Intent matters: how flow and forms of information impact collective navigation

Abstract

The phenomenon of collective navigation has received considerable interest in recent years. A common line of thinking, backed by theoretical studies, is that collective navigation can improve navigation efficiency through the ‘many-wrongs’ principle, whereby individual error is reduced by comparing the headings of neighbours. When navigation takes place in a flowing environment, each individual’s trajectory is influenced by drift. Consequently, a potential discrepancy emerges between an individual’s intended heading and its actual heading. In this study, we develop a theoretical model to explore whether collective navigation benefits are altered according to the form of heading information transmitted between neighbours. Navigation based on each individual’s intended heading is found to confer robust advantages across a wide spectrum of flows, via both a marked improvement in migration times and a capacity for a group to overcome flows unnavigable by solitary individuals. Navigation based on individual’s actual headings is far less effective, only offering an improvement under highly favourable currents. For many currents, sharing actual heading information can even lead to journey times that exceed those of individual navigators.

Avoidance, confusion or solitude? Modelling how noise pollution affects whale migration

“…The headings may either be explicitly signalled by the perceived individuals, or the headings may simply be observed (i.e. constructed from sequential call locations); see [ 31 ] for a detailed investigation of the impact of this choice. We do not impose an additional error term on the observed headings at this time.…”

“…Abstract models have previously been developed to explore the benefit of collective navigation [ 9 , 11 , 12 , 27 , 28 ]. Broadly, we observe an increase in navigational efficiency with an increase in the number of observable conspecifics within a group; with specific investigations that include, for example, “leaders” in the population [ 29 ], individual heterogeneity [ 30 ], or flowing environments [ 31 ]. We refer the interested reader to the review by Berdahl et al for a more detailed summary [ 9 ].…”