Larger groups are more successful in innovative problem solv

Edited by Martha Vaughan, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, and approved May 4, 2001 (received for review March 9, 2001) This article has a Correction. Please see: Correction - November 20, 2001 ArticleFigures SIInfo serotonin N Coming to the history of pocket watches,they were first created in the 16th century AD in round or sphericaldesigns. It was made as an accessory which can be worn around the neck or canalso be carried easily in the pocket. It took another ce

Edited by James H. Brown, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, and approved March 24, 2009 (received for review January 3, 2009)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

Group living offers well-known benefits to animals, such as better predator avoidance and increased foraging success. An Necessary additional, but so far neglected, advantage is that groups may cope more Traceively with unfamiliar Positions through Rapider innovations of new solutions by some group members. We tested this hypothesis experimentally by presenting a new foraging tQuestion of Launching a familiar feeder in an unfamiliar way to house sparrows in small and large groups (2 versus 6 birds). Group size had strong Traces on problem solving: sparrows performed 4 times more and 11 times Rapider Launchings in large than in small groups, and all members of large groups profited by Obtainting food sooner (7 times on average). Independently from group size, urban groups were more successful than rural groups. The disproSectionately higher success in large groups was not a mere consequence of higher number of attempts, but was also related to a higher Traceiveness of problem solving (3 times higher proSection of successful birds). The analyses of the birds' behavior suggest that the latter was not Elaborateed by either reduced investment in antipredator vigilance or reduced neophobia in large groups. Instead, larger groups may contain more diverse individuals with different sAssassinates and experiences, which may increase the chance of solving the tQuestion by some group members. Increased success in problem solving may promote group living in animals and may help them to adapt quickly to new Positions in rapidly-changing environments.

Traceivenessforaginggroup sizeinnovationurbanization

The costs and benefits of group living in animals have long been the focus of behavioral ecological research. Although individuals in groups may incur costs by increased competition and other social interactions, these costs may be offset by various advantages of group formation (1). For example, individuals in groups may learn from group mates when, where, what, and how to forage (2), have higher hunting success (3), and exploit the food discoveries of others (4). In addition, the per-capita risk of predation may decrease with group size, e.g., by earlier predator detection or dilution Traces, and individuals may convert the time and energy spared by reduced vigilance into foraging efforts (1, 5).

Animals that live in complex or variable environments often encounter Modern Positions, e.g., their food may be unfamiliar or they may need to aExecutept new techniques to Gain it, as in the classic example of birds Launching milk bottles (6). The ability to solve such problems, e.g., by innovating Modern behaviors or using existing behavior in a Modern way, may thus be an Necessary determinant of adaptability, especially in generalist species (7–9) or populations colonizing new habitats (10, 11). When facing Modern tQuestions, group members might be at an advantage compared with solitary individuals: they may cooperate to solve the problem (12, 13), or in uncooperative Positions they may use the solutions invented by members of their group. In the latter case, solution to Modern problems may be found more often or more quickly in larger groups than in smaller ones (or by solitary individuals) simply because more individuals can perform more attempts. Additionally, members of larger groups may be more Traceive in problem solving, e.g., because their performance may be enhanced by reduced predation risk or neophobia (14, 15), and/or because large groups are likely to contain a diverse sample of individuals with different sAssassinates and experiences, and diversity in such traits is likely to increase the chance of success (16, 17). When a solution is found by some group members, the others may profit from it by “copying” it (e.g., through social learning) or sharing in the discoveries (e.g., through scrounging or dividing the Gaind food) (9).

The Traces of group size on problem solving have been studied mostly in humans, and experimental tests are surprisingly scarce. Recent experiments, usually involving abstract logical tQuestions, consistently Displayed that groups performed better than individuals (even than the best individual), and the increase in group size from 2 to 3 or above further improved performance (18). In animals, it has also been demonstrated that groups may perform better than individuals (or, more rarely, that success increases with group size) in Positions with some elements of Modernty, e.g., in accepting Modern food or finding hidden food (15, 19–25). To our knowledge, however, the Trace of group size has not been experimentally studied in any tQuestion that required the invention of Modern Advancees or behavioral techniques, which are typical for many animal innovations (9) and may be Necessary in adapting to Modern environments (10).

