Skip to main content
Log in

Factors affecting information transfer from knowledgeable to naive individuals in groups

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is evidence that individuals in animal groups benefit from the presence of knowledgeable group members in different ways. Experiments and computer simulations have shown that a few individuals within a group can lead others, for a precise task and at a specific moment. As a group travels, different individuals possessing a particular knowledge may act as temporary leaders, so that the group will, as a whole, follow their behaviour. In this paper, we use a model to study different factors influencing group response to temporary leadership. The model is based on four individual behaviours. Three of those, attraction, repulsion, and alignment, are shared by all individuals. The last one, attraction toward the source of a stimulus, concerns only a fraction of the group members. We explore the influence of group size, proportion of stimulated individuals, number of influential neighbours, and intensity of the attraction to the source of the stimulus, on the proportion of the group reaching this source. Special attention is given to the simulation of large group size, close to those observed in nature. Groups of 100, 400 and 900 individuals are currently simulated, and up to 8,000 in one experiment. We show that more stimulated individuals and a larger group size both induce the arrival of a larger fraction of the group. The number of influential neighbours and the intensity of the stimulus have a non-linear influence on the proportion of the group arrival, displaying first a positive relationship and then, above a given threshold, a negative one. We conclude that an intermediate level of group cohesion provides optimal transfer information from knowledgeable to naive individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ballerini M, Cabibbo N, Candelier R, Cavagna A, Cisbani E, Giardina I, Lecomte V, Orlandi A, Parisi G, Procaccini A, Viale M, Zdravkovic V (2008) Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: evidence from a field study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(4):1232–1237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bradner J, McRobert SP (2001) The effect of shoal size on patterns of body colour segregation in mollies. J Fish Biol 59:960–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Côté I, Jelnikar E (1999) Predator-induced clumping behaviour in mussels (Mytilus edulis Linnaeus). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 235:201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin ID, Krause J, James R, Ruxton GD, Franks NR (2002) Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. J Theor Biol 218:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin ID, Krause J, Franks NR, Levin SA (2005) Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 433:513–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Day RL, Mcdonald T, Brown C, Laland KN, Reader SM (2001) Interactions between shoal size and conformity in guppy social foraging. Anim Behav 62:917–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fréon P (1984) La variabilité des tailles individuelles à l'intérieur des cohortes et des bancs de poissons: 1. Observations et interprétation. Oceanol Acta 7(4):457–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Fréon P, Dagorn L (2000) Review of fish associative behaviour: toward a generalisation of the meeting point hypothesis. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10(2):183–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fréon P, Misund OA (1999) Dynamics of pelagic fish distribution and behaviour: effects on fisheries and stock assessment. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths SW, Magurran A (1999) Schooling decisions in guppies (Poecilia reticulata) are based on familiarity rather than kin recognition by phenotype matching. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:437–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen JU, Jørgensen C, Mooij WM, Müller B, Pe'er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins AM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabø R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198:115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoare DJ, Krause J, Peuhkuri N, Godin JGJ (2000) Body size and shoaling in fish. J Fish Biol 57:1351–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse G, Railsback S, Ferno A (2002) Modelling changes in migration pattern of herring: collective behaviour and numerical domination. J Fish Biol 60:571–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huth A, Wissel C (1992) The simulation of the movement of fish schools. J Theor Biol 156:365–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huth A, Wissel C (1993) Analysis of the behaviour and the structure of fish schools by means of computer simulations. Comm Theor Biol 3(3):169–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth A, Wissel C (1994) The simulation of fish schools in comparison with experimental data. Ecol Model 75/76:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inada Y, Kawachi K (2002) Order and flexibility in the motion of fish schools. J Theor Biol 214:371–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krause J (1993) The effect of schreckstoff on the schooling behaviour of the minnows: a test of Hamilton’s selfish herd theory. Anim Behav 45:1019–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Bumann D, Todt D (1992) Relationship between the position preference and nutritional state of individuals in schools of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:177–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Hoare DJ, Croft D, Lawrence J, Ward A, Ruxton GD, Godin J-GJ, James R (2000) Fish shoal composition: mechanisms and constraints. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2011–2017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Williams K (1997) Shoaling generates social learning of foraging information in guppies. Anim Behav 53:1161–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lebreton J-D, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Andersson DR (1992) Modelling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecol Monogr 62:67–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lett C, Mirabet V (2008) Modelling the dynamics of animal groups in motion. South Afr J Sci (in press)

