User:Js7581/sandbox

Week 3 Article evaluation: Ethology

• Immediately evident is the banner stating that the article needs more sources. There are multiple sentences and paragraphs without any references, which is something that needs to be remedied.
• I didn't feel like there was anything in the article that should not have been there, except for the many statements without citations (which may be true statements however they still need to be referenced to a reliable source).
• The article states that Tinbergen was the modern founder of the discipline, however his questions are very near to the end of the article, which I think possibly could be changed as they are very important in ethology and therefore should be in a more prominent part of the article.
• I believe the article is fairly balanced and neutral. There are certain claims (without references) which make statements about who did certain things first which cannot be verified.
• Comparative psychology and ethology are compared based on what each group focuses on, however without the appropriate citations, this could be seen as opinionated, for example the statement: "Ethologists have made much more use of such cross-species comparisons than comparative psychologists have" (quoted directly from Ethology).
• After trying a few of the references listed in the References section, I have discovered that the citations which are included in the article are accurate and do support the information they are listed to support.
• The majority of references for this article come from either websites, or books, however there are also a number of academic journals such as Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology.
• There is no bias noted for any of the sources listed, and after briefly reading each article/book/source title, the sources seem to be non-biased towards ethology.
• Some of the books that are listed are quite old, which could indicate that the are outdated however the majority of the facts they are supporting are just historical content and thus seem to still be appropriate for the article.
• Cultural learning, observational learning, and imitation link directly to other pages of Wikipedia, and while this is appropriate, there are many other sections that do the same, however they also have a brief description of the topic at hand. I think that a brief summary for each of these three could be added to improve the article.
• The Talk page for this article goes all the way back to 2004, with some people posting large pieces of work, almost in an essay format. There are definite biases and strong language (ie. 'the best/worst..." used on the Talk page.
• There was some confusion ~10 years ago regarding definitions of the word ethology, etology, etc. that was discussed by multiple contributors.
• The Ethology article has a few comments from Bots over the years, however there has been no editor comments from other contributors since ~2007, indicating that some updated information and citations would most likely be available.
• The article is rated B-class and as a level-4 vital article in Science-Biology. The article is also a part of the WikiProject Biology, as well as the WikiProject Animals, receiving a C-class and B-class rating on each, respectively.

Week 4 Add to an Article: Alpha roll

• Added sentence and citation regarding study findings of lack of hierarchy in domesticated dogs.

Potential Article Topics:

• Dominance signal
  • This is a stub article with two listed references, and no posts on the Talk Page.
  • Improve: how different animals use dominance signals, which groups/families/species use, and provide examples.
  • Improve: addition of when signals are used, and how animals differentiate them from other signals.
• Play signal
  • No current article.
  • Improve: create article, with appropriate references, regarding animals that use social play and how they distinguish (via play markers) play versus other activities.
  • Improve: provide examples and journal articles where this has been studied. Play markers are present in many animals so this is a broad topic with a lot of research available.
• Information Centre Hypothesis
  • No current article.
  • Improve: create article, with appropriate references, regarding the Information Centre Hypothesis and provide examples animals (mostly birds) which use this strategy.
  • Less information is available on this topic, however it is more specialized/specific, so it might provide the opportunity for a more focused article.

Week 6 Topic Decision: Information Centre Hypothesis

I decided to choose this topic because I believe this will be a worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia. I am happy with the amount of research and scientific study that has been conducted on this topic, as it is enough that I did not have a hard time finding sources, but I also was not overwhelmed with broadness of the topic.

My plan for this article is to write a section on theory, and then add a few sections that provide examples to support the theory. The majority of research in this area has focused on birds, so I will likely use a few species as examples (ie. vultures, crows, gulls, etc.).

Bibliography:

Andersson, M., Götmark, F., & Wiklund, C. (1981). Food information in the Black-headed Gull, Larus ridibundus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,9(3), 199-202. doi: 10.1007/BF00302938 

Barta, Z., & Giraldeau, L. (2001). Breeding colonies as information centers: A reappraisal of information-based hypotheses using the producer-scrounger game. Behavioral Ecology, 12(2), 121-127.

Bijleveld, A., Egas, M., Van Gils, J., & Piersma, T. (2010). Beyond the information centre hypothesis: Communal roosting for information on food, predators, travel companions and mates? Oikos, 119(2), 277-285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17892.x 

Buckley, N. (1997). Experimental tests of the information-center hypothesis with black vultures (Coragypsatratus) and turkey vultures (Cathartesaura). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 41(4), 267-279. doi: 10.1007/s002650050388 

Dall, S. (2002). Can information sharing explain recruitment to food from communal roosts? Behavioral Ecology, 13(1), 42-51.

Evans, R. (1982). Foraging- flock recruitment at a black-billed gull colony: Implications for the Information Center hypothesis (Larus bulleri). Auk, 99(1), 24-30.

