Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 4, pp 449–458 | Cite as

Safety in numbers: the dilution effect and other drivers of group life in the face of danger

Review

Abstract

Animals can congregate in groups for many reasons, from reproductive assurance to improved foraging or predation efficiency, to avoiding themselves becoming the target of predation by other animals. It is the last category that is the focus of this review: group living as protection from predation. The drivers of group life in the face of danger are at the same time diverse and interlinked, with much potential for confusion between concepts. Here we review these concepts, using the dilution effect as a starting point. We construct a mathematical model that allows us to examine various features of the dilution effect and their connection to ecology. We also show the importance of including a time scale when modelling the dilution effect and how this translates into more realistic estimation of the fitness consequences of a diluted predation risk. The central role of the dilution effect in creating safety in numbers is underlined by showing how it may affect life-history evolution and result in the emergence of gregarious life-history strategies, even among sessile organisms limited in their abilities to exhibit behavioural responses to predation. Finally, we review the other central processes underpinning group protection from predation: the satiation effect, selfish herding, the confusion effect and group vigilance.

Keywords

Selfish herding Predator–prey interactions Predation rate Stochastic process Group formation Life-history evolution 

References

  1. Ballerini M, Cabibbo N, Candelier R et al (2008) Empirical investigation of starling flocks: a benchmark study in collective animal behaviour. Anim Behav 76:201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp G (2003) Group-size effects on vigilance: a search for mechanisms. Behav Proc 63:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp G, Ruxton GD (2003) Changes in vigilance with group size under scramble competition. Am Nat 161:672–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (1998) Re-examining safety in numbers: interactions between risk dilution and collective detection depend upon predator targeting behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:2021–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (2004) Risk allocation and competition in foraging groups: reversed effects of competition if group size varies under risk of predation. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1491–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlesworth B (1994) Evolution in age-structured populations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnov EL, Krebs JR (1975) The evolution of alarm calls: altruism or manipulation? Am Nat 109:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark CW, Mangel M (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor Pop Biol 30:45–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cockrem JF, Silverin B (2002) Sight of a predator can stimulate a corticosterone response in the great tit (Parus major). Gen Comp Endocrinol 125:248–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock T, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol 14:405–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Couzin ID, Krause J, James R, Ruxton GD, Franks NR (2002) Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. J Theor Biol 218:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cresswell W (1994) Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in redshanks, Tringa totanus. Anim Behav 47:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cresswell W, Quinn JL (2011) Predicting the optimal prey group size from predator hunting behaviour. J Anim Ecol 80:310–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Curley EA, Rowley HE, Speed MP (2015) A field demonstration of the costs and benefits of group living to edible and defended prey. Biol Lett 11:20150152Google Scholar
  15. Dale BW, Adams LG, Bowyer RT (1994) Functional response of wolves preying on barren-ground caribou in a multiple-prey ecosystem. J Anim Ecol 63:644–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daly D, Higginson AD, Chen D, Ruxton GD, Speed MP (2012) Density-dependent investment in costly anti-predator defences: an explanation for the weak survival benefit of group living. Ecol Lett 15:576–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekman I (1987) Exposure and time use in willow tit flocks: the cost of subordination. Anim Behav 35:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eshel I, Shaked A (2001) Partnership. J Theor Biol 208:457–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Finkbeiner SD, Briscoe AD, Reed RD (2012) The benefit of being a social butterfly: communal roosting deters predation. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:2769–2776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer B, Taborsky B, Kokko H (2011) How to balance the offspring quality–quantity tradeoff when environmental cues are unreliable. Oikos 120:258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher QE, Boutin S, Lane JE, LaMontagne JM, McAdam AG, Krebs CJ, Humphries MM (2010) The functional response of a hoarding seed predator to mast seeding. Ecology 91:2673–2683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fordyce JA, Agrawal AA (2001) The role of plant trichomes and caterpillar group size on growth and defence of the pipevine swallowtail Battus philenor. J Anim Ecol 70:997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gloag R, Fiorini VD, Reboreda JC, Kacelnik A (2012) Brood parasite eggs enhance egg survivorship in a multiply parasitized host. