Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 5, pp 797–809 | Cite as

Social information, conformity and the opportunity costs paid by foraging fish

  • M. M. Webster
  • K. N. Laland
Original Paper

Abstract

Animals pay opportunity costs when pursuing one of several mutually exclusive courses of action. We quantified the opportunity costs of conforming to the behaviour of others in foraging sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius), using an arena in which they were given the option of shoaling in one area or searching for food in another. Fish foraging in the absence of stimulus conspecifics found the prey patch sooner and spent longer exploiting it than those in trials where a stimulus shoal was present. Furthermore, in trials where the stimulus shoal exhibited feeding cues, subjects approached them sooner and spent more time shoaling with them, exploring less of the arena than in trials where the stimulus shoal exhibited no such cues. This suggests sensitivity not only to the mere presence of conspecifics, but also to the social information that they produce. We also saw that groups of focal fish, compared to single individuals, were less influenced by the stimulus shoal and explored more of the arena, a behaviour that may be attributed to facilitation, competition or both. Such opportunity costs are likely to be offset by benefits such as reduced predation risk, and we discuss this in terms of the trade-offs associated with living in groups.

Keywords

Costly information Diffusion Public information Social cue Social facilitation Social learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by a European Research Council advanced grant (EVOCULTURE 232823) to KNL. We thank Ashley Ward for helpful discussion.

Ethical standards

The experiments described in the article were performed in accordance with the current laws of the UK.

References

  1. Ballerini M, Calbibbo N, Candeleir 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. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105:1232–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron RS, Vandello JA, Brunsman B (1996) The forgotten variable in conformity research: the impact of task importance on social influence. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:915–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs SE, Godin J-GJ, Dugatkin LA (1996) Mate choice copying under predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 7:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckingham JN, Wong BBN, Rosenthal GG (2007) Shoaling decisions in female swordtails: how do fish gauge group size? Behaviour 144:1333–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Day RL, Laland KN (2003) Species difference in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks. P Roy Soc Lond B 270:2413–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coolen I, Ward AJW, Hart PJB, Laland KN (2005) Foraging nine-spined sticklebacks prefer to rely on public information over simpler social cues. Behav Ecol 16:865–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coussi-Korbel S, Fragaszy DM (1995) On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. Anim Behav 50:1441–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Couzin ID, Krause J, James R, Ruxton GD, Franks NR (2002) Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. J Theor Biol 218:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Day RL, Macdonald T, Brown C, Laland KN, Reader SM (2001) Interactions between shoal size and conformity in guppy social foraging. Anim Behav 62:917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman M, Aoki K, Kumm J (1996) Individual versus social learning: evolutionary analysis in a fluctuating environment. Anthropol Sci 104:209–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galef BG (2009) Strategies for social learning: tests of predictions from formal theory. Adv Stud Behav 39:117–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galef BG, Whiskin EE (2006) Increased reliance on socially acquired information while foraging if in risky situations. Anim Behav 72:1169–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giraldeau LA, Caraco T (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonda A, Herczeg G, Merilä J (2009) Habitat-dependent and -independent plastic responses to social environment in the ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) brain. P Roy Soc Lond B 276:2085–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grand TC, Dill LM (1999) The effect of group size on the foraging behaviour of juvenile coho salmon: reduction of predation risk or increased competition? Anim Behav 58:443–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hager MC, Helfman GS (1991) Safety in numbers: shoal choice by minnows under predatory threat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harcourt JL, Biau S, Johnstone R, Manica A (2010) Boldness and information use in three-spined sticklebacks. Ethology 116:440–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herczeg G, Gonda A, Merilä J (2009) The social cost of shoaling covaries with predation risk in ninespine stickleback, Pungitius pungitius, populations. Anim Behav 77:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoare DJ, Couzin ID, Godin J-GJ, Krause J (2004) Context dependent group size choice in fish. Anim Behav 67:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoskin RE (1983) Opportunity cost and behavior. J Acc Res 21:78–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Adv Stud Behav 35:333–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kendal JR, Rendell L, Pike TW, Laland KN (2009) Nine-spined sticklebacks deploy a hill-climbing social learning strategy. Behav Ecol 20:238–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurvers R, van Oers K, Nolet BA, Jonker RM, van Wieren SE, Prins HHT, Ydenberg RC (2010) Personality predicts the use of social information. Ecol Lett 13:829–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 32:4–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laland KN, Atton N, Webster MM (2011) From fish to fashion: experimental and theoretical insights into the evolution of culture. Philos T R Soc B 366:958–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mashoodh R, Sinal CJ, Perrot-Sinal TS (2009) Predation threat exerts specific effects on rat maternal behaviour and anxiety-related behaviour of male and female offspring. Physiol Behav 96:693–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan MJ, Colgan PW (1987) The effects of predator presence and shoal size on foraging in bluntnose minnows, Phoxinus notatus. Environ Biol Fish 20:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pike TW, Kendal JR, Rendell L, Laland KN (2010) Learning by proportional observation in a species of fish. Behav Ecol 21:570–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pike TW, Laland KN (2010) Conformist learning in nine-spined sticklebacks’ foraging decisions. Biol Lett 6:466–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pitcher TJ, Magurran AE, Winfield IJ (1982) Fish in larger shoals find food faster. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:149–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pitcher TJ, Misund OA, Ferno A, Totland B, Melle V (1996) Adaptive behaviour of herring schools in the Norwegian Sea as revealed by high-resolution sonar. ICES J Mar Sci 53:449–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reale D, Reader SM, Sol D, McDougall PT, Dingemanse NJ (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev 82:291–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rendell L, Boyd R, Cownden D, Enquist M, Eriksson K, Feldman MW, Fogarty L, Ghirlanda S, Lillicrap T, Laland KN (2010) Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science 328:208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rendell L, Fogarty L, Hoppitt WJE, Morgan TJH, Webster MM, Laland KN (2011) Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies. Trends Cogn Sci 15:68–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rieucau G, Giraldeau LA (2009) Persuasive companions can be wrong: the use of misleading social information in nutmeg mannikins. Behav Ecol 20:1217–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uryu Y, Iwasaki K, Hinoue M (1996) Laboratory experiments on behaviour and movement of a freshwater mussel, Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker). J Mollus Stud 62:327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ward AJW (2011) Social facilitation of exploration in mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Behav Ecol Sociobiol In Press: DOI:  10.1007/s00265-011-1270-7
  41. Ward AJW, Herbert-Read JE, Sumpter DTJ, Krause J (2011) Fast and accurate decisions through collective vigilance in fish shoals. P Natl Acad Sci USA 109:2312–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Webster MM, Hart PJB (2004) Substrate discrimination and preference in foraging fish. Anim Behav 68:1071–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Webster MM, Hart PJB (2006) Subhabitat selection by foraging threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): previous experience and social conformity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Webster MM, Goldsmith J, Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2007a) Habitat specific chemical cues influence association preferences and shoal cohesion in fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webster MM, Ward AJW, Hart PJB (2007b) Boldness is influenced by social context in threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behaviour 144:351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Webster MM, Laland KN (2008) Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using private information would be costly. P Roy Soc Lond B 275:2869–2876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Webster MM, Laland KN (2011) Reproductive state affects reliance on public information in sticklebacks. P Roy Soc Lond B 278:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Webster MM, Ward AJW (2011) Personality and social context. Biol Rev 86:759–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BiologyUniversity of St AndrewsFifeUK

Personalised recommendations