Everding, S. & Jones, D. (2006). Communal roosting in a suburban population of Torresian crows (Corvus orru). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74(1), 21-33. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.024 

Harel, R., Spiegel, O., Getz, W., & Nathan, R. (2017). Social foraging and individual consistency in following behaviour: Testing the information centre hypothesis in free-ranging vultures. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 12 April 2017, Vol.284(1852). doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2654

Heeb, P. & Richner, H. (1994). Seabird colonies and the appeal of the Information Center Hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9(1), 25. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90228-3

Mock, D., & Lamey, T. (1988). Falsifiability and the Information Centre Hypothesis. Ornis Scandinavica (Scandinavian Journal of Ornithology), 19(3), 231-248. doi:10.2307/3676564

Ramakers, J., Dechmann, D., Page, R., & O'Mara, M. (2016). Frugivorous bats prefer information from novel social partners. Animal Behaviour, 116, 83-87. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.03.021

Richner, H., & Heeb, P. (1995). Is the Information Center Hypothesis a Flop? Advances in the Study of Behavior, 24(C), 1-45. doi: 10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60391-5

Sonerud, G., Smedshaug, C., & Brthen, O. (2001). Ignorant hooded crows follow knowledgeable roost-mates to food: Support for the information centre hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,268(1469), 827-831. doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1586

Weimerskirch, H., Bertrand, S., Silva, J., Marques, J., Goya, E., & Gratwicke, B. (2010). Use of Social Information in Seabirds: Compass Rafts Indicate the Heading of Food Patches (Social Information in Seabirds). PLoS ONE, 5(3), E9928 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009928

Wright, J., Stone, R., & Brown, N. (2003). Communal roosts as structured information centres in the raven, Corvus corax. Journal of Animal Ecology,72(6), 1003-1014. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00771.x 

I plan to refine this list a bit, but these are the original sources that I will be content-reviewing.

Topic Feedback

It looks like you have found a lot of articles to support your development of the article. I agree that this would be a great contribution to Wikipedia. Remember that with the creation of a new article, the first step is to make an outline of the section which would be included. Jpethier (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)jpethier

Information centre hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia

Griffon vultures in a communal roost

The information centre hypothesis states that bird species which live in communal roosts do so primarily for the advantage of gaining information from others in the community regarding the location of unevenly distributed food resources. This hypothesis was first proposed by Peter Ward and Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi (1973). They stated that birds join assemblages in order to gain information about about food resources as increase foraging efficiency. Using this strategy would allow unsuccessful birds to return to the population and gain information, often by observing behavioural differences in successful birds. Following the exchange of knowledge, the unsuccessful individuals then follow those deemed successful back to the resource location.

The hypothesis has been studied and experimentally supported in many different types of communally roosting birds, notably crows and vultures. This strategy is regarded as evolutionarily adaptive, because it would prevent the unsuccessful bird from having to start the search for food over in a random method. By the early 1980s, the information centre hypothesis was widely accepted and used to explain communal roosting behaviour, however this popularity also led to substantial criticism. One criticism of the theory is the multiple assumptions required to fulfill the criteria to support the hypothesis. Another criticism of the theory is its narrow scope, as it pertains strictly to food information sharing. A final criticism questions whether the information centre hypothesis is an evolutionarily stable strategy.

Theory

The information centre hypothesis was first described by Peter Ward and Amotz Zahavi in 1973. They theorized that communal roosts evolved and are maintained as a result of the advantage obtained by unsuccessful individuals in locating food resources from information provided by successful individuals. The information centre hypothesis requires that two conditions be met; first, that successful individuals return to the communal roost after feeding, and second, birds without the knowledge of the food source must recognize these individuals as successful and then follow them back to the food source. In their primary work, Ward and Zahavi studied red-billed quelea and cattle egret birds, noting that individuals who were unsuccessful in the morning would return to the communal roost and follow other birds away from the roost in the afternoon.

Mock et al. (1988) provide seven requirements which must be fulfilled in a species for the information centre hypothesis to be supported. First, birds who are successful in foraging must return to rewarding locations. Second, while some individuals discover these rewarding locations, others remain unaware of these locations. Third, previously unsuccessful individuals must be able to recognize others as successful or unsuccessful. Fourth, unsuccessful individuals must leave the communal roost when the successful individuals leave the roost. Fifth, the previously unsuccessful individuals must follow the successful individuals to the feeding location. Sixth, previously unsuccessful individuals must be permitted to share the food source by successful individuals. Seventh, the overall net benefit of receiving information and following, must be greater than an individual searching for food on their own.

While it may seem counterproductive for a successful individual to share its resource knowledge, the information centre hypothesis argues that this behaviour is adaptive. The information centre hypothesis argues this behaviour is a defensive mechanism so that in the event of a sudden resource devaluation which destroys the food source, the bird would be able to obtain new resource information from other roosting individuals. This idea has been supported in studies which show that individuals in areas with a recent heavy snowfall searched longer for a communal roost compared to individuals in non-snowy areas. This is potentially so the bird would be able to upgrade their resource knowledge with others' information.

Support for the information centre hypothesis includes the idea that individuals living in groups have more resource information available, at a lower cost than finding it themselves. In addition, multiple studies have made note that food sources for flock-living birds are typically consumed quickly by other predators, such as mammals or decomposers. Therefore, individuals likely do not suffer from sharing knowledge with conspecifics due to the short-lived nature of the resource.

