Self-Organization in Primates: Understanding the Rules Underlying Collective Movements
- 502 Downloads
Patterns of collective movements, such as the distribution of leadership and the organization of individuals, may be either homogeneously (no leader, no specific order), or heterogeneously (1 or several leaders, and a highly stable order) distributed. Members of a group need to synchronize their activities and coordinate their movements, despite the fact that they differ in physiological or morphological traits. The degree of difference in these traits may affect their decision-making strategy. We demonstrate how a theoretical model based on a variation of a simple mimetic rule, i.e., an amplification process, can result in each of the various collective movement patterns and decision-making strategies observed in primates and other species. We consider cases in which 1) the needs of different individuals are identical and social relationships are equivalent between group members, 2) the needs of individuals are different and social relationships are equivalent, and 3) the needs of individuals are different and social relationships are different. Finally, 4) we assess how the synergy between 2 mimetism rules, specifically the probability of joining a movement and that of canceling an initiation, allows group members to stay synchronized and cohesive. Our models suggest that similar self-organized processes have been selected as reliable and well-adapted means for optimal collective decisions across species, despite differences in their biological and social characteristics.
KeywordsCancellation Cohesion Collective decision Consensus Initiation Leadership Mimetism Quorum Rule of thumb
We thank Odile Petit, Céline Bret, and 2 anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We also thank Andrew J. King and Joanna Setchell for their comments as editors. C. Sueur thanks the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for their funding aid. J-L. Deneubourg is a Research Associate, and his work was funded by the Belgian National Funds for Scientific Research.
- Boinski, S., & Garber, P. A. (2000). On the move: How and why animals travel in groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Bousquet, C. A. H., Sumpter, D. J. T., & Manser, M. B. (2010). Moving calls: A vocal mechanism underlying quorum decisions in cohesive groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1739.
- Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (1988). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraula, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Self-organisation in biological systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2010). Deciding group movements: Where and when to go. Behavioral Processes, 84, 675–677.Google Scholar
- Couzin, I. D., & Krause, J. (2003). Self-organisation and collective behavior in vertebrates. In Advances in the study of animal behaviour (vol. 32, pp. 1–75). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Dussutour, A., Deneubourg, J. L., & Fourcassie, V. (2005). Amplification of individual preferences in a social context: the case of wall-following in ants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272, 705–714.Google Scholar
- Jacobs, A., Sueur C., Deneubourg, J. L., & Petit, O. (this issue). Social network influences decision making during collective movements in brown lemurs. International Journal of Primatology. doi: 10.1007/s10764-011-9497-8.
- King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2009). Leaders, followers and group decision-making. Integrative and Communicative Biology, 2, 147–150.Google Scholar
- King, A. J., & Sueur, C. (this issue). Where next? Coordination and decision making in primate groups. International Journal of Primatology Google Scholar
- Krause, J., & Ruxton, G. D. (2002). Living in groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kummer, H. (1968). Social organisation of Hamadryas baboons. A field study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1977). Self-organisation in non equilibrium systems: From dissipative structures to order through fluctuations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring complexity: An introduction. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- Pyritz, L., King, A. J., Sueur, C. Fitchel, C. (this issue). Reaching a consensus: terminology used in coordination and decision-making research. International Journal of Primatology Google Scholar
- Sueur, C. (2010). Influence des relations sociales sur les prises de décisions. Saarbrucken: Editions Universitaires Européennes.Google Scholar
- Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Watts, D. P. (2000). Mountain gorilla habitat use strategies and group movements. In S. Boinski & P. A. Garber (Eds.), On the move (pp. 351–374). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Whitehead, H. (2008). Analyzing animal societies: quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Evanston, II: Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling, Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.
- Zappala, J., & Logan, B. (2009). Effects of resource availability on consensus decision making in primates. In Proceedings of the Social Simulation Workshop at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (SS\@IJCAI). 11th July, Pasadena CA, USA.Google Scholar