Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Collective animal behavior

Collective animal behavior refers to the coordinated patterns and actions that emerge from local interactions among individuals in groups, such as flocks, schools, herds, or colonies, without requiring centralized control or leadership.^[1] This self-organized phenomenon arises through simple rules followed by each animal, leading to complex group-level outcomes that often enhance survival, foraging efficiency, or predator avoidance.^[2] As a subfield of behavioral ecology, it integrates observation, experimentation, and modeling to explore how these dynamics adapt to environmental pressures and evolutionary fitness.^[3] Notable examples span diverse taxa, including starling flocks where birds maintain cohesion by aligning with a fixed number of topological neighbors (typically 6-7), regardless of distance; fish schools like herring, which can span over 700 m² with thousands of individuals; and ant colonies forming efficient pheromone trails.^[2] Honey bee swarms demonstrate quorum sensing during nest-site selection, where scouts use waggle dances to recruit others until a consensus threshold is reached, balancing speed and decision quality.^[1] Similarly, army ant raids exhibit emergent wave patterns driven by local sensory cues, while mammal herds like wildebeest coordinate migrations through alignment and repulsion to evade threats.^[1] At its core, collective behavior operates via mechanisms such as alignment (matching neighbors' directions), attraction (staying proximate), and repulsion (avoiding collisions), which trigger phase transitions from disordered to ordered motion as group density increases.^[2] Positive feedback amplifies signals—like pheromone deposition in ants or visual cues in birds—while response thresholds determine when individuals join collective actions, as seen in Temnothorax ants activating at densities above 20 individuals per 24 cm².^[1] Negative feedback, such as density-dependent repulsion, stabilizes groups against perturbations.^[2] Theoretical models underpin understanding, with agent-based simulations like the Vicsek model replicating flocking from individual rules, and Eulerian approaches analyzing macroscopic flows in dense groups.^[2] Multi-scale analyses reveal how short-term local interactions (seconds to minutes) scale to developmental changes (days) and evolutionary adaptations (generations), emphasizing decentralized decision-making optimized at individual or group levels based on relatedness.^[3] These principles highlight collective behavior's role in resilience, as groups often outperform solitary individuals in dynamic environments.^[1]

Overview and Definition

Core Concepts

Collective animal behavior refers to the coordinated actions of groups of animals that emerge from decentralized interactions among individuals, without the need for a central authority or leader. This phenomenon is observed across diverse taxa, from insects and fish to birds and mammals, and is characterized by the production of complex, adaptive patterns at the group level that surpass the capabilities of isolated individuals.^[1] Fundamental to this field is the concept of self-organization, where simple local rules followed by each animal lead to emergent global structures, such as coherent flocks or efficient foraging trails.^[4] At the heart of collective behavior lie basic behavioral algorithms that individuals use to interact with their immediate neighbors or environment. A seminal framework identifies three core interaction rules for motion-based collectives: separation, or repulsion, which prevents collisions by maintaining distance from nearby individuals; alignment, which involves matching the direction and speed of neighbors to promote group cohesion; and attraction, which draws individuals toward the group's center to ensure unity. These rules, first computationally demonstrated in the "boids" model, enable phase transitions from disordered to ordered states, as seen in simulations where groups shift from random movement to synchronized milling or swarming under varying densities.^[5]^[6] Empirical validation in species like starling flocks and fish schools confirms that animals typically interact with a fixed number of topological neighbors—around six to seven—rather than a metric distance, facilitating robust collective motion even in turbulent environments.^[7] Self-organization in collective behavior often relies on feedback mechanisms to amplify or dampen interactions, leading to adaptive outcomes. Positive feedback, such as pheromone reinforcement in ant trails, accelerates the adoption of efficient paths by recruiting more foragers, while negative feedback, like density-dependent repulsion, stabilizes group formation by countering overcrowding.^[1] These processes underpin emergence, where group-level properties—like the rapid propagation of escape waves in fish shoals—arise unpredictably from local cues, enabling information transfer across scales from milliseconds in aerial flocks to days in insect colonies.^[8] Such dynamics highlight how collective systems process environmental information collectively, often outperforming solitary decision-making in uncertain conditions.^[2] Multi-scale considerations further define core concepts, as collective behaviors operate across temporal and spatial hierarchies. On short timescales (under seconds), local sensory interactions drive immediate responses, such as alignment in bird flocks during predator evasion; over longer periods (hours to generations), developmental plasticity and evolutionary pressures shape group tendencies, like increased shoaling in guppies under predation risk.^[8] This hierarchical integration ensures that collective animal behavior not only achieves immediate survival benefits but also evolves to optimize fitness in dynamic ecosystems.^[4]

Scope and Significance

Collective animal behavior encompasses the emergent, coordinated actions of animal groups arising from local interactions among individuals, rather than centralized control. This field studies phenomena such as flocking in birds, schooling in fish, swarming in insects, and herding in mammals, where simple behavioral rules— like alignment, attraction, and repulsion—produce complex group dynamics.^[9] The scope spans diverse taxa and contexts, including foraging, migration, predator avoidance, and nest-site selection, often observed in social insects like ants and bees, as well as in larger vertebrates.^[10] These behaviors operate across multiple timescales, from rapid adjustments in seconds (e.g., fish directional changes during threats) to developmental ontogeny over weeks and evolutionary patterns over generations.^[10] The significance of collective animal behavior lies in its revelation of self-organization principles, where individual-level algorithms generate adaptive group outcomes without requiring advanced cognition in each member. Seminal work highlights how positive feedback, response thresholds, and information flow underpin these systems, as seen in ant pheromone trails and honeybee quorum sensing.^[9] In ecology, it illuminates survival advantages, such as enhanced predator detection in shoals or efficient resource allocation in colonies, influencing population dynamics and responses to environmental stressors like climate change.^[10] Quantitatively, studies show that group cohesion can reduce individual predation risk by up to 50% in fish schools, underscoring its role in evolutionary fitness.^[11] Beyond biology, collective animal behavior holds interdisciplinary importance, bridging ethology, physics, and engineering through biomimicry. It inspires swarm robotics, where algorithms mimicking fish or insect interactions enable decentralized control in multi-robot systems for tasks like search-and-rescue.^[12] This cross-pollination also aids understanding human crowd dynamics and social systems, with applications in optimizing traffic flow or epidemic modeling based on animal-derived principles of information propagation.^[9] Challenges in studying these behaviors, such as quantifying heterogeneity across wild populations, highlight the need for advanced tools like drone tracking, yet affirm the field's potential to address real-world problems in sustainability and technology.^[10]

Historical Development

Early Observations

One of the earliest recorded observations of collective animal behavior dates back to ancient Greece, where Aristotle documented the coordinated swarming of bees and the grouping tendencies of fish in his History of Animals. He described how bees cluster and move en masse during swarming, with workers and drones exhibiting division of labor in hive maintenance and foraging, attributing this to an innate social organization that ensures colony survival. Similarly, Aristotle noted that certain fish species, such as mullets, form tight schools that swim synchronously, suggesting these aggregations arise from mutual attraction and shared environmental cues rather than individual leadership. In the 19th century, naturalists expanded these observations through detailed field accounts, particularly on avian flocking. John James Audubon, in his Ornithological Biography (1831–1839), vividly described colossal flocks of passenger pigeons (Ectopistes migratorius) that darkened the sky and took days to pass observers, estimating densities exceeding 300 million birds per hour and highlighting how such massive, synchronized movements facilitated migration and predator evasion.^[13] Charles Darwin further advanced understanding by analyzing the evolutionary origins of collective instincts in social insects, such as ants and bees, in On the Origin of Species (1859), where he argued that sterile workers' selfless behaviors toward the colony— including coordinated foraging and defense—evolved through natural selection acting on kin groups. Early 20th-century ethology formalized these insights with systematic studies of group dynamics. William Morton Wheeler, in The Social Insects: Their Origin and Evolution (1928), portrayed ant and bee colonies as "superorganisms," where individual actions aggregate into emergent collective behaviors like trail formation and nest building, based on his extensive field and laboratory observations of over 1,000 ant species. For aquatic groups, Charles M. Breder Jr.'s Studies on Social Groupings of Fishes (1959) provided pioneering quantitative analyses, classifying fish schools as polarized aggregations driven by visual and lateral line cues, with experiments demonstrating how isolated individuals rapidly rejoin groups to maintain cohesion.^[14] These works laid the groundwork for recognizing collective behavior as an adaptive, self-organizing phenomenon across taxa.

