4.8 Article

Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks

Journal

NATURE
Volume 464, Issue 7290, Pages 890-U99

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature08891

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EU
  2. Royal Society
  3. Somerville College, Oxford

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animals that travel together in groups display a variety of fascinating motion patterns thought to be the result of delicate local interactions among group members(1-3). Although the most informative way of investigating and interpreting collective movement phenomena would be afforded by the collection of high-resolution spatio-temporal data from moving individuals, such data are scarce(4-7) and are virtually non-existent for long-distance group motion within a natural setting because of the associated technological difficulties(8). Here we present results of experiments in which track logs of homing pigeons flying in flocks of up to 10 individuals have been obtained by high-resolution lightweight GPS devices and analysed using a variety of correlation functions inspired by approaches common in statistical physics. We find a well-defined hierarchy among flock members from data concerning leading roles in pairwise interactions, defined on the basis of characteristic delay times between birds' directional choices. The average spatial position of a pigeon within the flock strongly correlates with its place in the hierarchy, and birds respond more quickly to conspecifics perceived primarily through the left eye-both results revealing differential roles for birds that assume different positions with respect to flock-mates. From an evolutionary perspective, our results suggest that hierarchical organization of group flight may be more efficient than an egalitarian one, at least for those flock sizes that permit regular pairwise interactions among group members, during which leader-follower relationships are consistently manifested.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available