Skip to main content
Log in

The Use of Information Theory in Biology: Lessons from Social Insects

  • Published:
Biological Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I discuss how information theory has been used in the study of animal communication, as well as how these uses are justified. Biologists justify their use of Shannon’s information measures by the work they do in allowing for comparisons between different organisms and because they measure a quantity that is purported to be important for natural selection. I argue that there are problems with both sorts of justification. To make these difficulties clear, I focus on the use of Shannon’s information measures to quantify the amount of information transmitted by the fire ant’s odor trail and the honeybee’s waggle dance. Both of these systems are relatively simple and well understood, and the application of Shannon’s information measure to these systems initially seemed very promising and relatively straightforward. They are therefore particularly suitable for revealing the benefits and difficulties of applying Shannon’s information measures to biological systems in general, and animal communication systems in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen C, Hauser M (1992) Communication and cognition: Is information the connection?” In: PSA 1992 (Hull DL, Forbes M, Okruhlik K, eds), Vol. 2, 81–91. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beecher MD (1989) Signalling systems for individual recognition: An information theory approach. Animal Behaviour 38: 248–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein DT, Munos O (2005) Individual, age and sex-specific information is contained in yellow-bellied marmot alarm calls. Animal Behaviour 69: 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of Animal Communication. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R, Dawkins M (1973) Decisions and the uncertainty of behavior. Behaviour 45: 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: Information or manipulation?” In: Behavioural Ecology (Krebs JR, Davies NB, eds), 282–309. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusenberry DB (1992) Sensory ecology: How organisms acquire and respond to information. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficken MS, Hailman ED, Hailman JP (1994) The chick-a-dee call system of the Mexican chickadee. Condor 96: 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks NR (1999) Information flow in the social domain: How individuals decide what to do next. In: Information Processing in Social Insects (Detrain C, Deneubourg J-L, Pasteels JM, eds), 101–112. Basel: Birkhauser.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs S (1976) An informational analysis of the alarm communication by drumming behavior in nests of carpenter ants. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1: 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi F, Pieraccini R (2004) Using information theory to assess dynamics, structure, and organization of crayfish agonistic repertoire. Behavioural Processes 65: 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould J (1974) Honey bee communication. Nature 252: 300–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould J (1975) Honey bee recruitment: The dance language controversy. Science 189: 685–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths PE (2001) Genetic information: A metaphor in search of a theory. Philosophy of Science 68: 394–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldane JBS, Spurway H (1954) A statistical analysis of communication in “Apis Mellifera” and a comparison with communication in other animals. Insectes Sociaux 1: 247–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD (1996) The Evolution of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka E (2002) Information: Its interpretation, its inheritance, and its sharing. Philosophy of Science 69: 578–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy WB, Baxter RA (2002) Energy-efficient neuronal computation via quantal synaptic failures. Journal of Neuroscience 22: 4746–4755.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLaurin J (1998) Reinventing molecular Weismannism: Information in evolution. Biology and Philosophy 13: 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markl H (1985) Manipulation, modulation, information, cognition: Some of the riddles of communication. In: Experimental Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (Holldobler B, Lindauer M, eds), 163–194. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins EP (1994) Structural complexity in the lizard communication system: The Sceloporus graciosus “push-up” display. Copeia 4: 944–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCowan B, Hanser SF, Doyle LR (1999) Quantitative tools for comparing animal communication systems: Information theory applied to bottlenose dolphin whistle repertoires. Animal Behaviour 57: 409–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neih JC, Roubik DW (1998) Potential mechanisms for the communication of height and distance by a stingless bee, Melipona Panamica. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43: 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelan PL, Baker TC (1990) Information transmission during intra- and interspecific courtship in Ephestia Elutella and Cacra Figulilella. Journal of Insect Behavior 3: 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quastler H (1958) A primer in information theory. In: Symposium on Information Theory in Biology (Yockey HP, Platzman RL, Quastler H, eds), 3–49. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S (1996) Biological information: A skeptical look at some central dogmas of molecular biology. In: The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives (Sarkar S, ed), 187–232. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE (2001) The bandwagon problems of Information Transmission 37: 89–90; reprinted from IRE Transmission Information Theory, 1956, 2: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribus M (1961) Thermostatics and Thermodynamics. Princeton, NJ: van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner AM, Wells PH (1990) Anatomy of a controversy: The question of a “language” among bees. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1962) Chemical communication among workers of the fire ant Solenopsis saevissima (Fr. Smith): 2. An information analysis of the odour trail. Animal Behaviour 10: 148–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1971) The Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Pfeifer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pfeifer, J. The Use of Information Theory in Biology: Lessons from Social Insects. Biol Theory 1, 317–330 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.3.317

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.3.317

Keywords

Navigation