John Badgerow, in his article An analysis of function in the formation flight of Canada geese, experimentally validates two proposed ideas explaining collective movement among geese. The first hypothesis, energy conservation in flight, originates from aerodynamic formations of other species and states that group flight is more efficient than solitary flight in terms of expended energy. The second proposition, orientation communication between individuals, predicts that formations arise from the most beneficial positioning of individuals to maintain visual contact with others. The potential for these ideas to describe the synchrony of other species, especially since all organisms want to conserve energy and retain the ability to communicate with others, affirms the importance of testing these hypotheses. The experiment involved capturing images of 50 geese formations and analyzing the inter-bird distance and the wing tip spacing (angle between birds).
…show more content…
The results showed evidence supporting both hypotheses, where 27 formations supported the energetic model, 8 for the orientation model, 8 for both possibilities, and 7 for neither. In spite of the environmental conditions that affected the readings such as turbulence and wind velocity/direction, the data showed that there was little variance in positioning between individuals, which suggests that the geese attempted to maneuver into a certain position, most likely to benefit from group flight. In addition, the birds conserved approximately 10% compared to flight when alone, which John claims may convert into a longer flight distance or increased stamina. With respect to orientation, the constraints made it difficult to analyze but the geese changed formation primarily near predators, although the evidence was already present in other species. These two hypotheses suggest that geese fly in a formation as it is beneficial, both in terms of communication and in terms of energy conservation. As a result, the rationale and mechanism behind synchronous movement in animals is closer to being validated. A dominant factor influencing collective movement in a group is the ability to make decisions. In most species, two mechanisms that control such behaviors are the presence of leadership and self-organization. As an example, Petit’s article on mutual decision-making identifies two simultaneously-occurring mechanisms that influence the collective movement of capuchin monkeys: whether the group members jointly mimic the actions of the initiator and the likelihood of the leader giving up in response to a lack of followers. The confirmation that both of these hypotheses instigate such behaviors may justify similar actions in other species, which would explain many of the synchronous movements that some organisms exhibit. In order to test these mechanisms, scientists observed 10 capuchin monkeys of three different lineages for initiation and imitation behaviors in an enclosed park, determined by an individual’s movement away from the stationary group and the time elapsed. After analyzing the results, Petit found that the rate of successful initiations, which was around 37% per initiation event, between the group controlled the collective movements of these monkeys. Furthermore, these movements synchronize by a random internal response because of the lack of time spent moving by the group compared to its social activities. Specifically, in the case of the capuchins it is the propensity to either follow the initiator or have the leader abort the movement, all dependent on the number of individuals who follow the initiator, that controls whether a response occurs. As a result, these two
The results showed evidence supporting both hypotheses, where 27 formations supported the energetic model, 8 for the orientation model, 8 for both possibilities, and 7 for neither. In spite of the environmental conditions that affected the readings such as turbulence and wind velocity/direction, the data showed that there was little variance in positioning between individuals, which suggests that the geese attempted to maneuver into a certain position, most likely to benefit from group flight. In addition, the birds conserved approximately 10% compared to flight when alone, which John claims may convert into a longer flight distance or increased stamina. With respect to orientation, the constraints made it difficult to analyze but the geese changed formation primarily near predators, although the evidence was already present in other species. These two hypotheses suggest that geese fly in a formation as it is beneficial, both in terms of communication and in terms of energy conservation. As a result, the rationale and mechanism behind synchronous movement in animals is closer to being validated. A dominant factor influencing collective movement in a group is the ability to make decisions. In most species, two mechanisms that control such behaviors are the presence of leadership and self-organization. As an example, Petit’s article on mutual decision-making identifies two simultaneously-occurring mechanisms that influence the collective movement of capuchin monkeys: whether the group members jointly mimic the actions of the initiator and the likelihood of the leader giving up in response to a lack of followers. The confirmation that both of these hypotheses instigate such behaviors may justify similar actions in other species, which would explain many of the synchronous movements that some organisms exhibit. In order to test these mechanisms, scientists observed 10 capuchin monkeys of three different lineages for initiation and imitation behaviors in an enclosed park, determined by an individual’s movement away from the stationary group and the time elapsed. After analyzing the results, Petit found that the rate of successful initiations, which was around 37% per initiation event, between the group controlled the collective movements of these monkeys. Furthermore, these movements synchronize by a random internal response because of the lack of time spent moving by the group compared to its social activities. Specifically, in the case of the capuchins it is the propensity to either follow the initiator or have the leader abort the movement, all dependent on the number of individuals who follow the initiator, that controls whether a response occurs. As a result, these two