4.8 Article

Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 348, 期 6241, 页码 1358-1361

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5099

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [EAGER-IOS-1250895, PHY-0848755, IOS-1355061, EAGER-IOS-1251585]
  2. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology
  3. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
  4. Princeton University
  5. NIH [T32HG003284]
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L006081/1]
  7. Office of Naval Research [N00014-09-1-1074, N00014-14-1-0635]
  8. Army Research Office [W911NG-11-1-0385, W911NF-14-1-0431]
  9. Human Frontier Science Program [RGP0065/2012]
  10. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L006081/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. BBSRC [BB/L006081/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  13. Direct For Biological Sciences [1251585, 1250895] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  14. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  15. Direct For Biological Sciences [1355061] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conflicts of interest about where to go and what to do are a primary challenge of group living. However, it remains unclear how consensus is achieved in stable groups with stratified social relationships. Tracking wild baboons with a high-resolution global positioning system and analyzing their movements relative to one another reveals that a process of shared decision-making governs baboon movement. Rather than preferentially following dominant individuals, baboons are more likely to follow when multiple initiators agree. When conflicts arise over the direction of movement, baboons choose one direction over the other when the angle between them is large, but they compromise if it is not. These results are consistent with models of collective motion, suggesting that democratic collective action emerging from simple rules is widespread, even in complex, socially stratified societies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据