The evolution of democratic peace in animal societies.

A major goal in evolutionary biology is to elucidate common principles that drive human and other animal societies to adopt either a warlike or peaceful nature. One proposed explanation for the variation in aggression between human societies is the democratic peace hypothesis. According to this theory, autocracies are more warlike than democracies because autocratic leaders can pursue fights for private gain. However, autocratic and democratic decision-making processes are not unique to humans and are widely observed across a diverse range of non-human animal societies. We use evolutionary game theory to evaluate whether the logic of democratic peace may apply across taxa; specifically adapting the classic Hawk-Dove model to consider conflict decisions made by groups rather than individuals. We find support for the democratic peace hypothesis without mechanisms involving complex human institutions and discuss how these findings might be relevant to non-human animal societies. We suggest that the degree to which collective decisions are shared may explain variation in the intensity of intergroup conflict in nature.

Leaders of war: modelling the evolution of conflict among heterogeneous groups.

War, in human and animal societies, can be extremely costly but can also offer significant benefits to the victorious group. We might expect groups to go into battle when the potential benefits of victory (V) outweigh the costs of escalated conflict (C); however, V and C are unlikely to be distributed evenly in heterogeneous groups. For example, some leaders who make the decision to go to war may monopolize the benefits at little cost to themselves ('exploitative' leaders). By contrast, other leaders may willingly pay increased costs, above and beyond their share of V ('heroic' leaders). We investigated conflict initiation and conflict participation in an ecological model where single-leader-multiple-follower groups came into conflict over natural resources. We found that small group size, low migration rate and frequent interaction between groups increased intergroup competition and the evolution of 'exploitative' leadership, while converse patterns favoured increased intragroup competition and the emergence of 'heroic' leaders. We also found evidence of an alternative leader/follower 'shared effort' outcome. Parameters that favoured high contributing 'heroic' leaders, and low contributing followers, facilitated transitions to more peaceful outcomes. We outline and discuss the key testable predictions of our model for empiricists studying intergroup conflict in humans and animals. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Consensus of travel direction is achieved by simple copying, not voting, in free-ranging goats.

For group-living animals to remain cohesive they must agree on where to travel. Theoretical models predict shared group decisions should be favoured, and a number of empirical examples support this. However, the behavioural mechanisms that underpin shared decision-making are not fully understood. Groups may achieve consensus of direction by active communication of individual preferences (i.e. voting), or by responding to each other's orientation and movement (i.e. copying). For example, African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) are reported to use body orientation to vote and indicate their preferred direction to achieve a consensus on travel direction, while golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas) achieve consensus of direction by responding to the movement cues of their neighbours. Here, we present a conceptual model (supported by agent-based simulations) that allows us to distinguish patterns of motion that represent voting or copying. We test our model predictions using high-resolution GPS and magnetometer data collected from a herd of free-ranging goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) in the Namib Desert, Namibia. We find that decisions concerning travel direction were more consistent with individuals copying one another's motion and find no evidence to support the use of voting with body orientation. Our findings highlight the role of simple behavioural rules for collective decision-making by animal groups.