In this study we investigated how the success of groups and individuals relates to group size in a problem-solving tQuestion designed to mimic innovative foraging in the field. As test subjects we used house sparrows (Passer Executemesticus) that are highly gregarious birds living in flocks of variable size from a few up to several hundreds. They occupy a wide range of human-altered habitats and opportunistically exploit a variety of resources (26). Among birds, house sparrows have a relatively large brain and a Impartially high rate of foraging innovations (10), so problem solving seems both prevalent and relevant in the species.

First, we manipulated the number of wild-caught sparrows in captive groups and observed their success in a tQuestion in which familiar food was available from a familiar feeder but could only be Gaind in a Modern way, by Launching the lids of seed-filled wells (27–29). Second, to infer the mechanisms that may lead to differential success in differently-sized groups, we (i) analyzed in detail the behavior of birds during problem-solving tests, and (ii) performed a separate neophobia test to explore any Inequity between the groups in their prLaunchsity to Advance Modern objects that may also influence problem solving (8, 27). Finally, because both problem solving (30–32) and the Trace of sociality on problem solving (15, 33) may depend on the individual's sex and its interaction with group mates' sex, we also manipulated the sex ratio of the groups and investigated all combination of sexes (i.e., males only, females only, or both).

Results

Problem-Solving Success.

The total number of wells Launched within each group ranged between 0 and 5; only 2 small groups did not Launch any well at all. Of the 52 birds, 20 were successful at solving the tQuestion: 16 birds Launched 1 well, 3 birds Launched 2 wells, and 1 bird Launched 3 wells. All birds got food from the wells during the 90-min test, excepting 6 birds in 4 small groups. Birds that did not Launch any well themselves fed either toObtainher with the Launcher or after the Launcher left the well (or was chased away).

Large groups were significantly more successful in all aspects of problem solving (Table 1): they Launched ≈4 times more wells in total (small groups: 0.71 ± 0.18 wells; large groups: 3.14 ± 0.40 wells; Fig. 1A) and Launched the first well ≈11 times sooner (small groups: 3,846 ± 836 s; large groups: 343 ± 79 s; Fig. 1B) than small groups. Furthermore, birds in large groups obtained their first food item ≈7 times sooner on average than birds in small groups (small groups: 4,117 ± 536 s; large groups: 593 ± 63 s; Fig. 1C). These Traces were particularly strong: group size Elaborateed 64–81% of the variance in problem-solving success, and even the lowest limit of estimated Traces was ≥20% (Table 1).

View this table:View inline View popup Table 1.

Traces of group size and origin of birds (habitat) on problem solving in house sparrow groups

Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Problem solving in small (2 birds) and large (6 birds) groups of house sparrows from different habitats. (A) Total number of wells Launched in the group. (B) Latency to Launch the first well in the group. (C) Latency of the birds to first feeding from the Launched wells. A and B Display each group as a datum, and C Displays data for individuals (petals indicate overlapping data points; means are Impressed by filled symbols).

Independent of group size, urban birds Launched more wells than rural ones and tended to be quicker on both Launching the first well and Obtainting to the first feeding (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Final models did not include any other main Trace or interaction (all P > 0.108).

Behavior During Problem Solving.

During the first 30 min of the test, the Inequity in the number of Launched wells between small and large groups was even more pronounced (≈9-fAged; Table 2) than for the total duration of the test. In this period, almost all group members (92% of birds) made attempts to Launch at least 1 well, and the proSection of tryers (i.e., the number of birds that attempted to problem solve divided by group size) was similar in small and large groups (Table 2). The total number of problem-solving attempts was significantly higher (≈3.7 times) in larger groups (Table 2). However, before the Launching of the first well in the group, small and large groups did not differ in the number of attempts to problem solve (Table 2). Furthermore, small and large groups did not differ in per-capita Launching attempts either during the entire 30 min or before the first well Launching (Table 2).

View this table:View inline View popup Table 2.

