The evolution of distributed sensing and collective computation in animal populations

  1. Andrew M Hein  Is a corresponding author
  2. Sara Brin Rosenthal
  3. George I Hagstrom
  4. Andrew Berdahl
  5. Colin J Torney
  6. Iain D Couzin
  1. Princeton University, United States
  2. Santa Fe Institute, United States
  3. University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, United Kingdom
  4. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Germany

Abstract

Many animal groups exhibit rapid, coordinated collective motion. Yet, the evolutionary forces that cause such collective responses to evolve are poorly understood. Here we develop analytical methods and evolutionary simulations based on experimental data from schooling fish. We use these methods to investigate how populations evolve within unpredictable, time-varying resource environments. We show that populations evolve toward a distinctive regime in behavioral phenotype space, where small responses of individuals to local environmental cues cause spontaneous changes in the collective state of groups. These changes resemble phase transitions in physical systems. Through these transitions, individuals evolve the emergent capacity to sense and respond to resource gradients (i.e. individuals perceive gradients via social interactions, rather than sensing gradients directly), and to allocate themselves among distinct, distant resource patches. Our results yield new insight into how natural selection, acting on selfish individuals, results in the highly effective collective responses evident in nature.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew M Hein

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    ahein@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Sara Brin Rosenthal

    Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. George I Hagstrom

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Andrew Berdahl

    Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Colin J Torney

    Centre for Mathematics and the Environment, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Iain D Couzin

    Department of Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Konstanz, Germany
    Competing interests
    Iain D Couzin, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael Doebeli, University of British Columbia, Canada

Publication history

  1. Received: August 20, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 1, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 10, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 17, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: February 3, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Hein et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,361
    Page views
  • 731
    Downloads
  • 52
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Andrew M Hein
  2. Sara Brin Rosenthal
  3. George I Hagstrom
  4. Andrew Berdahl
  5. Colin J Torney
  6. Iain D Couzin
(2015)
The evolution of distributed sensing and collective computation in animal populations
eLife 4:e10955.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10955
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Dakota E McCoy, Benjamin Goulet-Scott ... John Kartesz
    Tools and Resources

    Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees-pillars of urban forests - improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about city tree communities as ecosystems, particularly regarding spatial composition, species diversity, tree health, and the abundance of introduced species. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities with detailed information on location, health, species, and whether a species is introduced or naturally occurring (i.e., 'native'). We further designed new tools to analyze spatial clustering and the abundance of introduced species. We show that trees significantly cluster by species in 98% of cities, potentially increasing pest vulnerability (even in species-diverse cities). Further, introduced species significantly homogenize tree communities across cities, while naturally occurring trees (i.e., 'native' trees) comprise 0.51%-87.3% (median=45.6%) of city tree populations. Introduced species are more common in drier cities, and climate also shapes tree species diversity across urban forests. Parks have greater tree species diversity than urban settings. Compared to past work which focused on canopy cover and species richness, we show the importance of analyzing spatial composition and introduced species in urban ecosystems (and we develop new tools and datasets to do so). Future work could analyze city trees and socio-demographic variables or bird, insect, and plant diversity (e.g., from citizen-science initiatives). With these tools, we may evaluate existing city trees in new, nuanced ways and design future plantings to maximize resistance to pests and climate change. We depend on city trees.

    1. Ecology
    Cwyn Solvi, Yonghe Zhou ... Fei Peng
    Research Article

    Are animals’ preferences determined by absolute memories for options (e.g. reward sizes) or by their remembered ranking (better/worse)? The only studies examining this question suggest humans and starlings utilise memories for both absolute and relative information. We show that bumblebees’ learned preferences are based only on memories of ordinal comparisons. A series of experiments showed that after learning to discriminate pairs of different flowers by sucrose concentration, bumblebees preferred flowers (in novel pairings) with (1) higher ranking over equal absolute reward, (2) higher ranking over higher absolute reward, and (3) identical qualitative ranking but different quantitative ranking equally. Bumblebees used absolute information in order to rank different flowers. However, additional experiments revealed that, even when ranking information was absent (i.e. bees learned one flower at a time), memories for absolute information were lost or could no longer be retrieved after at most 1 hr. Our results illuminate a divergent mechanism for bees (compared to starlings and humans) of learned preferences that may have arisen from different adaptations to their natural environment.