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:1831–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Godin J-GJ, Classon LJ, Abrahams MV (1988) Group vigilance and shoal size in a small characin fish. Behaviour 104:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behavior. I & II. J Theor Biol 7:1–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawlena D, Schmitz OJ (2010) Physiological stress as a fundamental mechanism linking predation to ecosystem functioning. Am Nat 175:537–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jaatinen K, Öst M (2013) Brood size matching: a novel perspective on predator dilution. Am Nat 181:171–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaatinen K, Öst M, Waldeck P, Andersson M (2009) Clutch desertion in Barrow’s goldeneyes (Bucephala islandica)—effects of non-natal eggs, the environment and host female characteristics. Ann Zool Fenn 46:350–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaatinen K, Lehtonen J, Kokko H (2010) Strategy selection under conspecific brood parasitism: an integrative modeling approach. Behav Ecol 22:144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaatinen K, Öst M, Lehikoinen A (2011) Adult predation risk drives shifts in parental care strategies: a long-term study. J Anim Ecol 80:49–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jordan LA, Avolio C, Herbert-Read JE, Krause J, Rubenstein DI, Ward AJ (2010) Group structure in a restricted entry system is mediated by both resident and joiner preferences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1099–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karban R (1982) Increased reproductive success at high densities and predator satiation for periodical cicadas. Ecology 63:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelly D, Sork VL (2002) Mast seeding in perennial plants: why, how, where? Ann Rev Ecol Syst 33:427–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kingman JF (1993) Poisson processes. Oxford studies in probability, vol 3. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Koenig WD, Kelly D, Sork VL, Duncan RP, Elkinton JS, Peltonen MS, Westfall RD (2003) Dissecting components of population-level variation in seed production and the evolution of masting behavior. Oikos 102:581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kokko H, Rankin DJ (2006) Lonely hearts or sex in the city? Density-dependent effects in mating systems. Philos T Roy Soc B 361:319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kokko H, Johnstone RA, Clutton-Brock TH (2001) The evolution of cooperative breeding through group augmentation. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krakauer DC (1995) Groups confuse predators by exploiting perceptual bottlenecks: a connectionist model of the confusion effect. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krause J, Godin J-GJ (1995) Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim Behav 50:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Krause J, Ruxton GD, Rubenstein D (1998) Is there always an influence of shoal size on predator hunting success? J Fish Biol 52:494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kruuk H (1972) The spotted hyena: a study of predation and social behavior. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. LaGory KE (1986) Habitat, group size, and the behaviour of white-tailed deer. Behaviour 98:168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Le Masurier AD (1994) Costs and benefits of egg clustering in Pieris brassicae. J Anim Ecol 63:677–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lengyel S (2007) Benefits of large broods by higher chick survival and better territories in a precocial shorebird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lima SL (1990) The influence of models interpretation of vigilance. In: Bekoff M, Jamieson D (eds) Interpretation and explanation in the study of animal behavior, explanation, evolution and adaption, vol 2. Westview press, Boulder, pp 246–267Google Scholar
  49. Lima S (1995) Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect. Anim Behav 49:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lindstedt C, Mappes J, Paivinen J, Varama M (2006) Effects of group size and pine defence chemicals on Diprionid sawfly survival against ant predation. Oecologia 150:519–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindstedt C, Huttunen H, Kakko M, Mappes J (2011) Disentangling the evolution of weak warning signals: high detection risk and low production costs of chemical defences in gregarious pine sawfly larvae. Evol Ecol 25:1029–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maynard Smith J (1965) The evolution of alarm calls. Am Nat 99:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller R (1922) The significance of the gregarious habit. Ecology 3:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mooring MS, Hart BL (1992) Animal grouping for protection from parasites: selfish herd and encounter-dilution