Title |
Individual-level personality influences social foraging and collective behaviour in wild birds
|
---|---|
Published in |
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, August 2014
|
DOI | 10.1098/rspb.2014.1016 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lucy M. Aplin, Damien R. Farine, Richard P. Mann, Ben C. Sheldon |
Abstract |
There is increasing evidence that animal groups can maintain coordinated behaviour and make collective decisions based on simple interaction rules. Effective collective action may be further facilitated by individual variation within groups, particularly through leader-follower polymorphisms. Recent studies have suggested that individual-level personality traits influence the degree to which individuals use social information, are attracted to conspecifics, or act as leaders/followers. However, evidence is equivocal and largely limited to laboratory studies. We use an automated data-collection system to conduct an experiment testing the relationship between personality and collective decision-making in the wild. First, we report that foraging flocks of great tits (Parus major) show strikingly synchronous behaviour. A predictive model of collective decision-making replicates patterns well, suggesting simple interaction rules are sufficient to explain the observed social behaviour. Second, within groups, individuals with more reactive personalities behave more collectively, moving to within-flock areas of higher density. By contrast, proactive individuals tend to move to and feed at spatial periphery of flocks. Finally, comparing alternative simulations of flocking with empirical data, we demonstrate that variation in personality promotes within-patch movement while maintaining group cohesion. Our results illustrate the importance of incorporating individual variability in models of social behaviour. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 9 | 30% |
Germany | 2 | 7% |
United States | 2 | 7% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
Sweden | 1 | 3% |
Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 3% |
France | 1 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 11 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 18 | 60% |
Scientists | 10 | 33% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
South Africa | 2 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Czechia | 1 | <1% |
Israel | 1 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
China | 1 | <1% |
Singapore | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | <1% |
Unknown | 533 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 130 | 24% |
Student > Master | 91 | 17% |
Student > Bachelor | 79 | 14% |
Researcher | 76 | 14% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 4% |
Other | 59 | 11% |
Unknown | 92 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 295 | 54% |
Environmental Science | 42 | 8% |
Psychology | 21 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 2% |
Engineering | 8 | 1% |
Other | 44 | 8% |
Unknown | 129 | 23% |