Key Theoretical Advances

The study of collective animal behavior has been profoundly shaped by theoretical models that explain emergent group dynamics through simple local interactions among individuals. One foundational advance is the concept of self-organization, where complex patterns arise without central control, drawing from non-equilibrium thermodynamics to model how feedback loops—such as positive amplification and negative stabilization—drive group formation in species like ants and birds.^[4] This framework, building on earlier work in chemical systems, was adapted to animal groups to highlight principles like response thresholds and synchronization, enabling behaviors such as quorum sensing in insects where individuals adjust actions based on local density.^[4] A pivotal computational breakthrough came with agent-based simulations, exemplified by Reynolds' Boids model, which demonstrated how three basic rules—separation to avoid collisions, alignment to match neighbors' velocities, and cohesion to stay close—produce realistic flocking in simulated birds.^[5] This approach influenced subsequent theoretical work by emphasizing decentralized decision-making, later extended in self-propelled particle (SPP) models that incorporate attraction, repulsion, and orientation to predict diverse group configurations, including milling in fish schools and turbulent motion in larger flocks.^[15] The Vicsek model marked a key theoretical advance by treating animals as self-driven particles that align directions within a neighborhood, revealing a phase transition from random motion to coherent flocking as density or alignment strength increases, akin to ferromagnetic ordering in physics.^[6] This discrete model highlighted noise and interaction range as critical parameters, providing a minimal framework for understanding order-disorder transitions in biological systems like bacterial swarms.^[6] Building on Vicsek's insights, continuum theories like the Toner-Tu equations offered a hydrodynamic description of flocking, deriving macroscopic equations for velocity and density fields that predict anomalous fluctuations and giant number correlations over long distances, validated in bird flocks and insect groups.^[16] These nonlinear equations account for the absence of a global reference frame in moving groups, explaining why real flocks exhibit non-Gaussian statistics unlike traditional fluids.^[16] Further refinements, such as topological interaction rules where animals respond to a fixed number of nearest neighbors rather than a metric distance, have shown how such mechanisms sustain cohesion in dense starling murmurations, challenging earlier metric-based assumptions.

Prominent Examples

Flocking and Schooling

Flocking refers to the coordinated movement of birds in aerial groups, while schooling describes similar synchronized swimming in fish shoals. Both phenomena exemplify collective animal behavior where individuals follow simple local rules to produce emergent group-level patterns, such as cohesive flocks or polarized schools, without centralized control. These behaviors are widespread across species, including starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) for flocking and species like herring (Clupea harengus) for schooling, and are driven by interactions among nearby individuals.^[17]^[18] A foundational computational model for understanding these dynamics is the Boids algorithm, which simulates flocking through three core rules: separation (avoiding collisions with neighbors), alignment (matching velocity to neighbors), and cohesion (steering toward the average position of neighbors). This model, inspired by observations of natural flocks and schools, demonstrates how local interactions can yield realistic group motion, including milling and wave propagation, mirroring behaviors seen in birds and fish. Empirical studies validate these principles; for instance, in bird flocks, individuals interact based on topological distance—typically the seven nearest neighbors—rather than Euclidean metric distance, enabling robust cohesion even under density variations or perturbations. This topological rule enhances flock stability, as shown in field observations of European starlings where interaction kernels were invariant to flock density.^[17]^[7] In fish schooling, similar self-organizing rules apply, with individuals balancing attraction, repulsion, and alignment to maintain group integrity. Seminal hydrodynamic analyses reveal that schooling configurations, such as diamond or echelon formations, reduce drag and vortex interference, allowing fish to achieve 2 to 6 times greater endurance during sustained swimming compared to solitary individuals. Models incorporating these rules, like those using self-propelled particles, predict phase transitions between disordered milling and ordered parallel formations, consistent with observations in species such as golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas). These mechanisms not only facilitate rapid group responses to threats but also optimize energy use, underscoring the adaptive value of such collective patterns.^[19]^[18]

Insect Swarms and Herds

Insect swarms and herds represent striking examples of collective behavior among insects, where large groups coordinate movements through local interactions, often without centralized control. Swarms typically involve flying insects forming dense, airborne aggregations for mating, migration, or foraging, while herds refer to ground-based processions or clusters, such as marching larvae or raiding columns. These behaviors emerge from simple rules like alignment, repulsion, and attraction, enabling groups to achieve adaptive outcomes like predator evasion or resource exploitation.^[20] Locust swarms exemplify destructive collective migration, where desert locusts (Schistocerca gregaria) transition from solitary to gregarious phases under high population densities, forming massive bands of nymphs and flying adult swarms that can span kilometers. Recent virtual reality experiments reveal that locusts do not strictly align with neighbors as in traditional self-propelled particle models; instead, they exhibit a decision-making process involving response to the average bearing of nearby conspecifics via sensory cues like vision and mechanoreception, maintaining swarm cohesion without global synchronization. This mechanism allows swarms to cover vast distances—up to 100 km per day—while adapting to environmental changes, though it challenges classical theories of ordered collective motion.^[21]^[22] Midge swarms (Chironomus riparius) provide a model for disordered yet correlated collective flight, primarily formed by males at dusk for mating displays near landmarks like trees. High-speed stereocamera tracking of wild swarms shows no global polarization (average order parameter of 0.02), indicating a lack of coherent directionality, unlike bird flocks. However, strong spatial correlations in velocity fluctuations persist, with a correlation length of about 0.15 meters—roughly 10 times the inter-individual distance—driven by metric interactions (density-dependent responses within a fixed radius). These correlations, up to 100 times higher than in non-interacting models, suggest midges operate near a phase transition to order, maintaining swarm integrity against wind perturbations through short-range repulsion and noise-filtering alignment.^[23]^[24] Army ant raids (Eciton burchellii) blur the line between swarms and herds, manifesting as fan-shaped foraging columns that expand from the nest and converge on prey, involving up to 200,000 workers in nomadic colonies. This mass-raiding behavior evolved from smaller-scale group raids in ancestral dorylomorph ants, with colony expansions enabling broader front widths (up to 20 meters) through pheromone trails. Workers maintain column cohesion via short-range mechanosensory cues, allowing the group to navigate complex terrain and overwhelm prey collectively, though blind queens and wingless males limit dispersal.^[25]^[26] Caterpillar herds, observed in social lepidopterans like tent caterpillars (Malacosoma disstria), involve nomadic or patch-restricted groupings where larvae march in processions or cluster for feeding and shelter. Silk trails laced with pheromones guide followers, promoting trail-based foraging that enhances efficiency; for instance, groups follow linear paths to food sources, reducing search time compared to solitary individuals. Benefits include thermoregulation (basking in dense arrays to raise body temperature above ambient) and anti-predator defenses, such as synchronized thrashing or aposematic displays that dilute individual risk. Genetic factors, like variations in octopamine receptors, influence grouping propensity, with herds forming via positive mechanosensory feedback during contact.^[27]^[28] Across these examples, insect swarms and herds demonstrate how local rules—repulsion to avoid collisions, attraction via chemical or visual cues, and alignment for momentum—scale to group-level patterns, often modeled as active matter systems with phase-like transitions. Quantitative studies, such as equation-of-state models for swarms, reveal density-dependent pressures akin to gases, where increasing numbers shift from disordered to cohesive states, underscoring the adaptive value in dynamic environments.^[20]^[29]

