scholarly journals Obtaining Intermediate and Designed Animal Groups within Hybridization Systems

Author(s):  
Natalya A. CHALOVA
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda R. Ridley ◽  
Melanie O. Mirville

Abstract There is a large body of research on conflict in nonhuman animal groups that measures the costs and benefits of intergroup conflict, and we suggest that much of this evidence is missing from De Dreu and Gross's interesting article. It is a shame this work has been missed, because it provides evidence for interesting ideas put forward in the article.


Insects ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa J. Griffin ◽  
Matthew R. E. Symonds

Many forms of polygyny are observed across different animal groups. In some species, groups of females may remain with a single male for breeding, often referred to as “harem polygyny”. The environment and the amount of habitat available for feeding, mating and oviposition may have an effect on the formation of harems. We aimed to determine how the surrounding environment (a harvested or unharvested pine plantation) and availability of local substrate affect the harems of the bark beetle, Ips grandicollis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). In a harvested pine plantation with large amounts of available habitat, the population density of these beetles is much higher than in unharvested plantations. We found the number of females per male to be significantly greater in the harvested plantation than the unharvested one. Additionally, the amount of substrate available in the immediate local vicinity (the number of logs in replicate piles) also influences the number of beetles attracted to a log and size of individual harems. We also examined how females were distributing themselves in their galleries around the males’ nuptial chamber, as previous work has demonstrated the potential for competition between neighbouring females and their offspring. Females do not perform clumping, suggesting some avoidance when females make their galleries, but they also do not distribute themselves evenly. Female distribution around the male’s nuptial chamber appears to be random, and not influenced by other females or external conditions.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e0169659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amandine Cian ◽  
Dima El Safadi ◽  
Marwan Osman ◽  
Romain Moriniere ◽  
Nausicaa Gantois ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Laela S. Sayigh ◽  
Vincent M. Janik
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-596
Author(s):  
Ilya A. Gavrilov-Zimin

The paper briefly discusses the most impressive examples of the Nikolai Vavilov’s “Law of homologous series” in the evolution of one of the largest animal groups, homopterous insects, which comprise about 65,000 recent species in the world fauna. Different taxonomic and phylogenetic characters (morpho-anatomical, cytogenetic, reproductive and others) are considered at the taxonomic ranks of the order, suborder, superfamily and family.


Author(s):  
Thomas A. Frewen ◽  
Iain D. Couzin ◽  
Allison Kolpas ◽  
Jeff Moehlis ◽  
Ronald Coifman ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
pp. 80-330
Author(s):  
Harald H. Roth ◽  
Günter Merz
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Daniel Oro

Complex social animal groups behave as self-organized, single structures: they feed together, they defend against predators together, they escape from perturbations and disperse and migrate together and they share information. It is modestly evident that many individuals sharing information about their environment may be more successful in coping with perturbations than solitary individuals gathering information on their own. The group exists for and by means of all the individuals, and these exist for and by means of the group. Social groups have emergent properties that cannot be easily explained by either selection or self-organization. Yet, sociality has been shaped by the two forces. How sociality has evolved by selection is puzzling also because it confronts the benefits of the group versus the benefits of the individual, which is a historically debated theme. There are many other open questions about sociality that I have explored in this book. But in the end, the process that has fascinated me the most is social copying. Despite the sophisticated mechanisms evolved in increasing information in social groups—which has culminated in humans with language and technological interconnections—it is impressive how a simple behaviour such as social copying has maintained its strength when individuals make any kind of decisions, from insignificant to transcendent....


2019 ◽  
Vol 374 (1774) ◽  
pp. 20180378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert B. Kao ◽  
Iain D. Couzin

Many animal groups exhibit signatures of persistent internal modular structure, whereby individuals consistently interact with certain groupmates more than others. In such groups, information relevant to a collective decision may spread unevenly through the group, but how this impacts the quality of the resulting decision is not well understood. Here, we explicitly model modularity within animal groups and examine how it affects the amount of information represented in collective decisions, as well as the accuracy of those decisions. We find that modular structure necessarily causes a loss of information, effectively silencing the input from a fraction of the group. However, the effect of this information loss on collective accuracy depends on the informational environment in which the decision is made. In simple environments, the information loss is detrimental to collective accuracy. By contrast, in complex environments, modularity tends to improve accuracy. This is because small group sizes typically maximize collective accuracy in such environments, and modular structure allows a large group to behave like a smaller group (in terms of its decision-making). These results suggest that in naturalistic environments containing correlated information, large animal groups may be able to exploit modular structure to improve decision accuracy while retaining other benefits of large group size. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Liquid brains, solid brains: How distributed cognitive architectures process information’.


2010 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 653-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Cavagna ◽  
Irene Giardina
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document