Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27152206›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2016

Adaptive collective foraging in groups with conflicting nutritional needs.

Alistair M Senior, Mathieu Lihoreau, Michael A Charleston, Jerome Buhl, David Raubenheimer, Stephen J Simpson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Collective foraging in spatially complex nutritional environments.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Article
  3. Divergent foraging strategies between populations of sympatric matrilineal killer whales.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Alistair M SeniorCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia.
Mathieu LihoreauResearch Center on Animal Cognition (CRCA) , Center for Integrative Biology (CBI), Toulouse University , CNRS , UPS, France.
Michael A CharlestonSchool of Physical Sciences , University of Tasmania , Hobart, Tasmania 7005 , Australia.
Jerome BuhlSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine , The University of Adelaide , Adelaide, South Australia 5005 , Australia.
David RaubenheimerCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia.
Stephen J SimpsonCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUThe University of Adelaide · AUUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FRUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collective foraging, based on positive feedback and quorum responses, is believed to improve the foraging efficiency of animals. Nutritional models suggest that social information transfer increases the ability of foragers with closely aligned nutritional needs to find nutrients and maintain a balanced diet. However, whether or not collective foraging is adaptive in a heterogeneous group composed of individuals with differing nutritional needs is virtually unexplored. Here we develop an evolutionary agent-based model using concepts of nutritional ecology to address this knowledge gap. Our aim was to evaluate how collective foraging, mediated by social retention on foods, can improve nutrient balancing in individuals with different requirements. The model suggests that in groups where inter-individual nutritional needs are unimodally distributed, high levels of collective foraging yield optimal individual fitness by reducing search times that result from moving between nutritionally imbalanced foods. However, where nutritional needs are highly bimodal (e.g. where the requirements of males and females differ) collective foraging is selected against, leading to group fission. In this case, additional mechanisms such as assortative interactions can coevolve to allow collective foraging by subgroups of individuals with aligned requirements. Our findings indicate that collective foraging is an efficient strategy for nutrient regulation in animals inhabiting complex nutritional environments and exhibiting a range of social forms.

Indexed as

collective decisionsforagingindividual-based modelnutritional geometrysocial interactionssociality

Identifiers

PMID27152206
PMCPMC4852629
OpenAlexW2336534153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.