Adaptive Benefits

Predator Defense

Collective animal behavior provides several adaptive advantages against predators, primarily through mechanisms that reduce individual risk in groups. One key benefit is the dilution effect, where the per capita risk of predation decreases as group size increases because predators cannot capture all members simultaneously. Similarly, in schooling fish like herring, the dilution effect combines with synchronized movements to spread risk, allowing the group to survive even if some individuals are taken. Another prominent mechanism is the confusion effect, which impairs a predator's ability to single out and target an individual amid the coordinated motion of a group. Predators often fail to focus on conspicuous "oddity" prey in uniform schools, as the rapid, unpredictable trajectories of multiple individuals overload sensory processing. Experimental studies with fish predators attacking model schools confirmed that attack success declines sharply with group density and size, as the swirling patterns hinder accurate targeting. In birds, such as starlings in murmurations, this effect is amplified by three-dimensional formations that further disorient aerial predators like falcons.^[30] The selfish herd hypothesis explains how individuals within groups position themselves to minimize personal exposure, often clustering toward the center or using conspecifics as shields, without requiring altruistic cooperation. Proposed through geometric modeling, this theory predicts that animals move to reduce their "domain of danger"—the area around them vulnerable to attack—leading to tighter aggregations under threat. Simulations and observations in fish and ungulates support this, showing peripheral individuals suffer higher predation while central ones gain protection, though the effect weakens in very large or dynamic groups.^[31]^[32] Groups also enhance vigilance via the "many-eyes" strategy, where distributed scanning allows earlier predator detection and faster collective responses, such as fleeing or mobbing. In flocking birds like quelea, larger groups detect threats sooner, reducing overall time spent vigilant per individual and freeing energy for other activities.^[33] Mobbing represents an active collective defense, where multiple prey harass a predator through alarm calls, dives, and attacks to deter it or signal its location to others. In passerine birds, mobbing reduces the predator's future hunting efficiency by increasing its wariness, with mixed-species groups amplifying the response through shared information. This behavior is particularly effective against perched or grounded predators, as seen in chickadees mobbing owls, where group size correlates with mobbing intensity and success.

Foraging Optimization

Collective animal behavior enhances foraging optimization by enabling groups to allocate resources more efficiently than solitary individuals, often through mechanisms like information transfer, role specialization, and self-organization. In group-living species, individuals can share knowledge of food locations, reducing search costs and increasing encounter rates with resources. This is particularly evident in social insects and schooling fish, where collective strategies balance exploration of new patches with exploitation of known ones, maximizing net energy gain while minimizing risks such as predation or depletion. Optimal foraging theory, extended to groups, predicts that animals adjust behaviors to maximize fitness based on patch quality, travel costs, and group dynamics.^[34] A prominent example is in ant colonies, where pheromone trails facilitate self-organized path selection to food sources. In the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile), workers initially explore randomly, but as trails form through local deposition and following, the colony converges on shorter, more efficient routes via positive feedback amplification. This emergent pattern optimizes foraging by rapidly recruiting foragers to high-yield areas and minimizing redundant exploration, with models showing that even small variations in trail-following probability lead to robust collective efficiency. Similarly, in honeybee colonies (Apis mellifera), the waggle dance communicates food location and quality, allowing scouts to recruit nestmates proportionally to resource value. This decentralized system tunes foraging allocation to colony needs, with foragers unloading nectar faster at high-demand times to signal urgency, thereby optimizing intake rates and adapting to fluctuating environments.^[35] In vertebrates, producer-scrounger dynamics further illustrate optimization, where group members either search independently (producers) or join others' discoveries (scroungers), reaching an equilibrium that maximizes individual payoffs. In captive house sparrows (Passer domesticus), this game-theoretic model predicts a stable ratio of tactics based on group size and resource clumping, with scrounging increasing in larger groups to exploit shared information without full search costs. Empirical studies confirm this, showing reduced overall efficiency if one tactic dominates. Group size itself modulates optimization; in wild baboons (Papio cynocephalus), intermediate groups (around 50 individuals) exhibit lower stress hormones and shorter travel distances compared to small or large groups, balancing intragroup competition with external threats to achieve energetic optima. In Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), larger schools reduce per capita predation risk by up to 0.6% per additional member, though foraging success varies by species—declining in some due to interference but increasing in others via diluted competition. These examples highlight how collective behaviors evolve to fine-tune foraging under ecological constraints.^[36]^[37]^[11] Social cohesion in collective animal behavior encompasses the processes that maintain spatial proximity and unity among group members, facilitating coordinated actions and enhancing survival probabilities. This cohesion arises from individual tendencies to align with neighbors, driven by attraction rules in self-organizing systems, which prevent isolation and promote group stability. In many species, it serves as an adaptive strategy by amplifying collective defenses against predators, such as through the dilution effect where risk is shared across more individuals or the confusion effect that overwhelms attackers during synchronized escapes.^[38] A key benefit of social cohesion is its role in integrating personal and social information for effective group decision-making, allowing animals to balance individual preferences with the need to stay united. For instance, in experiments with golden shiner fish (Notemigonus crysoleucas), groups of 16 individuals reached consensus on directional choices in approximately 50% of trials when social cues conflicted with personal information, far exceeding random expectations (P < 0.0001); this was modeled using an isolation-averse Bayesian framework where aversion to separation (parameter α = 0.93) outperformed purely informational models.^[38] Similarly, activity synchrony— the alignment of behaviors like foraging or resting—reinforces cohesion by acting as a "gravitational pull" between individuals, reducing group fragmentation in agent-based models of coupled oscillators; higher coupling parameters (0-1 scale) between pairs enhance stability, particularly in species with strong bonding rituals like primate grooming.^[39] Under ecological stress, social cohesion provides heightened adaptive value by enabling flexible responses that buffer against environmental challenges. In rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) on Cayo Santiago following Hurricane Maria in 2017, which destroyed 63% of vegetation, individuals with greater social tolerance (measured by proximity networks) experienced a 42.69% reduced mortality risk per standard deviation increase in affiliative partners, with tolerance effects persisting for at least five years and tripling close associations during heat stress for thermoregulation access.^[40] These dynamics underscore how cohesion not only sustains routine benefits like enhanced vigilance but also promotes resilience, potentially driving evolutionary shifts toward more tolerant social structures in variable habitats.^[40]

Movement Efficiency

Collective animal behavior frequently enhances movement efficiency by leveraging interactions among individuals to reduce energy expenditure during locomotion. In groups such as bird flocks and fish schools, individuals position themselves to exploit aerodynamic or hydrodynamic wakes generated by others, thereby minimizing drag and optimizing propulsion. This results in substantial energy savings, allowing groups to cover greater distances or sustain higher speeds with less metabolic cost compared to solitary movement. Such efficiencies are particularly evident in migratory species, where prolonged travel demands precise coordination to maximize survival rates. In bird flocking, particularly during V- or echelon formations, trailing individuals benefit from upwash fields created by the wingtip vortices of leading birds, reducing the induced power required for flight. Theoretical models demonstrate that these formations can increase the range of a group of 25 birds by approximately 70% relative to a lone bird, with energy savings distributed more evenly in a vee configuration under tailwind conditions. Empirical observations in species like pelicans and geese confirm these benefits, with heart rate reductions of up to 20-30% in formation flyers compared to solo flight, highlighting the adaptive value for long-distance migration.^[41] Fish schools exhibit analogous hydrodynamic efficiencies, where individuals swim in positions that allow them to ride the lateral pressure gradients or vortex streets produced by neighbors, lowering tail-beat frequency and overall drag. Early hydrodynamic models predicted optimal diamond-shaped arrangements for maximum efficiency, potentially reducing swimming costs by 20-50% in streamlined formations. Recent experimental measurements in giant danios using respirometry confirm these advantages, showing total energy expenditure reduced by 38-53% and total cost of transport decreased by 43% in schools versus solitary fish at speeds of 5-8 body lengths per second, with faster recovery from anaerobic exertion. Although some studies question strict adherence to predicted positions due to predation risks, the net energy conservation supports sustained schooling during extended migrations or foraging.^[42]^[43] In insect swarms, such as those of locusts or midges, collective movement efficiency arises more from coordinated alignment and reduced collision rates than direct aerodynamic drafting, enabling coherent group displacement over large areas with minimal individual deviation. While quantitative energy savings are less documented than in vertebrates, models of swarm dynamics indicate that self-organized milling patterns stabilize trajectories, potentially lowering per capita energetic demands during wind-assisted dispersal. These mechanisms underscore how collective behavior universally promotes efficient locomotion across taxa, balancing physical optimization with ecological pressures.^[44]

