Abstract
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.
Highlights
Elucidating the mechanisms governing cohesion during group movement is a central issue to our understanding of the evolution of social behaviour [1]
If benefits are linked to group size, as is expected [4], there must exist some conflict between staying with others and taking the risk of departing to forage on higher quality resources or to reduce competition
The time course of collective departures did not depend on the group sizes (Kruskal test on time course: x2 = 2.045, df = 3, P = 0.56, Fig. 1) whilst one may have expected that larger groups would take a longer time to depart, even over this range of group sizes
Summary
Elucidating the mechanisms governing cohesion during group movement is a central issue to our understanding of the evolution of social behaviour [1]. If benefits are linked to group size, as is expected [4], there must exist some conflict between staying with others and taking the risk of departing to forage on higher quality resources or to reduce competition. This conflict between leaving and staying concerns the first individual to initiate the movement (the ‘‘initiator’’ [5]), and those individuals which have not yet departed. When some of the group members decide to move, the remaining individuals have to choose whether to follow those that have departed If they do not, the group will remain split
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have