Diffusion and Topological Neighbours in Flocks of Starlings: Relating a Model to Empirical Data

Moving in a group while avoiding collisions with group members causes internal dynamics in the group. Although these dynamics have recently been measured quantitatively in starling flocks (Sturnus vulgaris), it is unknown what causes them. Computational models have shown that collective motion in groups is likely due to attraction, avoidance and, possibly, alignment among group members. Empirical studies show that starlings adjust their movement to a fixed number of closest neighbours or topological range, namely 6 or 7 and assume that each of the three activities is done with the same number of neighbours (topological range). Here, we start from the hypothesis that escape behavior is more effective at preventing collisions in a flock when avoiding the single closest neighbor than compromising by avoiding 6 or 7 of them. For alignment and attraction, we keep to the empirical topological range. We investigate how avoiding one or several neighbours affects the internal dynamics of flocks of starlings in our computational model StarDisplay. By comparing to empirical data, we confirm that internal dynamics resemble empirical data more closely if flock members avoid merely their single, closest neighbor. Our model shows that considering a different number of interaction partners per activity represents a useful perspective and that changing a single parameter, namely the number of interaction partners that are avoided, has several effects through selforganisation.

[1]  Craig W. Reynolds Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral model , 1987, SIGGRAPH.

[2]  Hauke Reuter,et al.  SELFORGANIZATION OF FISH SCHOOLS : AN OBJECT-ORIENTED MODEL , 1994 .

[3]  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.

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

[5]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Some Causes of the Variable Shape of Flocks of Birds , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  Andrew J. King,et al.  A rule-of-thumb based on social affiliation explains collective movements in desert baboons , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  Yoshinobu Inada,et al.  Order and flexibility in the motion of fish schools. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  Graham K. Taylor,et al.  Soaring and manoeuvring flight of a steppe eagle Aquila nipalensis , 2011 .

[9]  A. Cavagna,et al.  Diffusion of individual birds in starling flocks , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  H. Chaté,et al.  Modeling collective motion: variations on the Vicsek model , 2008 .

[11]  Ivan Puga-Gonzalez,et al.  Emergent Patterns of Social Affiliation in Primates, a Model , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[12]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Schools of fish and flocks of birds: their shape and internal structure by self-organization , 2012, Interface Focus.

[13]  Daniel W Franks,et al.  Limited interactions in flocks: relating model simulations to empirical data , 2011, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[14]  James J. Anderson,et al.  Motion-guided attention promotes adaptive communications during social navigation , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Neha Bhooshan,et al.  The Simulation of the Movement of Fish Schools , 2001 .

[16]  D. Sumpter,et al.  Inferring the rules of interaction of shoaling fish , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  G. Parisi,et al.  Empirical investigation of starling flocks: a benchmark study in collective animal behaviour , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  F. Heppner,et al.  Structure of Turning in Airborne Rock Dove (Columba livia) Flocks , 1992 .

[19]  Leah Edelstein-Keshet,et al.  Inferring individual rules from collective behavior , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  What underlies waves of agitation in starling flocks , 2015, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

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

[22]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  Density distribution and size sorting in fish schools: an individual-based model , 2005 .

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

[24]  T. Vicsek,et al.  Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks , 2010, Nature.

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

[26]  G. Parisi,et al.  FROM EMPIRICAL DATA TO INTER-INDIVIDUAL INTERACTIONS: UNVEILING THE RULES OF COLLECTIVE ANIMAL BEHAVIOR , 2010 .

[27]  Colin R. Twomey,et al.  Visual sensory networks and effective information transfer in animal groups , 2013, Current Biology.

[28]  W. Bialek,et al.  Social interactions dominate speed control in poising natural flocks near criticality , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Artificial Fish Schools: Collective Effects of School Size, Body Size, and Body Form , 2003, Artificial Life.

[30]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Modeling Collective Animal Behavior with a Cognitive Perspective: A Methodological Framework , 2012, PloS one.

[31]  Steven F Railsback,et al.  Pattern-oriented modelling: a ‘multi-scope’ for predictive systems ecology , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  Giorgio Parisi,et al.  Propagating waves in starling, Sturnus vulgaris, flocks under predation , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

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

[34]  G D Ruxton,et al.  Fish shoal composition: mechanisms and constraints , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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

[36]  Matthew S Turner,et al.  Role of projection in the control of bird flocks , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  I. Couzin,et al.  Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Marko Bacic,et al.  Modeling and Identification of Steppe Eagle (Aquila nipalensis) dynamics , 2008 .

[39]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Emergence of Oblong School Shape: Models and Empirical Data of Fish , 2010 .

[40]  J. Toner,et al.  Flocks, herds, and schools: A quantitative theory of flocking , 1998, cond-mat/9804180.

[41]  W. Bialek,et al.  Statistical mechanics for natural flocks of birds , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  W. Potts The chorus-line hypothesis of manoeuvre coordination in avian flocks , 1984, Nature.

[43]  James G. Puckett,et al.  Searching for effective forces in laboratory insect swarms , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[44]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  Simulations of the social organization of large schools of fish whose perception is obstructed , 2012 .

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

[46]  C. Hemelrijk,et al.  The increased efficiency of fish swimming in a school , 2013, 1307.7282.

[47]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Scale-Free Correlations, Influential Neighbours and Speed Control in Flocks of Birds , 2015 .