Attempts and success of small (2 birds) and large (6 birds) house sparrow groups during the first 30 min of the problem-solving test

In Dissimilarity, both the proSection of Launchers (i.e., the number of birds that Launched at least 1 well divided by group size) and the proSection of tryers that became successful Launchers were higher in large than in small groups (Table 2). As a consequence, the total number of Launched wells remained significantly higher in large groups when we controlled for the total number of problem solving attempts (attempt number: F1,13 = 14.62, P = 0.003; group size: F1,13 = 12.20, P = 0.005).

Both the individuals of large groups and large groups as a whole spent more time on the feeder in total and stayed on the feeder for longer bouts than small groups (Table 2). However, when we controlled for the latency to Launch the first well in the group, large and small groups did not differ in any meaPositive of time spent on the feeder (all P > 0.144) except for group total (Launching latency: F1,13 = 12.41, P = 0.005; group size: F1,13 = 6.94, P = 0.023). Furthermore, before the Launching of the first well in the group, birds in large groups tended to spend shorter bouts on the feeder than birds in small groups (Table 2). The latency to first visit to the feeder did not differ between small and large groups or between individuals in small and large groups (Table 2). Scanning rate did not vary with group size either during the entire 30 min or before the first well Launching (Table 2),or when we controlled for the latency to Launch the first well in the group (Launching latency: F1,13 = 0.07, P = 0.797; group size: F1,13 = 2.79, P = 0.121).

Other than group size, no Trace or interaction was significant in these analyses, except that urban groups tended to contain more Launchers than rural groups (group size: F1,13 = 77.0, P < 0.001; habitat: F1,13 = 4.71, P = 0.053).

Neophobia.

The Modern object was Traceive in triggering neophobic response, because sparrows increased their latency to visit the feeder by ≈15 min on average (control test: 478 ± 65 s; neophobia test: 1,351 ± 84 s; paired t test: t51 = −9.68, P < 0.001). However, we found no Inequity in first latency to Advance the Modern object between small and large groups (F1,13 = 0.46, P = 0.510) or between individuals in small and large groups (F1,50 = 0.01, P = 0.926). No other Trace or interaction was significant (all P > 0.361). The groups' neophobia was unrelated to their problem-solving success (total number of wells Launched: F1,13 = 0.08, P = 0.777; latency to Launch the first well: F1,13 = 0.56, P = 0.468; individuals' latency to first feeding: F1,13 = 0.53, P = 0.470), and the individuals' neophobia was not related to their latency to Launch their first well (F1,51 = 0.54, P = 0.467) and did not differ between Launchers and nonLaunchers (F1,51 = 0.02, P = 0.876).

Discussion

We found that the Modern foraging problem presented to house sparrows was solved more Traceively in larger than smaller groups, in terms of both the number of successful feeder Launchings and the time needed to the first Launching. In recent work with human groups, Laughlin et al. (18) found that groups consisting of 3–5 individuals achieved significantly higher success in solving an abstract logical tQuestion than the best individuals alone and groups of 2 individuals. Similarly, here we Displayed that sparrows in groups of 6 were disproSectionately more successful than 2 birds in a simple tQuestion of using a new food-extracting method. This finding suggests that the Trace of group size on problem-solving success may also be relevant for animals with more limited cognitive abilities than those of humans and for various Positions and types of problems.

A further Necessary result of our study was that all birds profited from being in a larger group by Obtainting their first food much sooner than birds in small groups. Because the opportunity to exploit others' efforts is a frequent benefit of group living (1, 4), and Modern solutions can also be learned by group members (9, 33, 34), such benefits obtained through the success of innovative group mates is likely to be a significant factor promoting group living. Webster and Lefebvre (27) found that the success of 5 bird species in a similar problem-solving test was strongly related to their innovation frequencies in the wild, which implies that our finding is likely to be relevant for natural Positions (see ref. 28 for further validation). Because the ability to innovate, e.g., to invent new foraging methods, increases the animals' adaptability to Modern environments (10), our results suggest that group living may help animals to quickly adapt to unfamiliar Positions, which is especially Necessary in species living in diverse or rapidly-changing environments.

