Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
76
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
76 results for “social foraging”
Ecology and conservation of socially learned foraging tactics in odontocetes
<h3>Overview</h3> <p>This package contains the data and R code to replicate the analyses and figures of the review article, "Ecology and conservation of socially learned foraging tactics in odontocetes", submitted to the special issue of Philosophical Transactions B, "Animal Culture: conservation in a changing world". </p> <p>Metadata for CSV files used for analyses are provided below, and detailed instructions on running code are available at: https://github.com/JoaoVallePereira/Toothed_Whales_Forag_Tactics. For full description of variables, see supplemental material associated with publication. </p> <div> <h3>Main data table - dataTable_Forag_Tactics.csv</h3> </div> <table> <tbody> <tr> <th>Variable</th> <th>Class</th> <th>Description</th> </tr> </tbody> <tbody> <tr> <td>common_name</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The common name of the species exhibiting the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>latin_name</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The Latin name of the species exhibiting the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>country</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The country that has jurisdiction over the region where the foraging tactic occurs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>region</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The region where the foraging tactic occurs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>animal_identity_data</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Whether identity information for the individual(s) exhibiting the foraging tactic is available</td> </tr> <tr> <td>number_of_animals</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The number of different individuals exhibiting the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>foraging_category</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The broad foraging category that the specific foraging tactic most closely aligns with</td> </tr> <tr> <td>foraging_tactic</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The specific foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>tactic_driver</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The key factor influencing or determining the observed foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>human_induced</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Whether the foraging tactic is human-induced or not</td> </tr> <tr> <td>prey_category</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The type of prey being targeted during the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>habitat</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The type of habitat in which the foraging tactic is exhibited</td> </tr> <tr> <td>prey_category</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The type of prey being targeted during the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>putative_specialised_foraging_tactic</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Foraging tactics having both individual identity information and evidence of being shared among conspecifics</td> </tr> <tr> <td>putative_cultural_foraging_tactic</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Foraging tactics with positive evidence of social learning</td> </tr> <tr> <td>transmission_direction</td> <td>Character</td> <td>How the foraging tactic is transmitted, given positive evidence of social learning</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nature_of_social_learning_evidence</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The type of evidence for social learning</td> </tr> <tr> <td>culture_acknowledgement</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The type of evidence for social learning</td> </tr> <tr> <td>evidence_for_discreteness_significance</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Evidence for differences in diet or foraging techniques that are stable</td> </tr> <tr> <td>threat_acknowledgement</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Whether the reviewed studies acknowledge anthropogenic threats</td> </tr> <tr> <td>threat_category</td> <td>Character</td> <td>For studies that acknowledge anthropogenic threats and impacts, the type of IUCN-CMP first-level threat classification</td> </tr> <tr> <td>threat_subcategory</td> <td>Character</td> <td>For studies that acknowledge anthropogenic threats and impacts, the type of IUCN-CMP second-level threat classification</td> </tr> <tr> <td>threat_direction</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Whether the acknowledged threats were considered a threat to or a consequence of the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>conservation_actions_acknowledgement</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Whether the reviewed studies acknowledge existing or proposed conservation actions related to the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>existing_conservation_actions_category</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Existing conservation actions related to the foraging tactic, the type of IUCN-CMP first-level action classification</td> </tr> <tr> <td>existing_conservation_actions_subcategory</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Existing conservation actions related to the foraging tactic, the type of IUCN-CMP second-level action classification</td> </tr> <tr> <td>proposed_conservation_actions_category</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Proposed conservation actions related to the foraging tactic, the type of IUCN-CMP first-level action classification</td> </tr> <tr> <td>proposed_conservation_actions_subcategory</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Proposed conservation actions related to the foraging tactic, the type of IUCN-CMP second-level action classification</td> </tr> <tr> <td>references</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Reviewed primary and secondary literature used to fill out