I
read the article “Why Fish Don’t Need to Be ‘Schooled’ in Swimming” by Jennifer
Sargent. It discusses the results of two studies from the publication “Current
Biology” on the topic of fish schooling. According to these studies, fish do
not learn how to swim in schools; instead, schooling is a behavior that relies
on various regions of the fish genome rather than on the influence of other
fish. In one of the two new experiments, researchers observed stickleback fish,
and after identifying which type was prone to schooling and which type was not,
they crossbred the two types. In the end they found that sticklebacks have two
genomic regions associated with schooling, one of which also relates to the
specialized lateral line that allows fish to sense vibrations in the water so
that they can stay in tune with their surroundings. In the second experiment,
researchers crossbred surface-dwelling tetra fish with blind cave-dwelling
tetra. They found that losing the ability to school and losing eyesight
occurred independently of one another, providing “more evidence that schooling
behavior is genetic-based and not learned.” The results of these studies have
given researchers a lot of new information on the evolution and behavior of
fish.
While
it may seem like this topic does not relate to humans, it actually indicates
that humans tend to gather in social groups for similar genetic reasons to fish
in schools. While the researchers admitted that the second study probably had
very little to do with human behavior, the first study relates to human social
tendencies. The results show that “complex behaviors associated with other
individuals in a very rigid and organized manner can be dissected genetically.”
This means that, against popular belief, human behavior may not be too
complicated to understand.
I
found this article to be interesting and informative. I liked the way it was
broken up into three different sections: an introduction to the topic, a
description of the studies, and an analysis of why the findings are important
to us. This organization made it easy to understand. It seemed to me like they
left out many of the details of how the experiments were carried out, so I may
have liked to have some more information. However, some details were probably just
left out for the sake of keeping the article a manageable length.
Citation: Sargent,
Jennifer. "Why Fish Don't Need to Be "Schooled" in Swimming:
Scientific American." Scientific American, 18 Sept. 2013. Web.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-fish-dont-need-to-be-schooled-in-swimming>.
I read Angelina’s summary and review of Jennifer Sargent’s article, “Why Fish Don’t Need to Be ‘Schooled’ in Swimming.” I enjoyed reading her review and found it an interesting topic that I hadn’t thought about. Angelina did a good job of explaining the experiment and the researchers’ findings in a concise, easy-to-understand way. She used quotes from the article appropriately and well, which added to her summary and analysis of the experiment and its results. I also liked that she emphasized a connection between human behavior and our genetic makeup, stating that she believes, “against popular belief, human behavior may not be too complicated to understand.” This is an interesting and meaningful idea to take away from the article.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked if she had gone more in-depth with her explanation of the connection between the schooling experiments and humans, but was able to understand the basic concept as was written. Angelina also could have included more details about these experiments to give the reader a better sense of how they were carried out.
I found the results, which provided “evidence that schooling behavior is genetic-based and not learned,” to be shocking. From what I know about schools of fish, I would assume that it was a learned behavior that developed after the fish realized the benefits of being in large groups. However, looking back, it makes sense that the fish with the tendency to school because of genetics would survive to pass that trait onto their offspring, while those without that tendency would not. I enjoyed reading both the article and Angelina’s writeup, and am interested in reading about similar experiments.
Mia Gradelski
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event Comment 15
February 5, 2018
Sargent, Jennifer. “Why Fish Don't Need to Be 'Schooled' in Swimming.” LiveScience, Purch, 17 Sept. 2013, www.livescience.com/39712-why-fish-swim-schools.html.
Throughout the review, there was a deep understanding of this wide debate and controversy on the issue regarding the ‘schooling’ of fish. At the start, I was immediately pulled into the behavior of what schooling is and the background that is necessary to help me understanding the topic of this debate. Key details are explained in the sentence, “at the line,” In the end they found that sticklebacks have two genomic regions associated with schooling, one of which also related to the specialized lateral line that allows fish to sense vibrations in the water...” With the use of great detail inside her sentences, the topic of ‘schooling’ fish is more understandable and becomes a more apparent problem. Later on, the writer used lots of specific evidence for example, “According to these studies, fish do not learn how to swim in schools; instead, schooling is a behavior that relies on various regions of the fish genome…” Using lots of textual evidence leads readers to agree and disagree with both sides of the argument better. Lastly, the writer used a sense of bias very clearly throughout the review to lure readers into a correct sense of opinion while reading multiple sides on this issue. When the writer states, “In one of the two new experiments, researchers observed stickleback fish, and after identifying which type was prone to schooling and which type was not…” Here readers could fully understand the conflicting viewpoints.
Although the review was very well written, at times there were places where there could of been improvement in. First, at the end of the second paragraph, the writer should have elaborated more on why “human behavior may not be too complicated to understand.” This is a very broad topic of study and stating this profound statement leads readers confused. In order to fix this, the writer should have gathered more evidence on how the ‘schooling’ of fish relates to this type of behavior. Second, I believe in some of her sentences there could of been more sophisticated vocabulary used. When she writes, “I found this article to be interesting and informative.” This is a very bland statement and I would've liked to of heard more of her opinion on this behavioral issue inside our fish. To fix this, using words such as “intriguing” or “fascinating” leads readers to be more engaged and not only learn a new environmental issue but words as they read.
Overall this was a very informative and well written review that paid close attention to the struggles and behavior issues that arise in the deep sea to fish and their environment. The reason I had chosen this review to comment on was because I have always loved learning about the aquatic environment and the way humans and species, specifically fish interact with their own groups or schools. Overall, this has changed my perception on the way the world perceives mammals and the way they are extremely closely related to humans in regard to their gestures and movements.