4.6 Article

Emergence of splits and collective turns in pigeon flocks under predation

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211898

关键词

collective behaviour; escape patterns; self-organization; flocking; pigeon

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [14723]
  2. Royal Society [R10952]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complex patterns of collective escape in bird flocks attacked by a predator were studied using empirical data and a computational model. Two new patterns, early splits and collective turns, were identified and their formation was explained using an agent-based model.
Complex patterns of collective behaviour may emerge through self-organization, from local interactions among individuals in a group. To understand what behavioural rules underlie these patterns, computational models are often necessary. These rules have not yet been systematically studied for bird flocks under predation. Here, we study airborne flocks of homing pigeons attacked by a robotic falcon, combining empirical data with a species-specific computational model of collective escape. By analysing GPS trajectories of flocking individuals, we identify two new patterns of collective escape: early splits and collective turns, occurring even at large distances from the predator. To examine their formation, we extend an agent-based model of pigeons with a 'discrete' escape manoeuvre by a single initiator, namely a sudden turn interrupting the continuous coordinated motion of the group. Both splits and collective turns emerge from this rule. Their relative frequency depends on the angular velocity and position of the initiator in the flock: sharp turns by individuals at the periphery lead to more splits than collective turns. We confirm this association in the empirical data. Our study highlights the importance of discrete and uncoordinated manoeuvres in the collective escape of bird flocks and advocates the systematic study of their patterns across species.

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

4.6
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