Abstract:Local social interactions among individuals in animal groups generate collective behavior, allowing groups to adjust to changing conditions. Historically, scientists from different disciplines have taken different approaches to modeling collective behavior. We describe how each can contribute to the goal of understanding natural systems. Simple bottom-up models that describe individuals and their interactions directly have demonstrated that local interactions far from equilibrium can generate collective states. However, such simple models are not likely to describe accurately the actual mechanisms and interactions in play in any real biological system. Other classes of top-down models that describe group-level behavior directly have been proposed for groups where the function of the collective behavior is understood. Such models cannot necessarily explain why or how such functions emerge from first principles. Because modeling approaches have different strengths and weaknesses and no single approach will always be best, we argue that models of collective behavior that are aimed at understanding real biological systems should be formulated to address specific questions and to allow for validation. As examples, we discuss four forms of collective behavior that differ both in the interactions that produce the collective behavior and in ecological context, and thus require very different modeling frameworks. 1) Harvester ants use local interactions consisting of brief antennal contact, in which one ant assesses the cuticular hydrocarbon profile of another, to regulate foraging activity, which can be modeled as a closed-loop excitable system. 2) Arboreal turtle ants form trail networks in the canopy of the tropical forest, using trail pheromone; one ant detects the volatile chemical that another has recently deposited. The process that maintains and repairs the trail, which can be modeled as a distributed algorithm, is constrained by the physical configuration of the network of vegetation in which they travel. 3) Swarms of midges interact acoustically and non-locally, and can be well described as agents moving in an emergent potential well that is representative of the swarm as a whole rather than individuals. 4) Flocks of jackdaws change their effective interactions depending on ecological context, using topological distance when traveling but metric distance when mobbing. We discuss how different research questions about these systems have led to different modeling approaches.

Disruption of Collective Behavior Correlates with Reduced Interaction Efficiency

Physical Interactions Drive Collective Thermoregulatory Behavior in Honey Bees

Antibiotic Exposure Alters the Honeybee Gut Microbiota and May Interfere with the Honeybee Behavioral Caste Transition.

Behavioral flexibility promotes collective consistency in a social insect

The impact of honey bee (Apis mellifera) group size on hygienic behavior performance

Modeling disruption of Apis mellifera (honey bee) odorant‐binding protein function with high‐affinity binders

Honey bee colony behavior and ontogeny are adversely affected when exposed to a pesticide-contaminated environment

Antibiotic exposure perturbs the gut microbiota and elevates mortality in honeybees

Social interactions among ants are impacted by food availability and group size

Social Interaction is Unnecessary for Hindgut Microbiome Transmission in Honey Bees: The Effect of Diet and Social Exposure on Tissue-Specific Microbiome Assembly

The buzz within: the role of the gut microbiome in honeybee social behavior

Physiological state influences the social interactions of two honeybee nest mates

The organizational impact of chronic heat: diffuse brood comb and decreased carbohydrate stores in honey bee colonies

Social inhibition maintains adaptivity and consensus of foraging honeybee swarms in dynamic environments

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LEAF-CUTTER ANTS AND FUNGUS GARDEN: EFFECTS OF DIVISION OF LABOR, AGE POLYETHISM, AND EGG CANNIBALISM

Lactobacillus spp. attenuate antibiotic-induced immune and microbiota dysregulation in honey bees

The Pass-on Effect of Tetracycline-Induced Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Gut Community Dysbiosis

Goals and Limitations of Modeling Collective Behavior in Biological Systems

Shift in distribution of division of labour in chronically stressed honeybee colonies after perturbation

Is it me or is it you? Physiological effects of the honey bee microbiota may instead be due to host maturation

Socially driven negative feedback regulates activity and energy use in ant colonies