Associated Costs

Pathogen Spread

Collective animal behavior, characterized by close proximity and frequent interactions in groups such as flocks, schools, and herds, significantly elevates the risk of pathogen transmission compared to solitary living. In gregarious species, which form large, dynamic aggregations, social network fragmentation into cohesive subgroups facilitates the rapid and prolonged spread of highly transmissible pathogens, leading to frequent epidemics that can decimate populations.^[45] This heightened exposure arises from increased contact rates, where individuals share microhabitats, bodily fluids, or aerosols, amplifying the basic reproduction number (R0) of infectious agents. For instance, in flocking birds, dense formations modeled after simple alignment, cohesion, and separation rules demonstrate how minimal inter-individual distances accelerate the dissemination of viruses like H7N9 avian influenza, potentially bridging to human hosts. In schooling fish, collective movement in tight formations further exacerbates pathogen spread, as high densities in shoals lower the threshold for epidemic outbreaks by promoting direct physical contact and waterborne transmission. Studies on wild and farmed fish populations reveal that schooling behaviors enable spillover dynamics, where pathogens like bacterial agents or parasites move efficiently between individuals, often resulting in elevated mortality without proportional increases in infection intensity per host.^[46] Similarly, in mammalian groups such as wild house mice, baseline social connectivity in shared nests—where up to 26 individuals may cohabit—creates hotspots for contagion, with simulations indicating that unaltered group interactions could infect over 80% of a population from a single index case.^[47] These patterns underscore how collective behaviors, while adaptive for other functions, impose substantial epidemiological costs by optimizing conditions for pathogen amplification. Although group living incurs these risks, infection often induces behavioral adjustments that partially offset spread, such as reduced mobility and social withdrawal in affected individuals. In LPS-challenged mice, infected animals decreased nest visits by up to 40%, effectively isolating themselves and limiting further transmission to roughly 45% of the group in models.^[47] However, such responses are not universal; in gregarious systems, persistent subgroup cohesion can sustain localized outbreaks, highlighting the net cost to overall group health and survival.^[45] Across taxa, these dynamics illustrate the trade-off where collective organization inadvertently serves as a vector for disease persistence and evolution.

Resource Competition

Resource competition represents a significant cost of collective animal behavior, as grouping often intensifies intra-group rivalry for limited resources such as food, leading to reduced individual intake and altered spatial dynamics within the group. In many species, larger group sizes accelerate the depletion of food patches, forcing individuals to spend more time foraging or traveling longer distances to maintain energy balance. This competition can exacerbate inequalities, particularly among subordinates who face restricted access to high-quality resources, ultimately impacting growth, reproduction, and survival rates.^[48] In schooling fish, such as the crimson-spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia duboulayi), nutritional state influences positioning, with hungrier individuals actively moving to the front of the school to gain better access to prey, thereby heightening competition and potentially disrupting group cohesion over time. Similarly, in Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), foraging success declines with increasing group size in species like sockeye and chum salmon, where intra-group competition outweighs any initial benefits of collective detection of resources, as evidenced by long-term observational data from the North Pacific Ocean. These patterns illustrate how resource scarcity drives spatial sorting and behavioral adjustments, often at the expense of overall group efficiency.^[49]^[11] Among primates, scramble competition within groups intensifies with size, as seen in baboons (Papio spp.) where larger troops deplete food patches more rapidly, prompting increased daily travel distances in some habitats to offset reduced per capita intake. Contest competition further compounds this, with dominant individuals securing priority access to preferred feeding sites, while subordinates experience higher stress and lower energetic returns, as measured by fecal glucocorticoid levels in species like olive baboons. In insect swarms, such as desert locusts (Schistocerca gregaria), resource competition manifests through cannibalistic interactions that propel collective movement and direction changes, with interaction rates diminishing in denser groups to mitigate energy loss. These examples underscore the trade-offs of grouping, where collective benefits in other domains are balanced against heightened rivalry for sustenance.^[48]^[50]^[51]

Reproductive Impacts

Collective animal behavior, encompassing phenomena such as schooling in fish, flocking in birds, and swarming in insects, profoundly influences reproductive outcomes through both facilitative and inhibitory mechanisms. Group living often enhances mating opportunities by increasing encounter rates among potential partners, thereby boosting overall reproductive success in dense aggregations. However, it also imposes costs via intraspecific competition and stress, which can suppress reproduction in subordinates or limit group size to maintain fertility levels. These impacts vary across taxa, with benefits typically outweighing costs in environments favoring synchronization and protection, while costs dominate in resource-scarce or highly competitive settings.^[52] A primary cost of collective behavior is the "infertility trap," where social stress from female-female competition in groups reduces fertility through hormonal suppression, such as decreased gonadotropin-releasing hormone pulses, leading to delayed ovulation or embryonic loss. In mammals like meerkats and baboons, subordinate females experience reproductive suppression, with interbirth intervals extended by up to 33 days per 10-rank drop in dominance hierarchy, limiting lifetime fecundity. Similarly, in group-living rodents such as degus, social network density correlates with suppressed breeding in lower-status individuals, capping effective group sizes at around 6-8 females to avoid fertility collapse. Reproductive skew exacerbates this, as dominant individuals monopolize breeding while non-breeders forgo direct reproduction, though indirect fitness gains via kin support can offset losses in highly related groups like African wild dogs, where packs of 8-9 adults maximize pup survival but restrict breeding to one female.^[52]^[53] Conversely, collective formations provide reproductive benefits by synchronizing breeding and enhancing offspring viability. In schooling fish like the damselfish Abudefduf troschelii, males in group nests receive disproportionately more eggs near the group center, achieving higher hatching success (up to 20% greater than isolates) due to collective territory defense, though this comes at the expense of reduced individual parental care investment. Flocking birds, such as acorn woodpeckers, benefit from cooperative breeding where non-breeding helpers increase nestling survival, allowing breeders to produce more offspring over time despite delayed personal reproduction. In insect swarms, eusocial species like honeybees exhibit extreme skew with a single queen producing thousands of offspring annually, supported by sterile workers whose collective foraging ensures high colony reproductive output, far exceeding solitary alternatives. These dynamics highlight how self-organized groups optimize reproduction under predation pressure, with benefits scaling positively up to optimal sizes before stress-induced costs prevail.^[54]^[55]^[53]

