Limited interactions in flocks: relating model simulations to empirical data

The mechanism of self-organization resulting in coordinated collective motion has received wide attention from a range of scientists interested in both its technical and biological relevance. Models have been highly influential in highlighting how collective motion can be produced from purely local interactions between individuals. Typical models in this field are termed ‘metric’ because each individual only reacts to conspecifics within a fixed distance. A recent large-scale study has, however, provided evidence that interactions ruling collective behaviour occur between a fixed number of nearest neighbours (‘topological’ framework). Despite their importance in clarifying the nature of the mechanism underlying animal interactions, these findings have yet to be produced by either metric or topological models. Here, we present an original individual-based model of collective animal motion that reproduces the previous findings. Our approach bridges the current gap between previous model analysis and recent evidence, and presents a framework for further study.

[1]  H. Chaté,et al.  Onset of collective and cohesive motion. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[2]  Joseph J. Hale,et al.  From Disorder to Order in Marching Locusts , 2006, Science.

[3]  L. Edelstein-Keshet,et al.  Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. , 1999, Science.

[4]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Simulating dynamical features of escape panic , 2000, Nature.

[5]  Vicsek,et al.  Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[6]  G. Parisi,et al.  Scale-free correlations in starling flocks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Daniel W Franks,et al.  Making noise: emergent stochasticity in collective motion. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  Giorgio Parisi,et al.  The STARFLAG handbook on collective animal behaviour: 2. Three-dimensional analysis , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  R. R. Krausz Living in Groups , 2013 .

[10]  G. Parisi,et al.  Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  Self-Organized Shape and Frontal Density of Fish Schools , 2008 .

[12]  M. Evans,et al.  Flocking regimes in a simple lattice model. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Leonard J. Gray,et al.  Three Dimensional Analysis , 2008 .

[14]  Craig W. Reynolds Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral model , 1998 .

[15]  D. Sumpter The principles of collective animal behaviour , 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  I. Couzin,et al.  Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[17]  John N. Tsitsiklis,et al.  Distributed Asynchronous Deterministic and Stochastic Gradient Optimization Algorithms , 1984, 1984 American Control Conference.

[18]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  Self-organised complex aerial displays of thousands of starlings: a model , 2009, 0908.2677.

[19]  Jens Krause,et al.  How perceived threat increases synchronization in collectively moving animal groups , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.