Larissa Conradt

Ecological and evolutionary processes at expanding range margins

Many animals are regarded as relatively sedentary and specialized in marginal parts of their geographical distributions. They are expected to be slow at colonizing new habitats. Despite this, the cool margins of many species’ distributions have expanded rapidly in association with recent climate warming. We examined four insect species that have expanded their geographical ranges in Britain over the past 20 years. Here we report that two butterfly species have increased the variety of habitat types that they can colonize, and that two bush cricket species show increased fractions of longer-winged (dispersive) individuals in recently founded populations. Both ecological and evolutionary processes are probably responsible for these changes. Increased habitat breadth and dispersal tendencies have resulted in about 3- to 15-fold increases in expansion rates, allowing these insects to cross habitat disjunctions that would have represented major or complete barriers to dispersal before the expansions started. The emergence of dispersive phenotypes will increase the speed at which species invade new environments, and probably underlies the responses of many species to both past and future climate change.

Group decision-making in animals

Groups of animals often need to make communal decisions, for example about which activities to perform, when to perform them and which direction to travel in; however, little is known about how they do so. Here, we model the fitness consequences of two possible decision-making mechanisms: ‘despotism’ and ‘democracy’. We show that under most conditions, the costs to subordinate group members, and to the group as a whole, are considerably higher for despotic than for democratic decisions. Even when the despot is the most experienced group member, it only pays other members to accept its decision when group size is small and the difference in information is large. Democratic decisions are more beneficial primarily because they tend to produce less extreme decisions, rather than because each individual has an influence on the decision per se. Our model suggests that democracy should be widespread and makes quantitative, testable predictions about group decision-making in non-humans.

Uninformed Individuals Promote Democratic Consensus in Animal Groups

Uninformed individuals inhibit extremism and enforce fair representation during collective decision-making. Conflicting interests among group members are common when making collective decisions, yet failure to achieve consensus can be costly. Under these circumstances individuals may be susceptible to manipulation by a strongly opinionated, or extremist, minority. It has previously been argued, for humans and animals, that social groups containing individuals who are uninformed, or exhibit weak preferences, are particularly vulnerable to such manipulative agents. Here, we use theory and experiment to demonstrate that, for a wide range of conditions, a strongly opinionated minority can dictate group choice, but the presence of uninformed individuals spontaneously inhibits this process, returning control to the numerical majority. Our results emphasize the role of uninformed individuals in achieving democratic consensus amid internal group conflict and informational constraints.

COULD ASYNCHRONY IN ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE SEXES CAUSE INTERSEXUAL SOCIAL SEGREGATION IN RUMINANTS

In many sexually dimorphic mammal species, the sexes live outside the mating season in separate social groups (‘social segregation’). Social segregation occurs in a wide range of environmental conditions, but its cause is unknown. I suggest that social segregation is caused by a lower level of activity synchrony between individuals in mixed–sex groups than in single–sex groups, owing to sex differences in activity rhythm. As a consequence, mixed–sex groups are more likely to break up than single–sex groups, resulting in a predominance of single–sex groups at equilibrium. To test this hypothesis in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.), I developed an index of activity synchronization and showed that deer in mixed–sex groups were significantly less synchronized in their activity than deer in single–sex groups. Thus, low intersexual synchrony in activity can lead to social segregation. However, a lower level of intrasexual (female–female and male–male) activity synchrony within mixed–sex than within single–sex groups implies that additional factors (other than sex differences in foraging rhythm) contribute to the higher degree of instability in mixed–sex groups.

Activity synchrony and social cohesion: a fission-fusion model

A social group can only be spatially coherent if its members synchronize activities such as foraging and resting. However, activity synchronization is costly to individuals if it requires them to postpone an activity that would be personally more profitable in order to do what the rest of the group is doing. Such costs will be particularly high in groups whose members belong to different age, size or sex classes since the optimal allocation of time to various activities is likely to differ between such classes. Thus, differences in the costs of activity synchronization between and within classes could cause non–homogenous groups to be less stable than homogenous groups, with the result that homogenous groups predominate in the population: that is, they could cause ‘social segregation’ of animals of different sex, size or age. We develop a model that predicts the degree of social segregation attributable to differences in activity synchronization between homogenous and non–homogenous groups and use this model in determining whether activity synchronization can explain intersexual social segregation in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Differences in activity synchronization between mixed–sex and unisex groups of red deer explained 35% of the observed degree of intersexual social segregation, showing that activity synchronization is an important cause of social segregation in this species.