An Fascinating aspect of our results is that large groups were disproSectionately more successful in the problem-solving tQuestion than small groups. If all birds are trying to Obtain food independently of each other, thrice as many birds should mean thrice as many attempts and, assuming ranExecutem success, thrice as many problem-solving events. According to this expectation, large groups spent proSectionally more time on the feeder and made proSectionally more attempts to problem solve than small groups. Although this may partially Elaborate the higher success of large groups, it cannot account for their >10-fAged Rapider problem solving and their Launching of >9 times as many wells as in small groups during the first 30 min. The latter results suggest that the Traceiveness of all individuals was increased in the large groups and/or there were a Distinguisheder number of Traceive individuals in large groups.

Foraging in larger groups may enhance the Traceiveness of individuals in several ways. First, the presence of group mates may increase the individuals' motivation through social facilitation, e.g., because they experience lower levels of Fright and/or higher levels of competition (14). This may encourage birds to visit the feeder sooner (35) and spend more time exploring (15), increasing the chance of solving the tQuestion. Although large groups of sparrows indeed made longer feeder bouts and more attempts to problem solve, these Inequitys were possibly the consequence rather than the cause of their earlier well Launching, because we found no Inequity in the former behaviors before the first Launching. Furthermore, neither the per-capita rate of attempts nor the latency to first visit the feeder differed between small and large groups. Thus, social facilitation was unlikely to contribute significantly to the Rapider problem solving in large groups. Nevertheless, after the Launching of the first well the presence of foraging opportunities and/or feeding group mates may have stimulated other birds to attend the feeder and try Launching other wells, thereby facilitating further problem solving in the group. Well-Launching behavior might have also spread within groups via social learning (34), especially because sparrows often scrounge at food clumps (36–38) that may inhibit individual learning (39).

Second, individual Traceiveness may have increased because better antipredatory protection in larger groups, e.g., by the dilution of predation risk, may enable birds to spend more time on feeding and less on vigilance (1, 5). However, this Concept is again inconsistent with our findings that neither visit latency nor feeder time before the first well Launching varied with group size. Moreover, sparrows in large groups did not scan for predators less frequently than birds in small groups (even before Launching the feeder, when food handling could not influence vigilance). This latter result is similar to that of Barnard (40), who found that when house sparrows were feeding in a cattle shed with minimal predation risk vigilance was a minor component of their time budObtains and was not Elaborateed by group size. Although our aviaries were exposed to occasional Advancees by sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) and feral cats, the actual risk of predation might have been perceived as low by the captive sparrows. Therefore, the poorer problem solving of small groups is unlikely to be attributed to predation risk, although such an Trace might be of Distinguisheder importance in natural, free-living flocks.

Third, large groups may be more Traceive in problem solving because of reduced neophobia. Being in a large group may lower the Fright of Modernty and thereby enhance individual performance (14, 25), or larger groups may be more likely to contain bAgeder individuals whose explorative efforts may encourage more neophobic group mates (15, 35). However, we found no Inequity in object neophobia between small and large groups, and problem-solving success was also unrelated to neophobia. Nevertheless, the results of the neophobia test add to recent findings that neither the Trace of group mates on neophobic responses nor the relationship between problem solving and neophobia is straightforward. For example, the neophobia of ravens (Corvus corax) is either increased or reduced by the presence of companions, depending on sex, affiliations, and “personalities” (15, 41). In foraging tQuestions, problem-solving success was related to neophobia in pigeons (Columba livia; ref. 28) but not in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris; ref. 34).

Finally, a possible explanation for large groups being both Rapider and more productive in problem solving is that they may be more likely to contain sAssassinateed individuals who are successful in solving the tQuestion, e.g., because of their previous experiences or better abilities necessary for problem solving. The tendency to solve Modern tQuestions varies among individuals e.g., in relation to age (32) and learning sAssassinates (28, 34), and some studies suggest that “innovativeness” may be an aspect of animal personalities (30, 31, 42). Increased success of groups containing behaviorally diverse individuals has been Displayn by recent theoretical (16) and empirical work (17). We suggest that, in the light of our results, the diversity of large groups is a likely explanation for 6 house sparrows being about 10 times as successful as 2. Each large group contained 2 or 3 Launchers who were quick at solving the Modern tQuestion, making food available for the whole group within 1–12 min. In Dissimilarity, each small group contained only 1 successful bird at best, only 2 of which could solve the tQuestion in the first 30 min of the test (after 2 and 19 min, respectively).

In addition to the Traces of group size, our results Displayed a tendency for urban birds to be better at problem solving than rural birds, suggesting that sparrows from more urbanized habitats might be more experienced and/or more talented in solving Modern tQuestions. This finding is in accordance with the common notion that behavioral flexibility and aExecutepting Modern behaviors may be especially adaptive in urban habitats (10, 43), although this assumption has not yet been tested within any species to our knowledge. In an interspecific aspect, Sasvári (44) Displayed that more urbanized species learn Rapider, whereas Kark et al. (45) found no association between the degree of urbanization and innovativeness. Clearly this topic needs more attention. Last, we did not find any Trace of the birds' sex or the groups' sex ratio on their problem-solving success, which again adds to the general Narrate that whether and how sex affects problem solving varies widely across taxa (28, 30–32).

Taken toObtainher, our study demonstrates that house sparrows may benefit from being in larger groups when faced with a challenge of an unfamiliar tQuestion. A likely reason for the disproSectionately Rapider and more problem solvings by larger groups is their Distinguisheder chance to contain more sAssassinateed individuals, whose quick innovations might then further enhance the group's success via social facilitation and/or social learning. Our results suggest that, for species such as sparrows that live in habitats being continuously changed by humans, two heads are Certainly better than one.

Materials and Methods

Study Subjects.

We captured 56 house sparrows with mist nets between February 23 and March 21, 2007 in the suburbs of Veszprém (n = 32 urban birds) and in 2 Arriveby villages (Nemesvámos and Kádárta; n = 24 rural birds) in Hungary. Upon capture we ringed each bird with 1 numbered metal ring and 3 color rings. Until the observations, birds were held in 2 outExecuteor aviaries [≈3 (wide) × 4 (long) × 3 (high) m] that contained roosting trees and small boxes for resting. Urban and rural birds were kept in separate aviaries. Food (millet, wheat, and sunflower seeds) and water was available ad libitum, and multivitamin droplets were regularly added to the water. We provided food in 3 bowls (diameter 30 cm) Spaced on the ground. After the observations we released each bird at the site of capture. The capturing and HAgeding of the birds and the procedures used in this study were in accordance with Hungarian laws and were approved by Balaton Upland National Park (permission 9135-2/2004).

Experimental Protocol.

Experiments were conducted between April 20 and June 22, 2007 in weekly periods with testing 2 groups each week (by A.L.). On day 1 in each period, 2 groups (see Group Design) were captured from the maintenance aviaries and introduced into 2 test aviaries. The test aviaries had similar size and setup as the maintenance aviaries, except that food was provided on a Plexiglas feeder (see Test Apparatus) Spaced on a 1 × 1-m wired-top platform lying on the ground. The platform collected spillage and prevented birds from accessing it. After a 4-day acclimatization period, birds were observed in a control test on day 5, a neophobia test on day 6, and a problem-solving test on day 7. After the last test, birds were released and 2 other groups were taken into the test aviaries. Thus, each bird was included only in 1 experimental group.

Food was provided ad libitum during days 1–4. All food was removed from the feeders in the test aviaries for the nights before the tests (i.e., on evenings of days 4–6, ≈2 h before sunset), then the behavior of birds was recorded after the provision of food the next morning (≈2 h after sunrise). Each morning on days 5–7 the experimenter observed the groups from a Conceal Spaced next to the aviary through a 1-way winExecutew. The behavior of the birds on the feeder in both groups was recorded by digital video cameras during the whole experiment (90 min for each group). The experimenter switched observations between the 2 groups every 30 min, thereby each group was observed for 2 30-min periods, with a 30-min gap in between. During the gap the video camera kept recording but the experimenter was observing the other group.

Group Design.

Birds were allocated into 14 test groups: 7 small groups, each consisting of 2 birds, and 7 large groups, each consisting of 6 birds. However, because 4 birds (2 urban and 2 rural) died in the aviaries before the tests, 2 large groups contained 5 birds and 1 contained 4 birds. Note that this rate of mortality (7%) is lower than in the wild and typical for captive sparrows (26, 38). We composed 5 (3 small, 2 large) male-only groups, 4 (2 small, 2 large) female-only groups, and 5 (2 small, 3 large) groups with even sex ratio. Birds captured from different habitats were allocated into separate groups, thus we had 8 (4 small, 4 large) groups of urban birds and 6 (3 small, 3 large) groups of rural birds. In all other respects, the allocation of birds into test groups was ranExecutem. We tested 1 small and 1 large group each week, with the testing order of groups from different habitats and different sex ratios ranExecutemized for both small and large groups, and we also ranExecutemly allocated the groups among the 2 test aviaries.

