Posted on 09/29/2024 7:54:38 PM PDT by Red Badger
A new study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution lifts the veil on what happens when octopuses and fish hunt together. As it turns out, this cross-species relationship is more complex than anyone expected.
Animals of the same species often cooperate—work together to reach some kind of goal. But it's relatively rare to find cooperation between individuals from different species.
A classic example you'll be familiar with is the close relationship between dogs and humans, whether in the context of herding sheep or hunting. In these situations, the dog and the human work together to achieve a goal.
That's mammals. But underwater species also sometimes cooperate. A nice example is the joint hunting behavior of moray eels and grouper. The grouper approaches the moray and signals that it wishes to hunt. The eel responds in kind, and off they go.
During these hunting forays, the grouper uses signals to indicate where prey may be hidden in the coral matrix. It's a synergy made in heaven: the eel can scare the prey fish from hiding places among the coral, while the grouper patrols over the top. There is literally no place for prey to hide.
For the eels and grouper, the chances of catching their dinner are greatly improved when hunting together compared to hunting on their own.
Who's in charge here?
While researchers have described these behaviors before, one question remains unanswered. Who, exactly, is in charge of these cross-species interactions?
Who decides what they are going to do, where and when? Are the different players "democratic," in that they come to some form of compromise, or does one species take the lead and the other simply follows (that is, they are "despotic")?
In an international collaboration, biologist Eduardo Sampaio and colleagues have investigated cross-species interactions between the usually solitary day octopus (Octopus cyanea) and several fish species, such as goatfish and groupers.
The fish and the octopus share a common goal—to increase their hunting efficiency. The traditional view of octopus-fish hunting groups assumed that the octopus is the producer, and the fish simply follow along and opportunistically pick up the scraps.
With its long, flexible arms, the octopus explores all the nooks and crannies of the hunting ground, flushing out prey the fish can then take advantage of. In this scenario, the octopus would be solely in charge of decisions and the fish just follow (that is, it's an exploitative, despotic relationship).
However, when researchers took a closer look, it appeared perhaps this relationship is not as simplistic as previously believed. But without fine-scale analysis providing hard evidence, it is difficult to work out the precise details of how this cooperation works.
What did the new study find?
Using sophisticated behavioral analyses of 3D videos captured from 120 hours of diving, Sampaio and team found that each partner in the interaction plays a specific role. There was, in fact, no true leader—they are democratic.
The fish were responsible for exploring the environment and deciding where to move, while the octopus would decide if and when to move. Interestingly, controlled experiments showed the octopuses were guided by social information provided by the fishes.
When partnered with blue goatfish, the octopus foraging tactics where more focused and efficient. When partnered with blacktip groupers, they were less so. So, the nature of the hunting relationship varied depending on who's involved.
The researchers concluded that, overall, success rates for capturing prey were higher for the octopus when foraging with fishy partners.
The details revealed by this study suggest this relationship is far more sophisticated than other cross-species hunting associations examined to date.
Despite the huge evolutionary gap between these animals (the equivalent of about 550 million years), both fish and octopus show clear signs of social competence and advanced cognition.
More information:
Eduardo Sampaio et al, Multidimensional social influence drives leadership and composition-dependent success in octopus–fish hunting groups, Nature Ecology & Evolution (2024).
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-024-02525-2
Journal information: Nature Ecology & Evolution
Provided by The Conversation
Octopuses? Mmmmgnaaaah. That aint raght.
This only happened when I was early on the way to work and could drive at 30-40 MPH at 10PM to 2AM depending on when I had to commute.
We have had a blue heron follow us for over 10 miles when canoeing on the Connecticut River and loons swimming back and forth under our canoe on lakes and ponds in 3-4 foot deep water.
If you go early on the snowmobile trails you will often see more animal tracks than snowmobile tracks. It is their highway at night.
That's a mighty low bar. A cockroach is smarter than the typical Democrat voter
Killer whales used to team up with human whale hunters.
They would corral up a whale and the human hunters would spear it and haul it to a beach. The killer whales would run off any sharks that tried to sample the goods and upon success, the humans would cut off the whale’s tongue and give it to the Killer whales (it was their favorite part of a whale).
“Who decides what they are going to do, where and when? Are the different players “democratic,” in that they come to some form of compromise, or does one species take the lead and the other simply follows (that is, they are “despotic”)?”
What kind of bullshite political descriptions are these? Compromise is not a synonym of “democratic” and “despotic” is not a synonym of leading, following or shared agreement.
We are made up of cells with a nucleus. Every cell is intelligent. The brain is more of a data processing and storage facility. Our intelligence is really comprised of the collective intelligence of each cell.
Every single creature on our planet is made up of the same intelligent cells. In the octopus, for example, each tentacle of the octopus is individually intelligent (has a brain). An octopus can solve a very complex puzzle (like a maze for it to negotiate) very quickly.
There are flying insects that live in holes in the sand out in the desert. When they leave their hole, they push sand into the opening. They take off and fly for miles foraging for food. They can come back over miles of shifting sand which is indistinguishable and fly right to their nest and dig out the sand particles and enter. There is no way a human could accomplish the same.
As a matter of fact, most creatures are more intelligent in terms of survival abilities, and at a much younger age. than humans.
Every single life form on Earth is intelligent. Not just humans, not just animals, even plants are intelligent. And some plants are more than they seem. There are plants that live on the ocean floor. When they need to, they pull up their roots and swim off like a snake, to the extent of actually resembling a snake.
*
+1!
They had the most Intelligent Designer in the Universe............
Below is the abstract of this paper. Like many scientific papers it is full of painfully and needlessly overcomplicated sentences the authors think makes them sound intelligent and the paper scientifically significant. They’ve taken something simple like Groupers have learned that an octopus hunting in a coral reef will often flush out fishes the Grouper can then feed on, to a complex sociological interaction. It’s ridiculous.
Abstract
Collective behaviour, social interactions and leadership in animal groups are often driven by individual differences. However, most studies focus on same-species groups, in which individual variation is relatively low. Multispecies groups, however, entail interactions among highly divergent phenotypes, ranging from simple exploitative actions to complex coordinated networks. Here we studied hunting groups of otherwise-solitary Octopus cyanea and multiple fish species, to unravel hidden mechanisms of leadership and associated dynamics in functional nature and complexity, when divergence is maximized. Using three-dimensional field-based tracking and field experiments, we found that these groups exhibit complex functional dynamics and composition-dependent properties. Social influence is hierarchically distributed over multiscale dimensions representing role specializations: fish (particularly goatfish) drive environmental exploration, deciding where, while the octopus decides if, and when, the group moves. Thus, ‘classical leadership’ can be insufficient to describe complex heterogeneous systems, in which leadership instead can be driven by both stimulating and inhibiting movement. Furthermore, group composition altered individual investment and collective action, triggering partner control mechanisms (that is, punching) and benefits for the de facto leader, the octopus. This seemingly non-social invertebrate flexibly adapts to heterospecific actions, showing hallmarks of social competence and cognition. These findings expand our current understanding of what leadership is and what sociality is.
There’s nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth!
We’re finding more and more examples of plants communicating with each other and in broad communities as well.
They are called Democrat controlled cities.
;-)
Thus "poulpe" -- a French word for octopus.
Yuccan't live without me.
I was going to point it out if someone else didn’t.
No offense to you, RB, you just posted the article.
And these people call themselves “journalists”….
Probably more intelligent than much of Congress.
I learned something new today!👍
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.