Negative feedback may suppress variation to improve collective foraging performance.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101238922 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1553-7358 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 1553734X NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS Comput Biol Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science, [2005]-

Ants*/physiology ; Feeding Behavior*/physiology; Animals ; Bees ; Crowding ; Feedback ; Pheromones/physiology

Social insect colonies use negative as well as positive feedback signals to regulate foraging behaviour. In ants and bees individual foragers have been observed to use negative pheromones or mechano-auditory signals to indicate that forage sources are not ideal, for example being unrewarded, crowded, or dangerous. Here we propose an additional function for negative feedback signals during foraging, variance reduction. We show that while on average populations will converge to desired distributions over forage patches both with and without negative feedback signals, in small populations negative feedback reduces variation around the target distribution compared to the use of positive feedback alone. Our results are independent of the nature of the target distribution, providing it can be achieved by foragers collecting only local information. Since robustness is a key aim for biological systems, and deviation from target foraging distributions may be costly, we argue that this could be a further important and hitherto overlooked reason that negative feedback signals are used by foraging social insects.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Phys Rev E. 2017 May;95(5-1):052411. (PMID: 28618584)
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44501. (PMID: 22984518)
J R Soc Interface. 2013 Jan 30;10(81):20121009. (PMID: 23365196)
Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Aug 22;272(1573):1689-95. (PMID: 16087424)
J R Soc Interface. 2021 Nov;18(184):20210570. (PMID: 34753311)
Curr Biol. 2010 Feb 23;20(4):310-5. (PMID: 20153197)
Nature. 2005 Nov 24;438(7067):442. (PMID: 16306981)
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 02;8(9):e73216. (PMID: 24023835)
Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2016;70(11):1813-1820. (PMID: 27784955)
Phys Rev Lett. 2014 Jan 24;112(3):038101. (PMID: 24484166)
Trends Ecol Evol. 2020 Aug;35(8):691-703. (PMID: 32668214)
J Theor Biol. 1998 Nov 21;195(2):157-66. (PMID: 9822561)
Nature. 2010 Sep 9;467(7312):174-8. (PMID: 20829788)
Curr Biol. 2009 May 12;19(9):740-4. (PMID: 19345104)
J Anim Ecol. 2014 Jan;83(1):30-40. (PMID: 23730810)
Behav Processes. 1993 Feb;28(3):189-98. (PMID: 24897604)
Nature. 2013 Jun 6;498(7452):91-3. (PMID: 23676676)
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Dec 11;6(12):191681. (PMID: 31903216)
Theor Popul Biol. 2008 Aug;74(1):22-33. (PMID: 18550139)
Biophys J. 2018 Jun 19;114(12):3000-3011. (PMID: 29925035)
Science. 1974 Dec 13;186(4168):1046-7. (PMID: 4469698)
J R Soc Interface. 2020 Feb;17(163):20190661. (PMID: 32093538)
Science. 1975 Jun 13;188(4193):1124-5. (PMID: 1215991)
Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012 Apr;66(4):583-592. (PMID: 26213439)
Science. 2012 Jan 6;335(6064):108-11. (PMID: 22157081)
PLoS Biol. 2016 Mar 25;14(3):e1002423. (PMID: 27014876)
Trends Ecol Evol. 2014 Mar;29(3):177-84. (PMID: 24560544)
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 30;14(9):e0222906. (PMID: 31568526)
Curr Biol. 2010 Aug 24;20(16):R683-5. (PMID: 20728057)
Cell. 2012 Apr 13;149(2):322-33. (PMID: 22500799)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Dec 18;10(12):e1003960. (PMID: 25521109)
J Theor Biol. 2008 Nov 21;255(2):250-8. (PMID: 18778716)

0 (Pheromones)

Date Created: 20220518 Date Completed: 20220602 Latest Revision: 20220716

20231215

PMC9154117

10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010090

35584189