Examples

A Hooded Crow (Corvus cornix)

Information centre hypothesis in hooded crows

The information centre hypothesis has been studied in hooded crows (Corvus cornix). Hooded crows exhibit communal roosting behaviour and often feed in flocks, making them a good candidate species for studies of the information centre hypothesis. A study conducted by Sonerud, Smedshaug, and Brathen (2001) examined the roost and feeding behaviours of 34 hooded crows over three years, with results supporting the information centre hypothesis. Sonerud et al. created an environment with unpredictable and ephemeral food sources, similar to the natural environment in which the crows live. The study differentiated between 'leader' crows who were knowledgeable about the food site from Day 1, as well as 'followers,' who roosted overnight with leaders, and 'naive' crows who did not roost overnight with a leader or visit the food site on Day 1. Notably, they found that compared to naive individuals, follower crows which had not visited the food patch on Day 1 were significantly more likely to visit the patch on Day 2 if they roosted overnight with a leader crow familiar with the food patch, but only if the leader crow returned on Day 2 as well. This indicated that the crows who were unfamiliar with the food patch received information from the leader crows regarding their foraging success, and then followed them to the location the following day. This is supported when compared to the naive individuals who did not roost overnight with the leader, and had significantly lower levels of finding the food source on Day 2.

Information centre hypothesis in vultures

A Griffon vulture landing

Studies of the information centre hypothesis have been conducted using the Eurasian griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) as a test species, due to their communal roosts which may function primarily as information centres. In a study by Harel et al. (2017), movements and behaviour of approximately 200 Eurasian griffon vultures were recorded over a five year period. This study categorized individual vultures as either 'uninformed,' indicating they had no knowledge of a currently available food source, or 'informed,' if they had either been at the food source or flown directly over it in the prior two days. Study results showed that uninformed vultures followed informed vultures to successful food sources and thereby gained access to these resources. In addition, a dyad composed of an informed and an uninformed vulture who departed the roost within two minutes of each other, spent a greater amount of airtime at a spatially closer distance than individuals who left the roost on their own, indicating a follow-the-leader relationship.

Further studies have been conducted using other vulture species, such as black vultures (Coragyps atratus) and turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), with results both supporting and refuting the information centre hypothesis. For example, a study by Neil Buckley (1997), black vultures were observed to benefit from communal roosting because they located food by following knowledgeable conspecifics who had previously visited the carcass food source. In the same study, communal benefits as in the black vulture were not observed for the turkey vulture individuals.

Criticism

The information centre hypothesis has faced criticism regarding its assumptions and views that the primary purpose of communal roosting is to share information regarding the location of food sources and for unsuccessful individuals to follow successful individuals back to the location. Mock et al., argue that there are other reasons for the communal roosting of birds, such as anti-predator strategies. Multiple studies have found that there was not one primary cause of communal roost development, but that other factors were equally important in the evolution of communal roosting behaviour. A further criticism states that the information centre hypothesis is not valid because it does not represent an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS).

According to Heinz Richner and Philipp Heeb (1995), the primary issue with the information centre hypothesis is the concept that a successful forager would return to the roost to help other, unsuccessful individuals. They argue that this issue cannot be solved without making assumptions regarding kin benefits, and thus the hypothesis cannot be confirmed to be true. In addition, they note that the information centre hypothesis, as it was originally proposed by Ward and Zahavi, requires the assumption that individuals fluctuate between being leaders and followers, and therefore relies on altruism between individuals. Other literature also criticizes this assumption made in the original hypothesis.

Other studies have found that the information centre hypothesis lays a correct framework for the communal roosting of some species, but should be broadened to include aspects beyond resource knowledge sharing, such as information regarding mates and predators. A review paper by Bijleveld et al. (2009) suggests that broadening the hypothesis to include these other information sharing possibilities better explains the phenomenon of communal roosting. For example, Ward and Zahavi argued that a dramatic aerial display by a bird was an advertisement to others regarding their knowledge of a food source. However, there may be broader implications that the original ICH allows for, such as the advertisement acting as an individual signal of quality to increase the advertising individuals chance of obtaining a high quality mate. This example supports the broadening of the hypothesis on the basis that more information than just food resource location is being shared.

Peer-review - by: Mattdrodge

• Very well structured and informative article, I will suggest some minor edits
• Add in some images, maybe an image of a communal roost in the heading, just to liven up the article
• Add in a Contents table
• When listing the seven components of the Information Centre Hypothesis use a list rather than paragraph form. In paragraph form it is just too clumped and distracting - the flow chart (Fig. 1) Mock et al. had for these factors in their article is very nice, and maybe something similar could be added
• Also, in the seven components of Information Centre Hypothesis, replace the word tenements with components or factors
• In the heading you mention that crows, vultures, and ravens exhibit this strategy but you do not have ravens in the examples paragraph, adding a Information centre hypothesis in ravens section to the examples would work well
• Adding in a see also section at the end of the article would be great as well
• The article is fantastic, great work!