metrics for the foraging tactic</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <div> <h3> </h3> <h3>Maps data table - dataTable_Forag_Tactics_map.csv</h3> </div> <table> <tbody> <tr> <th>Variable</th> <th>Class</th> <th>Description</th> </tr> </tbody> <tbody> <tr> <td>common_name</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The common name of the species exhibiting the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>latin_name</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The Latin name of the species exhibiting the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>orca_ecotype</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The orca ecotypes exhibiting the foraging tactic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>country</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The country that has jurisdiction over the region where the foraging tactic occurs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>region</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The region where the foraging tactic occurs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>latitude</td> <td>Numeric</td> <td>The latitude where the foraging tactic occurs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>longitude</td> <td>Numeric</td> <td>The longitude where the foraging tactic occurs</td> </tr> <tr> <td>putative_specialised_foraging_tactic</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Foraging tactics having both individual identity information and evidence of being shared among conspecifics</td> </tr> <tr> <td>foraging_category</td> <td>Character</td> <td>The broad foraging category that the specific foraging tactic most closely aligns with</td> </tr> <tr> <td>tactic_cat_fact</td> <td>Factor (10 levels)</td> <td>The broad foraging category that the specific foraging tactic most closely aligns with</td> </tr> <tr> <td>evidence_for_discreteness_significance</td> <td>Character</td> <td>Evidence for differences in diet or foraging techniques that are stable</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Social learning data in a foraging setting for Heliconius erato
<p><span>Insects may acquire social information by active communication and through inadvertent social cues. In a foraging setting, the latter may indicate the presence and quality of resources. Although social learning in foraging contexts is prevalent in eusocial species, this behaviour has been hypothesised to also exist between conspecifics in non-social species with sophisticated behaviours, including </span><span><em>Heliconius</em> </span><span>butterflies</span><span>. </span><span><em>Heliconius</em> </span><span>are the</span><span> only butterfly genus with active pollen feeding, a dietary innovation </span><span>associated with a specialised, spatially faithful foraging behaviour known as trap-lining. Long-standing hypotheses suggest that <em>Heliconius</em> may acquire trap-line information by following experienced individuals. Indeed, <em>Heliconius</em></span> <span>often aggregate in social roosts, which could act as 'information centres', and present conspecific following behaviour, enhancing opportunities for social learning. Here, we provide a direct test of social learning ability in <em>Heliconius</em> using an associative learning task in which naïve individuals completed a colour preference test in the presence of demonstrators trained to feed randomly or with a strong colour preference. We found no evidence that </span><span><em>Heliconius</em> <em>erato</em></span><span>, which roost socially, used social information in this task</span><span>. Combined with existing field studies our results add to data which contradict the hypothesised role of social learning in <em>Heliconius</em> foraging behaviour.</span></p>
Figure 2: Optimization in natural ants collective behavior: foraging and clustering (from [8])-Self-organization and social insects algorithms
<p>On figure 2, two examples of self-organization in natural ants are presented.<br> On the left side, the well-known Deneubourg experiment consists to highlight<br> with a very simple device the ant foraging problem. The ant objectives is<br> to find the optimal way from nest to food source, using pheromone trail deposition.<br> On the right side, cemetery clustering formation are shown at 4<br> successive times: ants form piles of corpses to clean their nests. Each of them<br> has elementary actions, unknowing the whole situation, but dealing only with<br> local information. There is no supervisor to lead the piles formation which<br> emerges from ant interactions.</p>
Fig. 2. Maximum likelihood tree for Crematogaster rothneyi and C. yaharai inferred from 12S in Fig. 7 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 2. Maximum likelihood tree for Crematogaster rothneyi and C. yaharai inferred from 12S rRNA sequences (12S, 387 bp). Numbers above nodes indicate the bootstrap values. Please note, only one sequence from each population was available.
Fig. 3 in Fig. 7 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 3. Crematogaster rothneyi. (A, B, C) non-type worker from Calcutta, India (HW 0.8; WL 0.9). (A) body in lateral view; (B) full-face view of head; (C) dorsal view of mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole. (D, E, F) non-type worker from Sulawesi, Indonesia (HW 0.74; WL 0.88). (D) body in lateral view; (E) full-face view of head; (F) dorsal view of mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole.
Fig. 1 in Fig. 7 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 1. Distribution map of the Crematogaster rothneyi group. Closed circle indicates C. rothneyi, closed triangle indicates C. rothneyi haputalensis, closed square indicates C. yaharai.
Fig. 5 in Fig. 7 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 5. Left antenna. (A) Crematogaster rothneyi; (B) Crematogaster yaharai. Arrow indicates antennal segments V and VI.
Fig. 4 in Fig. 7 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 4. Crematogaster yaharai, paratype worker from Cambodia (HW 0.72; WL 0.83). (A) body in lateral view; (B) full-face view of head; (C) dorsal view of mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole.