effects. Behaviour 123:173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morgan MJ, Godin J-GJ (1985) Antipredator benefits of schooling behaviour in a cyprinodontid fish, the banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus). Z Tierpsychol 70:236–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Newton I (1994) The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biol Conserv 70:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nøttestad L, Axelsen BE (1999) Herring schooling manoeuvres in response to killer whale attacks. Can J Zool 77:1540–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Öst M, Mantila L, Kilpi M (2002) Shared care provides time-budgeting advantages for female eiders. Anim Behav 64:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Otto SP, Day T (2007) A biologist’s guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  62. Packer C, Gilbert DA, Pusey AE, O’Brien SJ (1991) A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions. Nature 351:562–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pitcher TJ, Partridge BL (1979) Fish school density and volume. Mar Biol 54:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Pulliam HR, Pyke GH, Caraco T (1982) The scanning behavior of juncos: a game-theoretical approach. J Theor Biol 95:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ricklefs RE, Wikelski M (2002) The physiology/life-history nexus. Trends Ecol Evol 17:462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Riipi M, Alatalo RV, Lindström L, Mappes J (2001) Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations. Nature 413:512–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Roberts G (2005) Cooperation through interdependence. Anim Behav 70:901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rode NO, Lievens EJ, Flaven E, Segard A, Jabbour-Zahab R, Sanchez MI, Lenormand T (2013) Why join groups? Lessons from parasite-manipulated Artemia. Ecol Lett 16:493–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Roy Nielsen CL, Parker PG, Gates RJ (2008) Partial clutch predation, dilution of predation risk, and the evolution of intraspecific nest parasitism. Auk 125:679–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rubenstein DI (1978) On predation, competition, and the advantages of group living. Persp Ethol 3:205–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scheuerlein A, Van’t Hof T, Gwinner E (2001) Predators as stressors? Physiological and reproductive consequences of predation risk in tropical stonechats (Saxicola torquata axillaris). Proc R Soc Lond B 270:799–803Google Scholar
  73. Sillén-Tullberg B, Leimar O (1988) The evolution of gregariousness in distasteful insects as a defense against predators. Am Nat 132:723–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Solomon ME (1949) The natural control of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 18:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stearns (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  76. Stephens PA, Russell AF, Young AJ, Sutherland WJ, Clutton-Brock TH (2005) Dispersal, eviction, and conflict in meerkats (Suricata suricatta): an evolutionarily stable strategy model. Am Nat 165:120–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Sweeney BW, Vannote RL (1982) Population synchrony in mayflies: a predator satiation hypothesis. Evolution 36:810–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Symington MM (1988) Food competition and foraging party size in the black spider monkey (Ateles paniscus Chamek). Behaviour 105:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Treherne JE, Foster WA (1980) The effects of group size on predator avoidance in a marine insect. Anim Behav 28:1119–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Treherne JE, Foster WA (1982) Group size and anti-predator strategies in a marine insect. Anim Behav 30:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tucker JK, Paukstis GL, Janzen FJ (2008) Does predator swamping promote synchronous emergence of turtle hatchlings among nests? Behav Ecol 19:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Turner GF, Pitcher TJ (1986) Attack abatement: a model for group protection by combined avoidance and dilution. Am Nat 128:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wheeler BC (2008) Selfish or altruistic? An analysis of alarm call function in wild capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella nigritus. Anim Behav 76:1465–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Whitfield DP (2003) Redshank Tringa totanus flocking behaviour, distance from cover and vulnerability to sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus predation. J Avian Biol 34:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wrona FJ, Dixon RJ (1991) Group size and predation risk: a field analysis of encounter and dilution effects. Am Nat 137:186–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yano S (2012) Cooperative web sharing against predators promotes group living in spider mites. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zöttl M, Frommen JG, Taborsky M (2013) Group size adjustment to ecological demand in a cooperative breeder. Proc R Soc B 280:20122772Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.ARONIA Coastal Zone Research TeamNovia University of Applied SciencesEkenäsFinland

Personalised recommendations