Tal set-up that creates potential conflicts between dynamical and static information. We use simulation studies to determine which of our models were better at explaining both the observed fine-scale movement dynamics and the large-scale distributions of fish movements between the two coral patches. We also determine whether some individuals were more Sulfatinib clinical trials likely to NS-018 web initiate and lead crossings and whether hierarchical leader ollower relationships existed when groups crossed between patches.2. Results2.1. Distribution of fish and their movement between coral patchesFish spent significantly more time on the coral patches than in any other region of the arena, indicating strong bias to associate with either coral patch (group sizes of three: binomial test, N ?16, n ?15, p , 0.001; group sizes of four: binomial test, N ?16, n ?14, p , 0.01; group sizes of five: binomial test, N ?11, n ?11, p , 0.001, group sizes of six: binomial test, N ?14, n ?11, p ?0.029). Crossings to the left of the tank were as frequent as crosses to the right side of the tank indicating no side preference in the arena (N ?4433, n ?2207, two-sided sign test: p . 0.78 in all trials). The distribution of the proportion of time different numbers of fish were on the left-hand side of the arena generally followed an n-shaped distribution (figure 2), where all individuals were generally not found together on one side of the arena. However, it was clear that individuals in the arena generally tended to cross in groups (figure 3). Indeed, the number of fish in the crossing group was often equal to the total number of fish(a) no. fish on left side of tank 3 2 1 R to L L to Rrsif.royalsocietypublishing.org0 (b) no. fish on left side of tank 4 3 2 1 0 (c) no. fish on left side of tank 5 4 3 2 1 0 (d) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 200 time (s) 400 600 no. fish on left side of tankJ. R. Soc. Interface 11:Figure 3. Examples of recorded crossings in experiments of different group sizes. Each panel shows the number of fish on the right-hand side of the tank over the duration of the experiment for group sizes of (a) three, (b) four, (c) six and (d ) six fish. Black marks indicate times where a fish crossed from the left-hand side to the right-hand side, white marks where a fish crossed from the right-hand side to the left-hand side.(a) (b)static modeldynamic modelFigure 4. An illustration of the difference between static and dynamic models. (a) In the static model, the fish on the right are individually more likely to be the next movers (red), because they are in the smaller group and are attracted to the larger group. (b) In the dynamic model the fish on the left are individually more likely to move despite being in the larger group, because they would be following the last mover (shown by a triangle).necessary condition of any model that it can reproduce the large-scale patterns in the data, because we aim to understand how these emerge from the interactions between individuals (see [45]). Therefore, using the rules of interaction specified by these models, we simulated crossing events and investigated whether each model was adequate in reproducing the larger-scale dynamics of the system. In particular, we asked whether these models reproduced the observation that the crossing group size tended to equal the number of fish that could have potentially moved from that side of the tank (shown in figure 5b). We found that only the dynamic models, where individuals only pay attention to local changes, reprodu.Tal set-up that creates potential conflicts between dynamical and static information. We use simulation studies to determine which of our models were better at explaining both the observed fine-scale movement dynamics and the large-scale distributions of fish movements between the two coral patches. We also determine whether some individuals were more likely to initiate and lead crossings and whether hierarchical leader ollower relationships existed when groups crossed between patches.2. Results2.1. Distribution of fish and their movement between coral patchesFish spent significantly more time on the coral patches than in any other region of the arena, indicating strong bias to associate with either coral patch (group sizes of three: binomial test, N ?16, n ?15, p , 0.001; group sizes of four: binomial test, N ?16, n ?14, p , 0.01; group sizes of five: binomial test, N ?11, n ?11, p , 0.001, group sizes of six: binomial test, N ?14, n ?11, p ?0.029). Crossings to the left of the tank were as frequent as crosses to the right side of the tank indicating no side preference in the arena (N ?4433, n ?2207, two-sided sign test: p . 0.78 in all trials). The distribution of the proportion of time different numbers of fish were on the left-hand side of the arena generally followed an n-shaped distribution (figure 2), where all individuals were generally not found together on one side of the arena. However, it was clear that individuals in the arena generally tended to cross in groups (figure 3). Indeed, the number of fish in the crossing group was often equal to the total number of fish(a) no. fish on left side of tank 3 2 1 R to L L to Rrsif.royalsocietypublishing.org0 (b) no. fish on left side of tank 4 3 2 1 0 (c) no. fish on left side of tank 5 4 3 2 1 0 (d) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 200 time (s) 400 600 no. fish on left side of tankJ. R. Soc. Interface 11:Figure 3. Examples of recorded crossings in experiments of different group sizes. Each panel shows the number of fish on the right-hand side of the tank over the duration of the experiment for group sizes of (a) three, (b) four, (c) six and (d ) six fish. Black marks indicate times where a fish crossed from the left-hand side to the right-hand side, white marks where a fish crossed from the right-hand side to the left-hand side.(a) (b)static modeldynamic modelFigure 4. An illustration of the difference between static and dynamic models. (a) In the static model, the fish on the right are individually more likely to be the next movers (red), because they are in the smaller group and are attracted to the larger group. (b) In the dynamic model the fish on the left are individually more likely to move despite being in the larger group, because they would be following the last mover (shown by a triangle).necessary condition of any model that it can reproduce the large-scale patterns in the data, because we aim to understand how these emerge from the interactions between individuals (see [45]). Therefore, using the rules of interaction specified by these models, we simulated crossing events and investigated whether each model was adequate in reproducing the larger-scale dynamics of the system. In particular, we asked whether these models reproduced the observation that the crossing group size tended to equal the number of fish that could have potentially moved from that side of the tank (shown in figure 5b). We found that only the dynamic models, where individuals only pay attention to local changes, reprodu.