Information centre hypothesis
The information centre hypothesis (ICH) is a theory that states bird species live in communal roosts primarily for the advantage of gaining information from others in the community regarding the location of unevenly distributed food resources.[1] This hypothesis was first proposed by Peter Ward and Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi (1973).[1] They stated that birds join assemblages in order to gain information about food resources and increase foraging efficiency.[1] Using this strategy would allow unsuccessful birds to return to the population and gain information, often by observing behavioural differences in successful birds.[1] Following the exchange of knowledge, the unsuccessful individuals then follow those deemed successful back to the resource location.[1]
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.[1] 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.[2] One criticism of the theory is the multiple assumptions required to fulfill the criteria to support the hypothesis.[2] Another criticism of the theory is its narrow scope, as it pertains strictly to food information sharing.[3] Additional criticism questions whether the information centre hypothesis is an evolutionarily stable strategy.[4]
Theory
The information centre hypothesis was first described by Peter Ward and Amotz Zahavi in 1973.[1] They theorized that communal roosts evolved and were maintained as a result of the advantage obtained by unsuccessful individuals in locating food resources from information provided by successful individuals.[5] 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.[6] 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.[1]
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.[2] Second, while some individuals discover these rewarding locations, others remain unaware of these locations.[2] Third, previously unsuccessful individuals must be able to recognize others as successful or unsuccessful.[2] Fourth, unsuccessful individuals must leave the communal roost when the successful individuals leave the roost.[2] Fifth, the previously unsuccessful individuals must follow the successful individuals to the feeding location.[2] Sixth, previously unsuccessful individuals must be permitted to share the food source by successful individuals.[2] Seventh, the overall net benefit of receiving information and following, must be greater than an individual searching for food on their own.[2]
While it may seem counterproductive for a successful individual to share resource knowledge, the information centre hypothesis argues that this behaviour is adaptive.[6] 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.[6] 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.[6] This is potentially so the bird would be able to upgrade their resource knowledge with others' information.[6]
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.[4] 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.[6] Therefore, individuals likely do not suffer from sharing knowledge with conspecifics due to the short-lived nature of the resource.[6]
Examples
.jpg)
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.[6] 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.[6] Sonerud et al. created an environment with unpredictable and ephemeral food sources, similar to the natural environment in which the crows live.[6] 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.[6] 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.[6] 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[6]. 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.[6]
Information centre hypothesis in vultures
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.[5] In a study by Harel et al. (2017), movements and behaviour of approximately 200 Eurasian griffon vultures were recorded over a five year period.[5] 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.[5] Study results showed that uninformed vultures followed informed vultures to successful food sources and thereby gained access to these resources.[5] 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.[5]
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.[3] 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.[3] In the same study, communal benefits as in the black vulture were not observed for the turkey vulture individuals.[3]
Criticism
After its creation in 1973, the information centre hypothesis gained popularity, and with this popularity came criticism.[7] 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.[3] 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.[4][7] A further criticism states that the information centre hypothesis is not valid because it does not represent an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS).[4]
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.[7] They argue that this issue cannot be solved without making assumptions regarding kin benefits, and thus the hypothesis cannot be confirmed to be true.[7] 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.[7] Other literature also criticizes this assumption made in the original hypothesis.[5]
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.[4] 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.[4] 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.[1] 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.[4] This example supports the broadening of the hypothesis on the basis that more information than just food resource location is being shared.
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Ward, P.; Zahavi, A. (1973-10-01). "The Importance of Certain Assemblages of Birds as "information-Centres" for Food-Finding". Ibis. 115 (4): 517–534. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.1973.tb01990.x. ISSN 1474-919X.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Mock, Douglas W.; Lamey, Timothy C.; Thompson, Desmond B. A. (1988). "Falsifiability and the Information Centre Hypothesis". Ornis Scandinavica (Scandinavian Journal of Ornithology). 19 (3): 231–248. doi:10.2307/3676564.
- ^ a b c d e Buckley, Neil J. (1997-10-01). "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. ISSN 0340-5443.
- ^ a b c d e f g Bijleveld, Allert I.; Egas, Martijn; Van Gils, Jan A.; Piersma, Theunis (2010-02-01). "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. ISSN 1600-0706.
- ^ a b c d e f g Harel, Roi; Spiegel, Orr; Getz, Wayne M.; Nathan, Ran (2017-04-12). "Social foraging and individual consistency in following behaviour: testing the information centre hypothesis in free-ranging vultures". Proc. R. Soc. B. 284 (1852): 20162654. doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2654. ISSN 0962-8452. PMID 28404771.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Sonerud, G. A.; Smedshaug, C. A.; Bråthen, Ø (2001-04-22). "Ignorant hooded crows follow knowledgeable roost-mates to food: support for the information centre hypothesis". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 268 (1469): 827–831. doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1586. ISSN 0962-8452. PMID 11345328.
- ^ a b c d e Richner, Heinz; Heeb, Philipp. Is the Information Center Hypothesis a Flop?. pp. 1–45. doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(08)60391-5.