Physiological Strain

In collective animal behavior, particularly among insects in swarms and herds, physiological strain arises from elevated energy demands and stress responses associated with group formation and maintenance. Swarming males of the mosquito Anopheles freeborni expend over 50% of their carbohydrate reserves (trehalose, glucose, and glycogen) during flight, relying solely on pre-stored sugars without immediate access to nectar, which imposes significant metabolic costs that can limit reproductive opportunities if feeding sites are scarce.^[56] Similarly, in gregarious locusts (Schistocerca gregaria), individuals in the swarming phase exhibit significantly higher mass-specific metabolic rates, as measured by CO₂ emission, compared to solitary counterparts, reflecting increased energetic strain from sustained group flight and coordination.^[57] Herding behaviors in insect larvae also incur physiological costs through heightened metabolic activity and resource allocation trade-offs. In crowded ant nests (Temnothorax rugatulus), workers experience a 14.2% increase in metabolic rate under dense conditions (60 mg cm⁻² versus 30 mg cm⁻²), driven by intensified movement and interactions, which elevates overall energy consumption and potential oxidative stress.^[58] For gregarious pine sawfly larvae (Diprion pini), cooperative chemical defense against predators leads to depleted defensive fluid volumes and reduced monoterpene concentrations after repeated attacks, alongside immune trade-offs such as lowered phenoloxidase activity on resin-rich diets, resulting in slower growth rates for females under high predation pressure.^[59] These strains highlight the tension between collective benefits and individual physiological burdens, where sustained grouping often accelerates resource depletion and compromises long-term fitness, particularly in dynamic environments requiring constant vigilance or mobility.

Organizational Mechanisms

Sensory and Communication Cues

In collective animal behavior, sensory and communication cues serve as the primary mechanisms through which individuals detect and respond to conspecifics and the environment, enabling coordinated group actions such as flocking, schooling, and foraging. These cues, which include visual, acoustic, chemical, tactile, and other modalities, operate over varying spatial and temporal scales, allowing animals to integrate local interactions into emergent group-level patterns. By pooling sensory information across group members, these cues enhance collective perception, reduce individual uncertainty, and facilitate rapid decision-making, often outperforming solitary sensing in complex or noisy environments.^[60] Visual cues predominate in diurnal groups where alignment and predator avoidance are critical. In bird flocks, such as European starlings, individuals align their flight direction based on the positions and velocities of nearby neighbors within a perceptual range determined by visual acuity and field of view, leading to polarized, cohesive murmurations that evade predators. Similarly, in fish schools like golden shiners, visual detection of conspecific movements transmits threat information rapidly, with realistic visual parameters (e.g., 335° field and 16.5 body lengths acuity) producing larger, more aligned groups compared to simplified models. These interactions rely on local rules where individuals copy the average orientation of visible neighbors, promoting self-organized order without central control.^[61]^[60] Acoustic cues enable communication over distances where visual contact is limited, particularly in dense vegetation or at night. In birds, such as southern pied babblers, "chuck" contact calls maintain foraging cohesion by signaling location and motivation, reducing the time to consensus on movement direction. Mammals like meerkats use specific "close" calls to regulate inter-individual spacing, preventing overcrowding during sentinel duties, while jackdaws employ mobbing calls to coordinate anti-predator responses. These signals convey urgency or intent, allowing groups to synchronize behaviors like migration starts or alarm responses, with acoustic propagation often following Weber's law for discrimination thresholds. In contrast, movement cues (visual or inertial) are preferred for multi-option decisions in dynamic groups, as they encode precise directional information less susceptible to environmental masking.^[62]^[60] Chemical cues, primarily pheromones, are essential in insects and some mammals for long-lasting trail formation and social recognition. In ant colonies, trail pheromones deposited by foragers guide nestmates to food sources, creating efficient collective foraging paths through positive feedback amplification, as demonstrated in species like Argentine ants where pheromone decay rates balance exploration and exploitation.^[63] Olfactory signals also facilitate kin recognition in chimpanzees, where body odors convey social relationships, aiding group cohesion and alliance formation without visual cues. These volatile or contact chemicals integrate over time, enabling persistent coordination in subterranean or nocturnal groups.^[64] Tactile cues support close-range interactions in dense aggregations, promoting bonding and spacing. In elephant herds, trunk touches and ear flaps convey affiliation or dominance, strengthening social ties during group decisions on migration routes. Among fish like saithe, lateral line mechanosensory input detects water displacements from neighbors, maintaining schooling distances and avoiding collisions, with disruption of this modality leading to tighter, riskier formations. In primates, such as olive baboons, physical contact during "voting with feet" influences collective travel choices.^[65]^[61]^[62] Multimodal integration, combining cues like vision and sound, further enhances robustness; for instance, bats adjust echolocation calls in response to conspecific echoes, extending group perceptual range during foraging swarms. Overall, the efficacy of these cues depends on group size, environmental noise, and sensory ecology, with evolutionary pressures favoring modalities that minimize costs while maximizing informational gain in collective contexts.^[60]

Self-Organization Dynamics

Self-organization dynamics in collective animal behavior refer to the emergent properties arising from decentralized interactions among individuals, where complex group-level patterns form without central coordination or leadership. This process is driven by simple local rules, such as attraction, repulsion, and alignment, which collectively produce ordered structures like flocks, schools, and herds.^[1] Fundamental to these dynamics is the role of positive and negative feedback loops: positive feedback amplifies initial behavioral tendencies, such as pheromone deposition in ant trails that reinforces efficient paths, while negative feedback, like density-dependent repulsion, prevents overcrowding and maintains group cohesion.^[1] These interactions often lead to phase transitions, where small changes in environmental conditions or individual parameters shift the group from disordered milling to highly aligned motion, analogous to physical systems near criticality. In vertebrate groups, self-organization manifests through sensory-mediated local cues that propagate information across the collective. For instance, in fish schools, individuals align their velocities with a small number of nearest neighbors (such as 1-2 in some species), resulting in polarized schooling that enhances hydrodynamic efficiency and predator evasion, as observed in species like the giant danio.^[2]^[66] This alignment dynamic creates wave-like propagations of turns, where perturbations from a single individual can cascade through the group, enabling rapid, coherent responses to threats without explicit signaling. Similarly, in bird flocks such as starlings, topological interactions—where birds respond to a constant number of neighbors regardless of distance—underpin the emergence of murmurations, with empirical data showing that each bird interacts with about seven others to achieve fluid, obstacle-avoiding formations.^[2] Insect societies exemplify self-organization through chemical and tactile cues that drive dynamic pattern formation. Ant colonies, for example, optimize foraging trails via autocatalytic pheromone dynamics: initial random explorations deposit pheromones that attract more foragers, creating a feedback loop that selects shorter routes, with Lasius niger ants achieving 80% efficiency in path selection across experimental trials.^[1] Negative feedback from pheromone evaporation ensures adaptability to changing environments, preventing outdated paths from persisting. In honeybee swarms, quorum sensing integrates individual assessments of nest sites, where scouts' waggle dances build consensus through cross-inhibition, leading to a unified decision within hours.^[2] Mammalian herds demonstrate self-organization influenced by both social and environmental factors. Wildebeest migrations form front patterns through local density adjustments, where individuals balance attraction to the group core with repulsion at high densities, resulting in stable wavefronts that facilitate efficient resource access during seasonal movements.^[67] These dynamics highlight the universality of self-organization across taxa, where nonlinear interactions amplify small-scale behaviors into adaptive collective outcomes, such as reduced predation risk or enhanced foraging success. Overall, self-organization dynamics underscore the robustness of animal groups, as local rules evolve to optimize survival in variable conditions without requiring cognitive overhead at the individual level.^[1]