Fig. 7 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 7. Handling time (minutes) of both K unexposed (Ku, n = 3 groups) and K exposed (Ke, n = 3 groups) spider groups recorded during three different times (9 am, 1 pm and 5 pm) of the four experimental days.
Fig. 4 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 4. Web rebuilding ability (Size of the web (cm2 ± SEM) of the K unexposed (Kleptoparasite "K" is O. smaragdina) spider groups (Fasted (n = 3 groups) and Fed (n = 3 groups)) during the 4 experimental days. The regression lines, blue line (Fasted spider) has the Intercept a = 236.94, Slope b = 71.812 and Coefficient of Determination R² = 0.966 and the red line (Fed spider) has a = 78.925, b = 55.61 and R² = 0.955.
Fig. 3 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 3. Kleptoparasites of S. sarasinorum. (A) Argyrodes kumadai (Dewdrop spider). (B) Hyllus semicupreus (Heavy-bodied jumper). (C) Phintella vittata (Banded phintella). (D) Oxyopes javanus (Lynx spider). (E) Oecophylla smaragdina (Weaver ant). (F) Anoplolepis gracilipes (Yellow crazy ant). Photo courtesy of: Karunnappilli S. Nafin.
Fig. 6 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 6. Size of the web (cm2 ± SEM) built by fed and fasted (K unexposed ("- K exposure"): n = 3 groups) and K exposed ("+ K exposure"): n = 3 groups) spider groups.
Fig. 2 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 2. (A) An individual colony of S. sarasinorum. (B) Experimental set-up for the study. (C) Spiders (Host) in captivity- Ant (Kleptoparasite- O. smaragdina) exposed.
Fig. 5 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 5. Web rebuilding ability (Size of the web (cm2 ± SEM)) of the K exposed (Kleptoparasite "K" is O. smaragdina) spider groups (Fasted (n = 3 groups) and Fed (n = 3 groups)) during the 4 experimental days. The regression lines, blue line (Fasted spider) has the Intercept a = 64.13, Slope b = 73.361 and Coefficient of Determination R2 = 0.96 and the red line (Fed spider) has a = 41.5, b = 65.25 and R2 = 0.948.
Fig. 1 in Effect of Kleptoparasitic Ants on the Foraging Behavior of a Social Spider ( Karsch, 1891).
Fig. 1. Map of the study area – Social spider web colonies (Marked as red spot) on Christ College Irinjalakuda.
Data from: Changes in movement characteristics in response to private and social information acquisition of socially foraging fish
<p>To overcome the cost of competition resulting from foraging socially, individuals may balance their use of private (i.e. acquired from personal sampling) and social (i.e. acquired by watching other individuals) information to adjust their foraging strategy accordingly. Reliability of private information about environmental characteristics, such as the spatial distribution of prey, is thus likely to affect individual movement and social interactions. We aimed to investigate how movement characteristics of foraging individuals changed as they acquired reliable information about the spatial occurrence of prey in a foraging context. We allowed guppies (<em>Poecilia reticulata</em>) to develop the reliability of their private knowledge about prey spatial occurrence by repeatedly testing shoals in a foraging task under three experimental distributions of prey: 1) aggregated prey forming three patches located in fixed locations, 2) scattered distribution of prey with random locations, or 3) no prey (used as control). Using individual time series of spatial coordinates, we computed a suite of movement variables reflecting search effort, social proximity and locomotion characteristics during foraging, to examine changes occurring over repeated trials. Over time, individuals foraging on either scattered or aggregated prey travelled greater distances, showed an increasing distance to their closest neighbour and became more stochastic in their acceleration profile, compared to control individuals. We found that behaviour changed as private information increased over time, with a behavioural shift and an increase of collective foraging efficiency occurring on the third testing day. Social proximity was the major predictor of foraging success in the absence of prior foraging information, while search effort became the most important predictors of foraging success as information increased. In conclusion, we show that individual movement patterns changed as they acquired private information. Contrary to our predictions, the spatial distribution of prey did not affect any of the movement variables of interest.</p>
Data from: Ecological tradeoffs drive a power-law relationship between group size and population density in social foragers
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Social learning data in a foraging setting for Heliconius erato
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Changes in movement characteristics in response to private and social information acquisition of socially foraging fish
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Multi-species sensory networks and social foraging strategies: Implications for population decline in procellariiform seabirds
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.