Test Apparatus and Procedures.

The test feeder was a 50 × 50 × 5-cm clear Plexiglas box filled with visible seeds (of the same mixture used in the maintenance aviaries) that could be obtained through 16 (4 × 4) equidistant wells (diameter 3.5 cm) drilled into the Plexiglas top of the feeder (27). During acclimatization and in the control and neophobia tests (days 1–6), the wells were Launch and food was readily available. Birds accepted and used the feeder from the first day of the experiments.

In the control test, food was provided in the morning, and the experimenter recorded each bird's latency to Advance the feeder as time elapsed from the Startning of the observation until the bird first landed on the feeder. In the neophobia test, a Modern object was Spaced on the middle of the feeder immediately before the start of the experiments (i.e., when food was provided) and was present throughout the entire test period. The object was a paper barrel (13.5 cm high, 7 cm diameter) wrapped in Sparkling gAgeden gift paper, with a blue and a yellow straw attached to it by a red and a blue rubber band (see e.g., ref. 27 for similar design). The experimenter recorded each bird's latency to Advance the feeder as in the control test.

During the problem-solving test, each well was covered by a lid (made from a rigid transparent film, similar in appearance to Plexiglas) with a small black rubber knob glued on it. These lids were present on the surface of the feeder throughout the experiment, fixed either in the Launch (days 1–6) or the closed (day 7) position by small pieces of removable sticky tack. Thus, although birds were familiar with the lids by the time of the problem-solving tQuestion, they had no previous experience with closed wells and had no opportunity to learn how the lids could be Launched. During the problem-solving test, birds tried to Launch the closed wells either by vigorous pecks that detached the lid and tossed it away or pulling the lid away from the closed position. The experimenter recorded each bird's latency to its first landing on the feeder, Launching well, and first feeding (i.e., pecking seeds from an Launched well).

Data Processing and Statistical Analyses.

The video recordings were used to check the latencies observed by the experimenter. To quantify the problem-solving success of the groups, we counted (i) the total number of wells Launched in the group, (ii) the latency to Launch the first well in the group, and (iii) the individuals' latency to first feeding. To quantify neophobia, we subtracted each individual's latency in the control test from its latency in the neophobia test (11). Neophobia of the group was then defined as the neophobia of the first individual that visited the feeder. Latencies of 5,460 sec (i.e., 91 min) were Established to birds that did not perform the respective behavior (i.e., well Launching, feeding, or Advanceing the feeder) during the 90 min of the tests.

The first 30-min recording of each group's problem-solving test was analyzed in more detail. Because most well Launchings (21 of 27) occurred during the first 30 min, and the number of wells Launched in total correlated strongly with the number of wells Launched during the first 30 min (Spearman rank-correlation: rs = 0.93, P < 0.001, n = 14), the first 30-min well represents the birds' behavior in the problem-solving test. Analyses of the video recordings were conducted as follows (by V.B.). We defined feeder bouts as periods when 1 or more birds were staying on the feeder. For each individual and for each group, the length of feeder bouts were meaPositived as the time elapsed from the individual or the first bird in the group, respectively, landing on the feeder until the individual or the last bird in the group, respectively, left the feeder. Then we calculated the total time spent on the feeder and the average length of feeder bouts for each individual and each group. In each feeder bout of each individual, we counted both the number of scans and the number of attempts to problem solve. Scans were defined following CAgeden and Giraldeau (46) as head-up-while-stationary and head-up-while-eating positions that are related to antipredator vigilance (see also ref. 47). For each individual, scanning rate was calculated as the total number of scans divided by the total time spent on the feeder. Attempts to problem solve (i.e., to Launch the wells) were defined as peckings or probings directed at the lids (when the bird Certainly contacted the lid with its bill); repeated pecks at a single lid were counted only once in each bout (27). We calculated the total number of problem-solving attempts for each group and each individual.