Group Formation and Analysis

Empirical Methods

Empirical methods for studying group formation in collective animal behavior encompass a range of observational, experimental, and analytical approaches designed to quantify how individuals aggregate, maintain cohesion, and transition into structured groups. These methods draw from behavioral ecology and physics-inspired techniques to capture spatial dynamics, interaction rules, and emergent patterns without relying on centralized control. Seminal work has emphasized non-invasive tracking to reconstruct group trajectories, allowing researchers to infer local rules that drive formation, such as alignment and attraction in shoals or flocks.^[3] Observational field studies form the foundation, often using high-resolution imaging to analyze natural group formation. For instance, stereo videography and three-dimensional reconstruction have been employed to track positions and velocities in fish schools, revealing how nearest-neighbor distances and alignment angles facilitate rapid aggregation in species like minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus). In avian systems, the STARFLAG project utilized stereoscopic photography to map trajectories of up to 2,700 starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in flight, demonstrating scale-free correlations that promote flock cohesion during formation from dispersed individuals. Similarly, aerial photography combined with nearest-neighbor statistics, as in the Clark-Evans model, has quantified spatial clustering in crane flocks, showing how uniform distributions evolve into polarized groups. These techniques highlight how environmental cues and predation risks influence initial clustering in wild populations.^[68]^[69]^[70] Experimental manipulations in controlled settings complement field observations by isolating variables affecting group formation. Laboratory arenas with tracked fish, such as golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas), have tested how visual cues drive shoaling, with automated video analysis revealing attraction zones that lead to stable groups of 4–8 individuals. In social insects, staged honey bee (Apis mellifera) swarms demonstrate quorum sensing during nest-site selection, where scout dances initiate consensus and aggregation, achieving high accuracy in group decisions. For mammals, GPS collaring on baboons (Papio anubis) and meerkats (Suricata suricatta) captures initiation events, showing how bold individuals seed movement that recruits others into traveling parties. These setups often incorporate perturbations, like simulated predators, to measure formation speed and stability.^[71]^[72]^[73] Analytical tools process empirical data to infer underlying mechanisms of group formation. Time-lagged correlations and transfer entropy quantify directional influence, as applied to pigeon (Columba livia) flocks, where leaders' turns propagate through the group via causal information flow. Network analysis, using metrics like eigenvector centrality, models interaction graphs from trajectories, identifying key nodes in fish and primate groups that stabilize formation. Spatial statistics, including Voronoi tessellations, assess density and polarization during aggregation in ants and birds, linking local rules to global patterns. Recent advances include machine learning frameworks for automated video analysis, enabling large-scale quantification of behaviors in groups.^[74] These methods, validated across taxa, ensure robust inference of self-organization without assuming predefined hierarchies.^[73]^[73]^[3]

Computational Models

Computational models of collective animal behavior simulate interactions among individuals to explain emergent group-level phenomena, such as flocking, schooling, and decision-making, without relying on centralized control. These models typically fall into categories like agent-based simulations, which track discrete individuals with local rules, and continuum approaches, which treat groups as fluid-like densities to capture large-scale dynamics. By integrating empirical data from observations of birds, fish, and insects, these models test hypotheses on self-organization and information transfer within groups.^[2] Agent-based models represent a cornerstone of this field, modeling animals as autonomous agents that follow simple behavioral rules like alignment (matching neighbors' directions), attraction (moving toward the group), and repulsion (avoiding collisions). A seminal example is Craig Reynolds' Boids model (1987), which demonstrated how these three rules alone produce realistic flocking patterns in simulated birds, influencing subsequent work in computer graphics and biology.^[5] Similarly, the Vicsek model (1995) extends this by incorporating noise in velocity updates among self-propelled particles on a plane, revealing phase transitions from disordered to ordered motion as density or alignment strength increases, akin to bacterial swarms or fish schools. These models have been validated against real data, such as starling flocks where topological rather than metric interactions (fixed number of neighbors) better match observed cohesion.^[75] Continuum or hydrodynamic models provide a macroscopic perspective, deriving partial differential equations to describe group density and velocity fields, often inspired by statistical physics. The Toner-Tu equations (1998) capture anisotropic flocking with long-range correlations and giant number fluctuations, explaining why bird flocks move coherently over large scales despite local interactions. For decision-making, Iain Couzin's framework (2005) uses agent-based simulations to show how small numbers of informed individuals can guide larger uninformed groups toward targets, with optimal performance at intermediate informed fractions (around 5-25%).^[76] This is seen in fish shoals navigating predation risks. Empirical studies on three-spined sticklebacks confirm this, where informed fish lead during anti-predator maneuvers.^[77] Probabilistic and stochastic models address variability in behavior, treating state transitions (e.g., moving vs. resting) as Markov processes influenced by social and environmental cues. In ant foraging, models simulate trail formation via pheromone-based reinforcement, where agents probabilistically follow stronger paths, leading to efficient resource discovery as in Goss et al.'s work (1989).^[78] For bacterial chemotaxis, run-and-tumble models use gradient-dependent switching rates to predict net drift toward attractants, validated by E. coli trajectories.^[79] More recent extensions, like those combining generalized linear models with collective data, infer interaction kernels from starling flocks, revealing how noise and leadership emerge. These approaches highlight trade-offs, such as between speed and accuracy in group consensus, as in honeybee nest selection where quorum sensing balances exploration and commitment.^[80] Overall, computational models bridge micro-scale rules to macro-scale patterns, enabling predictions tested against high-resolution tracking data from drones and automated systems. Challenges remain in scaling to heterogeneous groups or integrating cognitive factors, but they underscore self-organization as key to adaptive collective intelligence in animals.^[81]

Collective Intelligence

Decision Processes

In collective animal behavior, decision processes refer to the mechanisms by which groups integrate individual information to reach consensus on actions such as migration, foraging, or predator avoidance, often balancing speed, accuracy, and cohesion. These processes typically involve local interactions and feedback loops that amplify preferred options without centralized control. For instance, quorum sensing—where the probability of adopting an option increases sharply once a threshold of supporters is reached—enables efficient decisions in uncertain environments, as seen in ants and bees evaluating nest sites.^[82] A key aspect is the pooling of uncertain information, where group size enhances accuracy via mechanisms akin to Condorcet's jury theorem, reducing error rates as more informed individuals contribute. In fish shoals, such as golden shiners, early adopters integrate personal experiences (e.g., learned preferences for visual cues) with social cues from others, driving consensus while later individuals conform to maintain group cohesion against predation risks. This balance is modeled using Bayesian frameworks, where animals update beliefs based on private and public signals, explaining observed stochasticity as information asymmetry rather than irrationality. In insect societies like Temnothorax ants, quorum thresholds prevent premature commitments, achieving up to 80% accuracy in nest selection by amplifying scout feedback through pheromone trails.^[38]^[83]^[84] Conflicting preferences introduce trade-offs, resolved through shared or transient leadership to preserve unity. In honeybees, cross-inhibition via stop signals suppresses suboptimal options during nest-site choice, favoring the best site in 80-90% of cases despite initial biases. Game-theoretic models highlight that shared decisions outperform dictatorial ones when information is dispersed, as in bird flocks where low-energy individuals lead to align group direction. Self-organization models further show how local rules, without global communication, yield emergent rationality, as in cockroach aggregation where density-dependent attraction thresholds form stable clusters. These processes underscore collective intelligence, where simple individual rules yield adaptive group outcomes superior to solitary decisions.^[82]^[84]^[83]