“Leading According to Need” in Self‐Organizing Groups

Self‐organizing‐system approaches have shed significant light on the mechanisms underlying synchronized movements by large groups of animals, such as shoals of fish, flocks of birds, or herds of ungulates. However, these approaches rarely consider conflicts of interest between group members, although there is reason to suppose that such conflicts are commonplace. Here, we demonstrate that, where conflicts exist, individual members of self‐organizing groups can, in principle, increase their influence on group movement destination by strategically changing simple behavioral parameters (namely, movement speed, assertiveness, and social attraction range). However, they do so at the expense of an increased risk of group fragmentation and a decrease in movement efficiency. We argue that the resulting trade‐offs faced by each group member render it likely that group movements are led by those members for which reaching a particular destination is most crucial or group cohesion is least important. We term this phenomenon leading according to “need” or “social indifference,” respectively. Both kinds of leading can occur in the absence of knowledge of or communication about the needs of other group members and without the assumption of altruistic cooperation. We discuss our findings in the light of observations on fish and other vertebrates.

Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey.

Humans routinely make many decisions collectively, whether they choose a restaurant with friends, elect political leaders or decide actions to tackle international problems, such as climate change, that affect the future of the whole planet. We might be less aware of it, but group decisions are just as important to social animals as they are for us. Animal groups have to collectively decide about communal movements, activities, nesting sites and enterprises, such as cooperative breeding or hunting, that crucially affect their survival and reproduction. While human group decisions have been studied for millennia, the study of animal group decisions is relatively young, but is now expanding rapidly. It emerges that group decisions in animals pose many similar questions to those in humans. The purpose of the present issue is to integrate and combine approaches in the social and natural sciences in an area in which theoretical challenges and research questions are often similar, and to introduce each discipline to the others key ideas, findings and successful methods. In order to make such an introduction as effective as possible, here, we briefly review conceptual similarities and differences between the sciences, and provide a guide to the present issue.

Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models

The dispersal patterns of animals are important in metapopulation ecology because they affect the dynamics and survival of populations. Theoretical models assume random dispersal but little is known in practice about the dispersal behaviour of individual animals or the strategy by which dispersers locate distant habitat patches. In the present study, we released individual meadow brown butterflies (Maniola jurtina) in a non–habitat and investigated their ability to return to a suitable habitat. The results provided three reasons for supposing that meadow brown butterflies do not seek habitat by means of random flight. First, when released within the range of their normal dispersal distances, the butterflies orientated towards suitable habitat at a higher rate than expected at random. Second, when released at larger distances from their habitat, they used a non–random, systematic, search strategy in which they flew in loops around the release point and returned periodically to it. Third, butterflies returned to a familiar habitat patch rather than a non–familiar one when given a choice. If dispersers actively orientate towards or search systematically for distant habitat, this may be problematic for existing metapopulation models, including models of the evolution of dispersal rates in metapopulations.

Democracy in animals: the evolution of shared group decisions

A ‘consensus decision’ is when the members of a group choose, collectively, between mutually exclusive actions. In humans, consensus decisions are often made democratically or in an ‘equally shared’ manner, i.e. all group members contribute to the decision. Biologists are only now realizing that shared consensus decisions also occur in social animals (other than eusocial insects). Sharing of decisions is, in principle, more profitable for groups than accepting the ‘unshared’ decision of a single dominant member. However, this is not true for all individual group members, posing a question as to how shared decision making could evolve. Here, we use a game theory model to show that sharing of decisions can evolve under a wide range of circumstances but especially in the following ones: when groups are heterogeneous in composition; when alternative decision outcomes differ in potential costs and these costs are large; when grouping benefits are marginal; or when groups are close to, or above, optimal size. Since these conditions are common in nature, it is easy to see how mechanisms for shared decision making could have arisen in a wide range of species, including early human ancestors.

Foray search: an effective systematic dispersal strategy in fragmented landscapes.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, population models generally assume that the dispersal trajectories of animals are random, but systematic dispersal could be more efficient at detecting new habitat and may therefore constitute a more realistic assumption. Here, we investigate, by means of simulations, the properties of a potentially widespread systematic dispersal strategy termed “foray search.” Foray search was more efficient in detecting suitable habitat than was random dispersal in most landscapes and was less subject to energetic constraints. However, it also resulted in considerably shorter net dispersed distances and higher mortality per net dispersed distance than did random dispersal, and it would therefore be likely to lead to lower dispersal rates toward the margins of population networks. Consequently, the use of foray search by dispersers could crucially affect the extinction‐colonization balance of metapopulations and the evolution of dispersal rates. We conclude that population models need to take the dispersal trajectories of individuals into account in order to make reliable predictions.