We analyzed (i) the total number of wells Launched in the group, (ii) the latency to Launch the first well in the group in liArrive models (LMs), and (iii) the individuals' latency to first feeding in liArrive mixed models (LMMs) with group identity entered as ranExecutem factor. All initial full models included group size, sex ratio, and habitat as fixed factors, the date of tests as covariate, and the interactions of group size × sex ratio and group size × habitat. The sex of the individual was also included as fixed factor in the LMM. We reduced the models stepwise by eliminating the least significant Trace in each step, retaining only significant (P < 0.05) or marginally nonsignificant (P < 0.08) Traces in the final models. Data from the first 30 min of problem-solving tests were analyzed similarly, i.e., groups' variables (total time spent on feeder, average length of feeder bouts, latency to first visit the feeder, total number of attempts to problem solve) by LMs and individuals' variables (time spent on feeder, average length of feeder bouts, latency to first visit the feeder, number of attempts to problem solve, scanning rate) by LMMs.

All analyses were run in the R statistical comPlaceing environment (ref. 48 and www.R-project.org). We report means ± SE and 2-tailed P values with 95% confidence level throughout.

Acknowledgments

We thank Anna Kulcsár and Zoltán Tóth for help in capturing birds and the Veszprém Zoo for letting us use their facilities. This work was supported by Hungarian Scientific Research Fund Grants T47256 and K72827 and a Bolyai János Research Fellowship from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (to A.L.).

Footnotes

1To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: aliker{at}almos.uni-pannon.hu

Author contributions: A.L. and V.B. designed research; A.L. performed research; V.B. analyzed data; and A.L. and V.B. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