Consensus Building

Consensus building in collective animal behavior encompasses the mechanisms by which social animals achieve group agreement on critical choices, such as selecting foraging sites, migration paths, or resting locations, thereby preserving cohesion and enabling coordinated action. This process is essential for group-living species, as failure to align can lead to fragmentation or suboptimal outcomes. Consensus decisions are defined as instances where group members settle on one of several mutually exclusive options, often involving trade-offs between individual preferences and collective needs. Decisions vary in the level of conflict of interest and the degree to which information is shared among members. In low-conflict, unshared decisions, a small subset of informed individuals guides the group, as seen in nest-site selection by honeybee swarms (Apis mellifera). Here, scout bees explore potential sites and advertise promising ones through waggle dances; consensus emerges via quorum sensing, where commitment to a site intensifies once 20–30 scouts endorse it simultaneously, leading to the "expiration of dissent" as recruitment for inferior sites ceases. This self-organizing process allows swarms to select high-quality nests efficiently, with accuracy in choosing the best site among options reaching about 80% in experimental trials. In contrast, high-conflict, shared decisions, such as travel route choices in birds or activity synchronization in mammals, require broader participation to avoid domination by minorities; mechanisms include local signaling and positive feedback to integrate diverse inputs. Empirical studies highlight simple rules driving consensus. In three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), small groups (2–8 fish) select a leader by copying the movements of others toward attractive replicas, with a quorum-response model explaining rapid alignment; accuracy in preferring superior options rose from 50% in singles to over 80% in groups of eight, demonstrating how local interactions amplify collective wisdom without global communication. Similarly, in scenarios with conflicting informed subgroups, uninformed individuals—those lacking strong preferences—facilitate democratic consensus by countering manipulation, as modeled in fish and theoretical animal groups, ensuring majority preferences prevail even under informational asymmetries.01422-X)^[85] These processes yield benefits like enhanced decision accuracy through information pooling and reduced risk of group fission, though larger, more democratic decisions may slow responses compared to delegated ones. Overall, consensus building underscores the adaptive value of social integration in animal collectives, balancing speed, accuracy, and inclusivity.

