Abstract: The selfish herd hypothesis predicts that aggregations form because individuals move toward one another to minimize their own predation risk. The “dilemma of the selfish herd” is that movement rules that are easy for individuals to follow, fail to produce true aggregations, while rules that produce aggregations require individual behavior so complex that one may doubt most animals can follow them. If natural selection at the individual level is responsible for herding behavior, a solution to the dilemma must exist. Using computer simulations, we examined four different movement rules. Relative predation risk was different for all four movement rules (p<0.05). We defined three criteria for measuring the quality of a movement rule. A good movement rule should (a) be statistically likely to benefit an individual that follows it, (b) be something we can imagine most animals are capable of following, and (c) result in a centrally compact flock. The local crowded horizon rule, which allowed individuals to take the positions of many flock-mates into account, but decreased the influence of flock-mates with distance, best satisfied these criteria. The local crowded horizon rule was very sensitive to the animal's perceptive ability. Therefore, the animal's ability to detect its neighbors is an important factor in the dynamics of group formation.

Abstract: Prey species show specific adaptations that allow recognition, avoidance and defense against predators. For many mammalian species this includes sensitivity towards predator-derived odors. The typical sources of such odors include predator skin and fur, urine, feces and anal gland secretions. Avoidance of predator odors has been observed in many mammalian prey species including rats, mice, voles, deer, rabbits, gophers, hedgehogs, possums and sheep. Field and laboratory studies show that predator odors have distinctive behavioral effects which include (1) inhibition of activity, (2) suppression of non-defensive behaviors such as foraging, feeding and grooming, and (3) shifts to habitats or secure locations where such odors are not present. The repellent effect of predator odors in the field may sometimes be of practical use in the protection of crops and natural resources, although not all attempts at this have been successful. The failure of some studies to obtain repellent effects with predator odors may relate to (1) mismatches between the predator odors and prey species employed, (2) strain and individual differences in sensitivity to predator odors, and (3) the use of predator odors that have low efficacy. In this regard, a small number of recent studies have suggested that skin and fur-derived predator odors may have a more profound lasting effect on prey species than those derived from urine or feces. Predator odors can have powerful effects on the endocrine system including a suppression of testosterone and increased levels of stress hormones such as corticosterone and ACTH. Inhibitory effects of predator odors on reproductive behavior have been demonstrated, and these are particularly prevalent in female rodent species. Pregnant female rodents exposed to predator odors may give birth to smaller litters while exposure to predator odors during early life can hinder normal development. Recent research is starting to uncover the neural circuitry activated by predator odors, leading to hypotheses about how such activation leads to observable effects on reproduction, foraging and feeding. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: According to the selfish herd hypothesis, animals can decrease predation risk by moving toward one another if the predator can appear anywhere and will attack the nearest target. Previous studies have shown that aggregations can form using simple movement rules designed to decrease each animal's Domain of Danger. However, if the predator attacks from outside the group's perimeter, these simple movement rules might not lead to aggregation. To test whether simple selfish movement rules would decrease predation risk for those situations when the predator attacks from outside the flock perimeter, we constructed a computer model that allowed flocks of 75 simulated fiddler crabs to react to one another, and to a predator attacking from 7 m away. We attacked simulated crab flocks with predators of different sizes and attack speeds, and computed relative predation risk after 120 time steps. Final trajectories showed flight toward the center of the flock, but curving away from the predator. Path curvature depended on the predator's size and approach speed. The average crab experienced a greater decrease in predation risk when the predator was small or slow moving. Regardless of the predator's size and speed, however, predation risk always decreased as long as crabs took their flock-mates into account. We conclude that, even when flight away from an external predator occurs, the selfish avoidance of danger can lead to aggregation.

Abstract: Summary The introduction of game-theoretical thinking into evolutionary biology has laid the groundwork for a heuristic view of animal behaviour in which individuals employ “strategies” – rules that instruct them how to behave in a given circumstance to maximize relative fitness. Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) found that a strategy called Tit-For-Tat (TFT) is one robust cooperative solution to the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game. There exists, however, little empirical evidence that animals employ TFT. Predator inspection in fish provides one ecological context in which to examine the use of the TFT strategy.

Abstract: Numerous previous investigators have explained species differences in spatial memory performance in terms of differences in foraging ecology. In three experiments we attempted to extend these findings by examining the extent to which the spatial memory performance of echidnas (or “spiny anteaters”) can be understood in terms of the spatio-temporal distribution of their prey (ants and termites). This is a species and a foraging situation that have not been examined in this way before. Echidnas were better able to learn to avoid a previously rewarding location (to “win-shift”) than to learn to return to a previously rewarding location (to “win-stay”), at short retention intervals, but were unable to learn either of these strategies at retention intervals of 90 min. The short retention interval results support the ecological hypothesis, but the long retention interval results do not.