IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v16y2005i2p352-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The group-size paradox: effects of learning and patch departure rules

Author

Listed:
  • Guy Beauchamp
  • Esteban Fernández-Juricic

Abstract

In many species, foraging in groups can enhance individual fitness. However, groups are often predicted to be larger than the size that maximizes individual fitness. This is because individual foragers are expected to continue joining a group until the fitness in the group falls to the level experienced by solitary foragers. If such a process were pervasive, social foraging, paradoxically, would provide little evolutionary advantages. We propose a solution to the group-size paradox by allowing foragers to learn about habitat quality and leave food patches when their current intake rate falls below that expected for the whole habitat. By using a simulation model, we show that under a wide range of population sizes, foragers using such rules abandon under- and overcrowded patches, ensuring that group size remains close to the optimal value. The results hold in habitats with varying patch quality, but we note that the lack of food renewal in patches can disrupt the process of group formation. We conclude that groups of optimal sizes can occur frequently if fitness functions are peaked and resources patchily distributed, without the need to invoke relatedness between joiners and established group members, group defense against joiners, or other mechanisms that were proposed earlier to prevent groups from becoming too large. Copyright 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Guy Beauchamp & Esteban Fernández-Juricic, 2005. "The group-size paradox: effects of learning and patch departure rules," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(2), pages 352-357, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:352-357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arh169
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:352-357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.