Prey synchronize their vigilant behaviour with other group members

It is generally assumed that an individual of a prey species can benefit from an increase in the number of its group's members by reducing its own investment in vigilance. But what behaviour should group members adopt in relation to both the risk of being preyed upon and the individual investment in vigilance? Most models assume that individuals scan independently of one another. It is generally argued that it is more profitable for each group member owing to the cost that coordination of individual scans in non-overlapping bouts of vigilance would require. We studied the relationships between both individual and collective vigilance and group size in Defassa waterbuck, Kobus ellipsiprymnus defassa, in a population living under a predation risk. Our results confirmed that the proportion of time an individual spent in vigilance decreased with group size. However, the time during which at least one individual in the group scanned the environment (collective vigilance) increased. Analyses showed that individuals neither coordinated their scanning in an asynchronous way nor scanned independently of one another. On the contrary, scanning and non-scanning bouts were synchronized between group members, producing waves of collective vigilance. We claim that these waves are triggered by allelomimetic effects i.e. they are a phenomenon produced by an individual copying its neighbour's behaviour.

[1]  Glen E. Woolfenden,et al.  A sentinel system in the Florida scrub jay , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  Pulliam Hr,et al.  On the advantages of flocking , 1973 .

[3]  D. Blumstein,et al.  Group size effects in quokkas , 2001 .

[4]  Engel,et al.  Doing What Everybody Does? A Procedure for Investigating Behavioural Synchronization , 1997, Journal of theoretical biology.

[5]  Evolutionary stability of vigilance coordination among social foragers , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  G. Ruxton,et al.  Are vigilance sequences a consequence of intrinsic chaos or external changes? , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  Thomas Caraco,et al.  The scanning behavior of juncos: A game-theoretical approach , 1982 .

[8]  C. Fitzgibbon Mixed-species grouping in Thomson's and Grant's gazelles: the antipredator benefits , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Tests of the sequential randomness of vigilant behaviour using spectral analysis , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  J. Lazarus,et al.  Prey scan at random to evade observant predators , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Randomness, chaos and confusion in the study of antipredator vigilance. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  B. Bertram,et al.  Vigilance and group size in ostriches , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  J. Gerard,et al.  From individual to collective vigilance in wild boar (Sus scrofa) , 1992 .

[14]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Vigilance while feeding and its relation to the risk of predation , 1987 .

[15]  Elissa Z. Cameron,et al.  Social influences on vigilance behaviour in giraffes, Giraffa camelopardalis , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. , 1999, Science.

[17]  G. Roberts Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

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

[19]  John Lazarus,et al.  The early warning function of flocking in birds: An experimental study with captive quelea , 1979, Animal Behaviour.

[20]  DAVID B. BAHR,et al.  Predicting flock vigilance from simple passerine interactions: modelling with cellular automata , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[21]  C. Fitzgibbon Why do hunting cheetahs prefer male gazelles? , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  A. Treves,et al.  Vigilance and aggregation in black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra) , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[23]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Collective patterns and decision-making , 1989 .

[24]  Gustavo J. Fernández,et al.  Effect of Group Size on Individual and Collective Vigilance in Greater Rheas , 2003 .

[25]  Olivier Pays,et al.  Coordination, independence or synchronization of individual vigilance in the eastern grey kangaroo? , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  M. Elgar,et al.  PREDATOR VIGILANCE AND GROUP SIZE IN MAMMALS AND BIRDS: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE , 1989, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[27]  D. Lendrem,et al.  Vigilance and scanning patterns in birds , 1984, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  P. Ward Why birds in flocks do not coordinate their vigilance periods , 1985 .

[29]  M. Elgar,et al.  Vigilance and perception of flock size in foraging house sparrows (Passer domesticus L.) , 1984 .

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

[31]  H. Pulliam,et al.  On the advantages of flocking. , 1973, Journal of theoretical biology.

[32]  P A Bednekoff,et al.  Mutualism Among Safe, Selfish Sentinels: A Dynamic Game , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[33]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  J. M. Davis,et al.  Socially induced flight reactions in pigeons , 1975, Animal Behaviour.