From 1994, when she was introduced splashily in the region’s most popular newspaper column as the paramour of one of the state’s most powerful politicians, to 2003, when she was elected district attorney, the Oakland- and Berkeley-bred Harris charted the beginnings of her ascent in the more fashionable crucible of San Francisco. Well before she was a United States senator, or the attorney general of California, Harris was already in with the in-crowd here. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.“Kamala Harris,” the caption read, “cruised through the reception.” In On the move: how and why animals travel in groups, (eds Boinski S, Garber PA), pp. Birds of many feathers: the formation and structure of mixed-species flocks of forest birds.

Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure.

Goodale E, Beauchamp G, Magrath RD, Nieh JC, Ruxton GD. Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Seppänen J-T, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Thomson RL. Ministry of Environment, Indonesia: Indonesian Institute of Sciences, International Society for Reef Studies Bali. In Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, vol. A review of multi-species foraging associations in fishes and their ecological significance. In this example, net social benefit provided by heterospecifics is represented by squares > conspecifics > heterospecifics represented by triangles. Circles represent conspecific individuals squares and triangles represent heterospecific individuals of two different species. net social benefit = relevance of partner – cost of competition). Using the functional forms in a and b (black lines), net social benefit at each point in the space was calculated additively (i.e. ( e) An example net social benefit map built using only two axes: relevance of partner and cost of competition. Based on these relationships, one can calculate the net social benefit provided at each point in a multi-dimensional trait dissimilarity space. In ( b), red line depicts a situation where competition occurs only with conspecifics, and therefore cost of competition drops to zero at the transition from conspecific to heterospecific partners (indicated by vertical dotted line). ( a)–( d) One set of example relationships for ( a) relevance of partner, ( b) cost of competition, ( c) quality of partner and ( d) cost of activity matching.

The shapes these relationships will take depend on the particular scenario in which sociality is required and the specific traits that underlie costs and benefits. Quality of partner can increase, decrease or change in a way unrelated to phenotypic distance. In general, we expect relevance of partner and cost of competition to decrease with phenotypic distance, and cost of activity matching to increase with phenotypic distance. We propose that social partner choice must be examined as a function of phenotypic distance along four axes that determine relevance of partner, quality of partner, cost of competition and cost of activity matching, respectively (see Glossary for definitions). We conclude that social partner choice is best-viewed as a continuum: some social benefits are obtainable only from conspecifics, some only from dissimilar heterospecifics, while many are potentially obtainable from conspecifics and heterospecifics.This article is part of the theme issue 'Collective movement ecology'.Ĭollective animal behaviour group living interspecific interaction mixed-species group social partner choice. Our framework of partner choice considers both direct grouping benefits and information benefits, allows heterospecific and conspecific partners to differ in degree and qualitatively, and uses a multi-dimensional trait space analysis of costs (competition and activity matching) and benefits (relevance of partner and quality of partner). Previous attempts, which are all in the context of social information, model partner choice as a trade-off between information benefit and competition cost, along a single phenotypic distance axis. Therefore, we propose a conceptual framework to understand conspecific versus heterospecific social partner choice. However, our literature survey shows that heterospecific sociality based on mechanisms similar to single-species sociality is reported from many taxa, contexts and for various benefits. This could be because heterospecific and single-species sociality are thought to be based on fundamentally different mechanisms.

Heterospecific sociality, although documented in numerous taxa and contexts, remains at the margins of sociality research and is rarely investigated in conjunction with single-species sociality. Our understanding of animal sociality is based almost entirely on single-species sociality.

Socialite sf