Scalable Rules for Coherent Group Motion in a Gregarious Vertebrate

Individuals of gregarious species that initiate collective movement require mechanisms of cohesion in order to maintain advantages of group living. One fundamental question in the study of collective movement is what individual rules are employed when making movement decisions. Previous studies have revealed that group movements often depend on social interactions among individual members and specifically that collective decisions to move often follow a quorum-like response. However, these studies either did not quantify the response function at the individual scale (but rather tested hypotheses based on group-level behaviours), or they used a single group size and did not demonstrate which social stimuli influence the individual decision-making process. One challenge in the study of collective movement has been to discriminate between a common response to an external stimulus and the synchronization of behaviours resulting from social interactions. Here we discriminate between these two mechanisms by triggering the departure of one trained Merino sheep (Ovis aries) from groups containing one, three, five and seven naïve individuals. Each individual was thus exposed to various combinations of already-departed and non-departed individuals, depending on its rank of departure. To investigate which individual mechanisms are involved in maintaining group cohesion under conditions of leadership, we quantified the temporal dynamic of response at the individual scale. We found that individuals' decisions to move do not follow a quorum response but rather follow a rule based on a double mimetic effect: attraction to already-departed individuals and attraction to non-departed individuals. This rule is shown to be in agreement with an adaptive strategy that is inherently scalable as a function of group size.

[1]  Iva Dostálková,et al.  When to go with the crowd: modelling synchronization of all-or-nothing activity transitions in grouped animals. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

[2]  S. Pratt,et al.  Quorum responses and consensus decision making , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  Jacques Gautrais,et al.  Moving together: Incidental leaders and naïve followers , 2010, Behavioural Processes.

[4]  Bertrand Dumont,et al.  Consistency of animal order in spontaneous group movements allows the measurement of leadership in a group of grazing heifers , 2005 .

[5]  T. Caraco,et al.  Social Foraging Theory , 2018 .

[6]  T. Seeley,et al.  Coordinating a group departure: who produces the piping signals on honeybee swarms? , 2007, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[7]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Selective mimetism at departure in collective movements of Macaca tonkeana: an experimental and theoretical approach , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  L. Conradt,et al.  Consensus decision making in animals. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  I. Couzin,et al.  Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move , 2005, Nature.

[10]  A. Radford Vocal Coordination of Group Movement by Green Woodhoopoes (Phoeniculus purpureus) , 2004 .

[11]  T. Caraco,et al.  Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? , 1984 .

[12]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[13]  Sean A. Rands,et al.  Spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs , 2003, Nature.

[14]  Eamonn B. Mallon,et al.  Quorum sensing, recruitment, and collective decision-making during colony emigration by the ant Leptothorax albipennis , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[15]  T. J. Roper,et al.  Group decision-making in animals , 2003, Nature.

[16]  Paul J. B. Hart,et al.  Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  W. Hamilton Geometry for the selfish herd. , 1971, Journal of theoretical biology.

[18]  S. G. Reebs Can a minority of informed leaders determine the foraging movements of a fish shoal? , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  J. Gautrais,et al.  Collective decision-making in white-faced capuchin monkeys , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  V. Isaeva Self-organization in biological systems , 2012, Biology Bulletin.

[21]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach , 2001 .

[22]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Allelomimetic synchronization in Merino sheep , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  Sean A. Rands,et al.  Self-Improvement for Team-Players: The Effects of Individual Effort on Aggregated Group Information , 2010, PloS one.

[24]  C. List,et al.  Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  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.

[26]  A I Houston,et al.  Mobility limits cooperation. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  D. Helbing,et al.  Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Guy Cowlishaw,et al.  When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making , 2007, Biology Letters.

[29]  Kevin N. Laland,et al.  The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict , 2004 .

[30]  Y. Tu,et al.  Moving and staying together without a leader , 2003, cond-mat/0401257.