumulative effect of successive predator attacks on the disturbance of a prey aggregation using a modelling approach. {O}ur model intends to represent fish schools attacked by both aerial and underwater predators. {T}his individual-based model uses long-distance attraction and short-distance repulsion between prey, which leads to prey aggregation and swarming in the absence of predators. {W}hen intermediate-distance alignment is added to the model, the prey aggregation displays a cohesive displacement, i.e., schooling, instead of swarming. {I}ncluding predators, i.e. with repulsion behaviour for prey to predators in the model, leads to flash expansion of the prey aggregation after a predator attack. {W}hen several predators attack successively, the prey aggregation dynamics is a succession of expanding-grouping-swarming/schooling phases. {W}e quantify this dynamics by recording the changes in the simulated prey aggregation radius over time. {T}his radius is computed as the longest distance of individual prey to the aggregation centroid, and it is assumed to increase along with prey disturbance. {T}he prey aggregation radius generally increases during flash expansion, then decreases during grouping until reaching a constant lowest level during swarming/schooling. {T}his general dynamics is modulated by several parameters: the frequency, direction (vertical vs. horizontal) and target (centroid of the prey aggregation vs. random prey) of predator attacks; the distance at which prey detect predators; the number of prey and predators. {O}ur results suggest that both aerial and underwater predators are more efficient at disturbing fish schools by increasing their attack frequency at such level that the fish cannot return to swarming/schooling. {W}e find that a mix between aerial and underwater predators is more efficient at disturbing a fish school than a single type of attack, suggesting that aerial and underwater foragers may gain mutual benefits in forming foraging groups.},
  keywords = {{A}nimal aggregation ; {A}nimal group ; {S}chool {F}lock ; {S}warm ; {A}ttraction-repulsion model},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{T}heoretical {E}cology},
  volume = {7},
  numero = {3},
  pages = {239--252},
  ISSN = {1874-1738},
  year = {2014},
  DOI = {10.1007/s12080-014-0213-0},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010062450},
}