  • Levin LE (1996) Passage order through different pathways in groups of schooling fish, and the diversified leadership hypothesis. Behav Process 37:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (1993) Individual differences and alternative behaviours. In: Pitcher, TJ (eds) Behaviour of teleost fishes. 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp 441–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirabet V, Auger P, Lett C (2007) Spatial structures in simulation of animal grouping. Ecol Model 201(3–4):468–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misund OA (1993) Dynamics of moving masses: variability in packing density, shape, and size among herring, sprat, and saithe schools. ICES J Mar Sci 50:145–160 doi:10.1006/jmsc.1993.1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonacs P (2001) A life-history approach to group living and social contracts between individuals. Ann Zool Fenn 38:239–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish JK, Hamner WM (eds) (1997) Animal groups in three dimensions (1st edn). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Parrish JK, Viscido SV, Grunbaum D (2002) Self-organized fish schools: an examination of emergent properties. Biol Bull 202:296–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ (1983) Heuristic definitions of shoaling behaviour. Anim Behav 31:611–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reader SM, Laland KN (2000) Diffusion of foraging innovations in the guppy. Anim Behav 60:175–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reader SM, Kendal JR, Laland KN (2003) Social learning of foraging sites and escape routes in wild Trinidadian guppies. Anim Behav 66:729–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reebs SG (2000) Can a minority of informed leaders determine the foraging movements of a fish shoal. Anim Behav 49:403–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romey WL (1996) Individual differences make a difference in the trajectories of simulated schools of fish. Ecol Model 92:65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc (1988) SAS/STAT® user’s guide, version 6, volume 2, 4th edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina, p 846

    Google Scholar 

  • Sogard S, Olla BL (1997) The influence of hunger and predation risk on group cohesion in a pelagic fish, walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma. Environ Biol Fishes 50:405–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soria M, Gerlotto F, Fréon P (1993) Study of learning capability of tropical clupeoids using an artificial stimulus. ICES Mar Sci Symp 196:17–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson PA, Barber I, Forsgren E (2000) Shoaling behaviour of the two spotted goby fish. J Fish Biol 56:1477–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscido SV, Parrish JK, Grünbaum D (2005) The effect of population size and number of influential neighbors on the emergent properties of fish schools. Ecol Model 183:347–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward AJW, Hart PJB, Krause J (2004) Assessment and assortment: how fishes use local and global cues to choose which school to go to. Proc R Soc Lond B (Suppl) 271:328–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the program of the IRD Research Unit R097 (Upwelling Ecosystems). We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Mirabet.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Krause

Appendix: mathematical description of the model

Appendix: mathematical description of the model

Let us consider an individual i and one of its influential neighbours j at time step t. Let \(\overrightarrow {u_i } \) and \(\overrightarrow {u_j } \) be their direction vectors and \(\overrightarrow {u_{ij} } \) the vector from i to j. If i is a stimulated individual, we also define the vector \(\overrightarrow {u_{{\text{is}}} } \) from i to the source of the stimulus. If i is a naive individual we set \(\overrightarrow {u_{is} } = \overrightarrow 0 \).

Let w al be the weight associated to the alignment behaviour of i towards j. Here we chose w al as a constant equal to w. Let w ij be the weight associated to the attraction, or repulsion, behaviour, of i towards j. Here we chose w ij as the following quadratic function of the distance d ij between i and j:

$${\text{If}}\,d_{ij} <D_{{\text{min}}} \left( {{\text{repulsion}}} \right),w_{ij} = - 2w\left( {1 - \frac{{d_{ij} }}{{D_{{\text{min}}} }}} \right)^2 .$$
$${\text{If}}\,d_{{ij}} > D_{{{\text{min}}}} {\left( {{\text{attraction}}} \right)},w_{{ij}} = 2w{\left( {1 - \frac{{D_{{{\text{max}}}} - d_{{ij}} }}{{D_{{{\text{max}}}} - D_{{{\text{min}}}} }}} \right)}^{2} .$$

Note that because i and j are neighbours, we have d ij  < D max. In all simulations we have used w = 0,5, D min = 15 and D max = 60 (Fig. 1). These functions have been shown to induce the formation of homogeneous groups within a large range of parameter values (Mirabet et al. 2007).

To update the direction vector of i at time step t + 1, we compute a vector that sums up the attraction, alignment and repulsion behaviours of i towards all its influential neighbours j, and the attraction towards the stimulus:

$$\overrightarrow {v_i } = \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^N {\left( {w_{{\text{al}}} \frac{{\overrightarrow {u_j } }}{{\left\| {\overrightarrow {u_j } } \right\|}} + w_{ij} \frac{{\overrightarrow {u_{ij} } }}{{\left\| {\overrightarrow {u_{ij} } } \right\|}}} \right) + w_s \frac{{\overrightarrow {u_{{\text{is}}} } }}{{\left\| {\overrightarrow {u_{{\text{is}}} } } \right\|}}} .$$

We have used different values for the number of influential neighbours N and for the stimulus intensity w s (see Table 1).

Finally, we compute the angle θ by which the individual i has to turn at time step t + 1, i.e. the angle between vectors \(\overrightarrow {u_i } \) and \(\overrightarrow {v_i } \).

The model is our own creation, written in C language and running on Linux platform.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mirabet, V., Fréon, P. & Lett, C. Factors affecting information transfer from knowledgeable to naive individuals in groups. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63, 159–171 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0647-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0647-8

Keywords

Navigation