References

[1]
The principles of collective animal behaviour - PMC - PubMed Central
Here, I review cases in which the self-organization approach has been successful in explaining collective behaviour of animal groups and societies. Ant ...2. Examples Of... · 3. Properties Of... · 5. Principles Of Collective...
[2]
Collective behavior in animal groups: theoretical models and ...
In this review I will describe some of the models developed to address collective behavior in animal groups, and several empirical studies performed on ...
[3]
On aims and methods of collective animal behaviour - ScienceDirect
Collective animal behaviour is a subfield of behavioural ecology, making extensive use of its tools of observation, experimental manipulation and model ...
[4]
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1733
[5]
https://doi.org/10.1145/37402.37406
[6]
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1226
[7]
The principles of collective animal behaviour | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
### Summary of Key Points on Collective Animal Behavior
[8]
A multi-scale review of the dynamics of collective behaviour
Feb 20, 2023 · The study of collective behaviour focuses on the interactions between individuals within groups, which typically occur over close ranges and short timescales.
[9]
The Role of Individual Heterogeneity in Collective Animal Behaviour
Dec 2, 2019 · Considerable evidence shows that phenotypic differences among grouping animals drive the behaviour, structure, and functioning of animal groups.
[10]
Beyond Bio-Inspired Robotics: How Multi-Robot Systems Can ...
Collective animal behavior can be observed over a wide range of spatial scales, spanning from the aggregation of amoeboid cells to the large-scale murmurations ...Missing: biomimicry | Show results with:biomimicry
[11]
Why the Passenger Pigeon Went Extinct - National Audubon Society
The flocks were so thick that hunting was easy—even waving a pole at the low-flying birds would kill some. Still, harvesting for subsistence didn't threaten the ...
[12]
Studies on social groupings in fishes. Bulletin of the AMNH
Studies on social groupings in fishes. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 117 ... Authors. Breder, Charles M. (Charles Marcus), 1897-. Adapters. Translators ...
[13]
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/why-passenger-pigeon-went-extinct
[14]
https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/items/aafc9c68-3c72-49de-84ae-cb9a5d2ea736
[15]
https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2002.3065
[16]
[PDF] Flocks, Herds, and Schools: A Distributed Behavioral Model 1
This paper explores an approach based on simulation as an alternative to scripting the paths of each bird individually. The simulated flock is an elaboration of ...
[17]
From behavioural analyses to models of collective motion in fish ...
Oct 3, 2012 · Fish schooling is a phenomenon of long-lasting interest in ethology and ecology, widely spread across taxa and ecological contexts.
[18]
Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological ...
Numerical models indicate that collective animal behavior may emerge from simple local rules of interaction among the individuals.Sign Up For Pnas Alerts · Results · Discussion
[19]
Hydromechanics of Fish Schooling - Nature
Jan 26, 1973 · Cite this article. WEIHS, D. Hydromechanics of Fish Schooling. Nature 241, 290–291 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1038/241290a0. Download citation.
[20]
An equation of state for insect swarms | Scientific Reports - Nature
Feb 12, 2021 · Collective behaviour in flocks, crowds, and swarms occurs throughout the biological world. Animal groups are generally assumed to be ...
[21]
The behavioral mechanisms governing collective motion ... - Science
Feb 27, 2025 · Our work argues for a refreshed perspective in the study of collective animal behavior that moves beyond the “self-propelled particle ...
[22]
Scientists rewrite the rules of swarming locusts - Phys.org
Feb 27, 2025 · A study recently published in Science has found that classical models of collective behavior fail to explain the mechanisms driving desert locust swarms.
[23]
Collective Behaviour without Collective Order in Wild Swarms of ...
Jul 24, 2014 · We conclude that genuine collective behaviour is present in swarms. We stress that the existence of correlation, and therefore of inter- ...
[24]
Environmental perturbations induce correlations in midge swarms
Mar 25, 2020 · Although collectively behaving animal groups often show large-scale order (such as in bird flocks), they need not always (such as in insect ...
[25]
Colony expansions underlie the evolution of army ant mass raiding
May 25, 2021 · Here we show that this complex collective behavior has evolved from group raiding, which is practiced by relatives of army ants with smaller colonies.Missing: herds | Show results with:herds
[26]
Evolution of the army ant syndrome: The origin and long-term ... - NIH
Army ants possess a syndrome of behavioral and reproductive traits, which includes obligate collective foraging, nomadism, and highly modified queens (1, 3, 6).Missing: herds | Show results with:herds
[27]
Towards an integrative approach to understanding collective ... - PMC
Feb 20, 2023 · Here, we argue that lepidopteran larvae are well placed to serve as study systems for investigating the integrative biology of collective behaviour.
[28]
Selection Forces Driving Herding of Herbivorous Insect Larvae
This paper examines benefits of grouping in larval herds taking a direct fitness perspective, i.e., examining advantages to the individual of staying in the ...
[29]
Phase Coexistence in Insect Swarms | Phys. Rev. Lett.
Oct 24, 2017 · We show that the swarms consist of a core “condensed” phase surrounded by a dilute “vapor” phase. These two phases coexist in equilibrium.Missing: papers | Show results with:papers
[30]
The confusion effect when attacking simulated three-dimensional ...
Jan 18, 2017 · In line with the predictions of the confusion effect, modelled starlings appear to be safer from predation in larger and denser flocks. This ...Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[31]
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5
[32]
Evolving the selfish herd: emergence of distinct aggregating ... - NIH
We have identified our observed phases with the confusion effect and the dilution or selfish herd effect but there are other observed effects, most prominently ...
[33]
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(73)90284-7
[34]
Optimal foraging - ScienceDirect.com
Jun 20, 2022 · Optimal foraging theory provides a useful framework for understanding these dietary differences by predicting that predators should rank their ...
[35]
The self-organizing exploratory pattern of the argentine ant
A minimal model shows how the exploratory pattern may be generated by the individual workers' simple trail-laying and -following behavior.
[36]
A general model and its application to captive flocks of house ...
Producers and scroungers: A general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Author links open overlay panelC.J. Barnard, R.M. Sibly.
[37]
Optimal group size in a highly social mammal - PNAS
13). Several studies have shown that foraging time increases as group size increases, supporting the ecological constraints model (13–15). However, living in ...
[38]
Group size affects predation risk and foraging success in Pacific ...
Jun 29, 2022 · We analyzed a multidecadal dataset of Pacific salmon at sea and found that individuals in larger groups had lower predation risk.Results · Discussion · Materials And Methods
[39]
Both information and social cohesion determine collective decisions ...
Feb 25, 2013 · Our results demonstrate the importance of integrating informational with other social considerations when explaining the collective capabilities ...
[40]
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk0606
[41]
Ecological disturbance alters the adaptive benefits of social ties
Jun 20, 2024 · Group-living animals may cope with environmental upheavals by adaptively changing their patterns of social interaction (5, 6). Yet, whether ...
[42]
Formation Flight of Birds - Science
Formation flight of birds improves aerodynamic efficiency. Theoretically, 25 birds could have a range increase of about 70 percent as compared with a lone bird.
[43]
Energy conservation by collective movement in schooling fish - eLife
Oct 27, 2023 · fish schools & swimming speeds, the label of solitary fish & fish schools ... Colgan P. W.. 1985Risk of predation, hydrodynamic efficiency ...
[44]
Evidence against a hydrodynamic function for fish schools - Nature
May 1, 1979 · The model proposed by Weihs5,6 for the first time makes precise predictions about school structure which can be verified.
[45]
Emergent dynamics of laboratory insect swarms | Scientific Reports
Jan 15, 2013 · Functionally, acceleration toward the centre keeps the swarm intact: midges tend to adjust their flight direction to point back towards the ...
[46]
Disease implications of animal social network structure: A synthesis ...
Dec 15, 2017 · Our recent work has shown that infection spread in highly fragmented networks gets localized within socially cohesive subgroups (structural ...
[47]
Population biology of infectious diseases shared by wild and farmed ...
Spillover and spillback dynamics of pathogen transmission between wild and farmed fish ... fish hosts in shoals and schools can further facilitate disease spread.Parasite Translocation · Host Density Thresholds · Virulence
[48]
Infection-induced behavioural changes reduce connectivity and the ...
Aug 22, 2016 · Infection may modify the behaviour of the host and of its conspecifics in a group, potentially altering social connectivity.Methods · Ethical Note · Disease Transmission Model
[49]
Costs and benefits of group living in primates - PubMed Central - NIH
... resource competition within and between groups. Primates are an ideal taxon ... For group-living animals, the concept of competitive regimes provides a ...
[50]
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207120
[51]
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1151760
[52]
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.634664/full
[53]
The Infertility Trap: The Fertility Costs of Group-Living in Mammalian ...
The infertility trap is a tradeoff where stress-induced infertility limits group size, especially due to social stress from female-female interactions, ...
[54]
Social influences on survival and reproduction: Insights from a long ...
Jul 23, 2018 · For instance, adult females with higher social dominance ranks have accelerated reproduction, and adult females that engage in more frequent ...
[55]
Reproduction and production in a social context: Group size ...
An increased proportion of reproducers tends directly to raise surviving births but indirectly to reduce them by reducing total group time for production and ...
[56]
Reproductive benefits and reduced investment in parental care behavior associated with reproductive groups of males in Abudefduf troschelii
### Summary of Reproductive Benefits and Costs of Group Nesting in Abudefduf troschelii
[57]
Cooperative breeding and the evolutionary coexistence of helper ...
Feb 13, 2018 · The benefits of such help to parents are often clear, allowing them to live longer and produce more offspring and the costs to helpers, although ...
[58]
Energy budget of swarming male mosquitoes - YUVAL - 1994
Abstract. 1. The objective of this study was to determine, in the field, the energetic costs of swarming for male Anopheles freeborni (Diptera: Culicidae).
[59]
Neural Control of Gas Exchange Patterns in Insects: Locust Density ...
Mass-specific metabolic rates of gregarious and solitary locusts across experimental treatments. Mean (±s.e.m.) mass-specific CO2 emission rates (sp CO2) of ...
[60]
Ants under crowded conditions consume more energy - PMC - NIH
We found that ants in crowded nests exhibited, on average, metabolic rates that were 14.2 per cent higher than the metabolic rates of the same ants in uncrowded ...
[61]
Ecological conditions alter cooperative behaviour and its costs ... - NIH
Aug 1, 2018 · Here, we measured the life-history costs of cooperative chemical defence in a gregarious social herbivore, Diprion pini pine sawfly larvae, and ...
[62]
Sensory collectives in natural systems - eLife
Nov 29, 2023 · We review the contributions of sensory ecology and collective behaviour to understanding how animals move and interact within the context of their social and ...
[63]
Collective behaviour in vertebrates: a sensory perspective - Journals
Nov 1, 2016 · 2016Collective behaviour in vertebrates: a sensory perspectiveR. Soc. Open Sci.3160377http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160377. Section. Abstract; 1 ...
[64]
The relative contribution of acoustic signals versus movement cues ...
May 20, 2024 · Here, we outline a framework to determine the types of collective behaviours that are more likely to use acoustic communication or movement cues ...Abstract · (a) Acoustic Signals For... · (a) Sensory Limitations<|control11|><|separator|>
[65]
Evolution of chemical interactions between ants and their mutualist ...
Chemical communication, primarily chemical signals, is key for ants and mutualists. Condition-dependent signaling and recognition plasticity regulate the ...
[66]
Group and kin recognition via olfactory cues in chimpanzees (Pan ...
Our results suggest that chimpanzees use olfactory cues to obtain information about social relationships and fill a gap in our understanding of primate ...
[67]
Tactile communication - ElephantVoices
Elephants use their trunk, ears, tusks, feet, tail, and body for tactile communication, including aggressive, affiliative, and play contexts.Missing: groups | Show results with:groups
[68]
Self-organization of Front Patterns in Large Wildebeest Herds
This paper suggests a model for the dynamics of large herds and a mechanism for their self-organizing pattern formation.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[69]
Predator-prey interactions in two schooling fishes, Caranx ignobilis ...
Schooling in predators may have co-evolved as an adaptation, making it possible for predators to break up and isolate schooled prey. Larger prey schools may ...
[70]
Scale-free correlations in starling flocks - PNAS
Here we suggest that collective response in animal groups may be achieved through scale-free behavioral correlations.
[71]
Collective behavior in animal groups: Theoretical models and ...
Aug 9, 2025 · Collective phenomena in animal groups have attracted much attention in the last years, becoming one of the hottest topics in ethology.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[72]
Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish
Jul 27, 2011 · We begin by analyzing the free-swimming behavior of schools of just two fish. Pairs of golden shiners were placed in a large shallow tank ...
[73]
Decision-making in honeybee swarms based on quality and ...
In a recent publication, Seeley et al. (2012) observed that bees supporting one site butt their heads against bees supporting different sites to stop their ...
[74]
Inferring influence and leadership in moving animal groups - Journals
Mar 26, 2018 · We aim to provide a resource bringing together methodological tools currently available for studying leadership in moving animal groups, as well ...
[75]
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711437105
[76]
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03288
[77]
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210280
[78]
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167909
[79]
A multi-scale review of the dynamics of collective behaviour - Journals
Feb 20, 2023 · The study of collective behaviour focuses on the interactions between individuals within groups, which typically occur over close ranges and short timescales.Minutes, hours and days · Development: changes over... · Concluding remarks
[80]
Models in animal collective decision-making: information uncertainty ...
A range of very different modelling methods has been developed to unravel complex collective decision-making processes and strategies in animals.
[81]
Collective decision making by rational individuals - PNAS
Oct 15, 2018 · The patterns and mechanisms of collective decision making in humans and animals have attracted both empirical and theoretical attention.Sign Up For Pnas Alerts · Theory · Results
[82]
Collective Decision Making by Insect Societies - Annual Reviews
Jan 7, 2018 · Neural correlates of decision processes: neural and mental chronometry. ... Collective Animal Behavior Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press ...
[83]
Uninformed Individuals Promote Democratic Consensus in Animal Groups
### Summary of Key Findings on Uninformed Individuals Promoting Consensus in Animal Groups