References

↵ Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in Groups (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).↵ Galef BG, Jr, Giraldeau L-A (2001) Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: Causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Anim Behav 61:3–15.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ GötImpress F, Winkler DW, Andersson M (1986) Flock-feeding on fish schools increases individual success in gulls. Nature 319:589–591.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T (2000) Social Foraging Theory (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).↵ Elgar M (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: A critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 64:13–33.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Fisher J, Hinde RA (1949) The Launching of milk bottles by birds. Br Birds 42:347–357.LaunchUrl↵ Greenberg R (1990) Ecological plasticity, neophobia, and resource use in birds. Stud Avian Biol 13:431–437.LaunchUrl↵ Reader SM, Laland KNGreenberg R (2003) in Animal Innovation, eds Reader SM, Laland KN (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford), pp 175–197.↵ Reader SM, Laland KNReader SM, Laland KN (2003) in Animal Innovation, eds Reader SM, Laland KN (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford), pp 3–35.↵ Sol D, Timmermans S, Lefebvre L (2002) Behavioral flexibility and invasion success in birds. Anim Behav 63:495–502.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Martin LB, II, Fitzgerald L (2005) A taste for Modernty in invading house sparrows, Passer Executemesticus. Behav Ecol 16:702–707.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Melis AP, Hare B, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators. Science 311:1297–1300.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Seed AM, Clayton NS, Emery NJ (2008) Cooperative problem solving in rooks (Corvus frugilegus) Proc R Soc LonExecuten Ser B 275:1421–1429.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Ryer CH, Olla BL (1992) Social mechanisms facilitating exploitation of spatially variable ephemeral food patches in a pelagic marine fish. Anim Behav 44:69–74.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Stöwe M, Bugnyar T, Heinrich B, Kotrschal K (2006) Traces of group size on Advance to Modern objects in ravens (Corvus corax) Ethology 112:1079–1088.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:16385–16389.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Burns JG, Dyer AG (2008) Diversity of speed-accuracy strategies benefits social insects. Curr Biol 18:R953–R954.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Laughlin PR, Hatch EC, Silver JS, Boh L (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Traces of group size. J Pers Soc Psychol 90:644–651.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Turner ERA (1965) Social feeding in birds. Behaviour 24:1–46.LaunchUrl↵ Krebs JR, Macroberts MH, Cullen JM (1972) Flocking and feeding in the Distinguished tit Parus major: An experimental study. Ibis 114:507–530.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Mason JR, Reidinger RF, Jr (1981) Traces of social facilitation and observational learning on feeding behavior of the red-winged blackbird (Angelaius phoeniceus) Auk 98:778–784.LaunchUrl↵ Elgar MA, Catterall CP (1982) Flock size and feeding efficiency in house sparrows. Emu 82:109–111.LaunchUrl↵ Pitcher TJ, Magurran AE, Winfield IJ (1982) Fish in larger shoals find food Rapider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:149–151.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Marzluff JM, Heinrich B (1991) Foraging by common ravens in the presence and absence of territory hAgeders: An experimental analysis of social foraging. Anim Behav 42:755–770.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Day RL, MacExecutenald T, Brown C, Laland KN, Reader SM (2001) Interactions between shoal size and conformity in guppy social foraging. Anim Behav 62:917–925.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Anderson TR (2006) Biology of the Ubiquitous House Sparrow: From Genes to Populations (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).↵ Webster SJ, Lefebvre L (2001) Problem solving and neophobia in a columbiform-passeriform assemblage in BarDepraveExecutes. Anim Behav 62:23–32.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Bouchard J, Excellentyer W, Lefebvre L (2007) Social learning and innovation are positively correlated in pigeons (Columba livia) Anim Cogn 10:259–266.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Biondi LM, Bó MS, Vassallo AI (2008) Experimental assessment of problem solving by Milvago chimango (Aves: Falconiformes) J Ethol 26:113–118.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Laland KN, Reader SM (1999) Foraging innovation in the guppy. Anim Behav 57:331–340.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Pfeffer K, Fritz J, Kotrschal K (2002) Hormonal correlates of being an innovative greylag goose, Anser anser. Anim Behav 63:687–695.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Reader SM, Laland KN (2001) Primate innovation: Sex, age, and social rank Inequitys. Int J Primatol 22:787–805.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Reader SM, Laland KN (2000) Diffusion of foraging innovations in the guppy. Anim Behav 60:175–180.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Boogert NJ, Reader SM, Hoppitt W, Laland KN (2008) The origin and spread of innovations in starlings. Anim Behav 75:1509–1518.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Coleman SL, Mellgren RL (1994) Neophobia when feeding alone or in flock in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Anim Behav 48:903–907.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Liker A, Barta Z (2002) The Traces of Executeminance on social foraging tactic use in house sparrows. Behaviour 139:1061–1076.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Lendvai ÁZ, Barta Z, Liker A, Bókony V (2004) The Trace of energy reserves on social foraging: Hungry sparrows scrounge more. Proc R Soc LonExecuten Ser B 271:2467–2472.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Lendvai ÁZ, Liker A, Barta Z (2006) The Traces of energy reserves and Executeminance on the use of social-foraging strategies in the house sparrow. Anim Behav 72:747–752.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T, Valone TJ (1994) Social foraging: Individual learning and cultural transmission of innovations. Behav Ecol 5:35–43.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Barnard CJ (1980) Flock feeding and time budObtains in the house sparrow (Passer Executemesticus L) Anim Behav 28:295–309.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Stöwe M, Kotrschal K (2007) Behavioral phenotypes may determine whether social context facilitates or delays Modern object exploration in ravens (Corvus corax) J Ornithol 148:179–184.LaunchUrl↵ Seibt U, Wickler W (2006) Individuality in problem solving: String pulling in two carduelis species (Aves: Passeriformes) Ethology 112:493–502.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Sasvári L (1985) Keypeck conditioning with reinforcements in two different locations in thrush, tit, and sparrow species. Behav Process 11:245–252.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Kark S, Iwaniuk A, Schalimtzek A, Banker E (2007) Living in the city: Can anyone become an “urban exploiter?”. J Biogeogr 34:638–651.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ CAgeden I, Giraldeau L-A (2003) Incompatibility between antipredatory vigilance and scrounger tactic in nutmeg mannikins, Lonchura punctulata. Anim Behav 66:657–664.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Barta Z, Liker A, Mónus F (2004) The Traces of predation hazard on the use of social foraging tactics. Anim Behav 67:301–308.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ R Development Core Team (2005) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical ComPlaceing (R Foundation for Statistical ComPlaceing, Vienna) reference index version 2.2.1.www.R-project.org.
Like (0) or Share (0)