- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Social hierarchy shapes foraging decisions

Lisa Blum Moyse* and Ahmed El Hady†

  • *Contact author: lisa.blum-moyse@ens-lyon.fr
  • †Present address: Department of Collective Behavior, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Konstanz, Germany.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, L012030 – Published 2 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/5vfb-jg8f

Abstract

Social foraging is a widespread form of animal foraging in which groups of individuals coordinate their decisions to exploit resources in the environment. Animals show a variety of social structures from egalitarian to hierarchical. In this study, we examine how different forms of social hierarchy shape foraging decisions. We developed a mechanistic analytically tractable model to study the underlying processes of social foraging, tying the microscopic individual to the macroscopic group levels. Based on a stochastic evidence accumulation framework, we developed a model of patch-leaving decisions in a large hierarchical group with leading and following individuals. Across a variety of information-sharing mechanisms, we were able to analytically quantify emergent collective dynamics. We found that follower-leader dynamics through observations of leader movements or through counting the number of individuals in a patch confers, for most conditions, a benefit for the following individuals by increasing their accuracy in inferring patch richness. On the other hand, misinformation, through the communication of false beliefs about food rewards or patch quality, shows to be detrimental to following individuals, but paradoxically leads to increased group cohesion. In an era where there is a huge amount of animal foraging data collected, our model provides a systematic way to conceptualize and understand those data by uncovering hidden mechanisms underlying social foraging decisions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (29)

  1. D. W. Stephens, J. S. Brown, and R. C. Ydenberg, Foraging: Behavior and Ecology (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2008).
  2. C. Detrain and J.-L. Deneubourg, Collective decision-making and foraging patterns in ants and honeybees, in Advances in Insect Physiology (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008), Vol. 35, pp. 123–173.
  3. M. C. Baker, C. S. Belcher, L. C. Deutsch, G. L. Sherman, and D. B. Thompson, Foraging success in junco flocks and the effects of social hierarchy, Anim. Behav. 29, 137 (1981).
  4. W. Lee, E. Yang, and J. P. Curley, Foraging dynamics are associated with social status and context in mouse social hierarchies, Zool. Sci. 6, e5617 (2018).
  5. A. Strandburg-Peshkin, D. R. Farine, I. D. Couzin, and M. C. Crofoot, Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons, Science 348, 1358 (2015).
  6. E. A. Tibbetts, J. Pardo-Sanchez, and C. Weise, The establishment and maintenance of dominance hierarchies, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 377, 20200450 (2022).
  7. S. D. Fretwell and H. L. Lucas, On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds: I. Theoretical development, Acta Biotheor. 19, 16 (1969).
  8. B. Livoreil and L.-A. Giraldeau, Patch departure decisions by spice finches foraging singly or in groups, Anim. Behav. 54, 967 (1997).
  9. E. Wajnberg, T. S. Hoffmeister, and P. Coquillard, Optimal within-patch movement strategies for optimising patch residence time: An agent-based modelling approach, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67, 2053 (2013).
  10. A. Falcón-Cortés, D. Boyer, and G. Ramos-Fernández, Collective learning from individual experiences and information transfer during group foraging, J. R. Soc. Interface 16, 20180803 (2019).
  11. R. C. Löffler, E. Panizon, and C. Bechinger, Collective foraging of active particles trained by reinforcement learning, Sci. Rep. 13, 17055 (2023).
  12. L.-A. Giraldeau and T. Caraco, Social Foraging Theory (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000).
  13. R. Cressman, V. Křivan, J. S. Brown, and J. Garay, Game-theoretic methods for functional response and optimal foraging behavior, PLoS One 9, e88773 (2014).
  14. A. Perez-Escudero and G. De Polavieja, Collective animal behavior from Bayesian estimation and probability matching, Nat. Prec. 1 (2011).
  15. J. D. Davidson and A. El Hady, Foraging as an evidence accumulation process, PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1007060 (2019).
  16. Z. P. Kilpatrick, J. D. Davidson, and A. El Hady, Uncertainty drives deviations in normative foraging decision strategies, J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210337 (2021).
  17. S. Bidari, A. El Hady, J. D. Davidson, and Z. P. Kilpatrick, Stochastic dynamics of social patch foraging decisions, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033128 (2022).
  18. L. Blum Moyse and A. El Hady, Social patch foraging theory in an egalitarian group, PRX Life 3, 033007 (2025).
  19. Deception, Perspectives on Human and Nonhuman Deceit, edited by R. W. Mitchell and N. S. Thompson, SUNY Series in Animal Behavior (State University of New York Press, Albany, 1986).
  20. lblummoy, Lblummoy/Social-hierarchy-shapes-foraging-decisions, https://github.com/lblummoy/Social-hierarchy-shapes-foraging-decisions.
  21. D. Cox and H. Miller, The Theory of Stochastic Processes (Chapman & Hall, New York, 1965).
  22. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/5vfb-jg8f for supplementary figure showing the effect of the leader group size and normalization by the number of leading individuals in a patch.
  23. C. W. Gardiner, Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry, and the Natural Sciences, Springer Series in Synergetics, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985).
  24. W. Siegfried and L. Underhill, Flocking as an anti-predator strategy in doves, Anim. Behav. 23, 504 (1975).
  25. G. Powell, Experimental analysis of the social value of flocking by starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in relation to predation and foraging, Anim. Behav. 22, 501 (1974).
  26. E. L. Charnov, Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem, Theor. Popul. Biol. 9, 129 (1976).
  27. N. Franks, T. Richardson, N. Stroeymeyt, R. Kirby, W. Amos, P. Hogan, J. Marshall, and T. Schlegel, Speed–cohesion trade-offs in collective decision making in ants and the concept of precision in animal behaviour, Anim. Behav. 85, 1233 (2013).
  28. N. Stroeymeyt, M. Giurfa, and N. R. Franks, Improving decision speed, accuracy and group cohesion through early information gathering in house-hunting ants, PLoS One 5, e13059 (2010).
  29. M. Stoyanov, M. Gunzburger, and J. Burkardt, Pink noise, 1/fα noise, and their effect on solutions of differential equations, Int. J. Uncertainty Quantif. 1, 257 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, L012030– Published 2 February, 2026
  • Received 24 March 2025
  • Accepted 21 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation