Communication Inspired by Nature Lab

5-11-2012

VIRTUAL DESIGN COMMUNICATION INSPIRED BY NATURE LAB

Biomimicry Specialist Program 2012 Andrea Monge Rodriguez Virtual Design Lab: Discovering Natural Models

FUNCTION:

How does nature attract?

How does nature transfer information?

NATURAL COMMUNICATION TAXONOMY

Species Level System Level

Anglerfish (p2) Frog choruses Attracting prey/ Flamingo (p3) (p4) mating partner Fireflies (p5)

Attracting/ Cleaner shrimp Flowering plants Communicating in (p6) (p8) symbiotic Plants (p7) Bromeliads (p11) relationships

Complex Adaptive Systems

Swarm Theory (p13) o Swarming: flock, schools and herds (p13) o Swarm Intelligence: ant and bee colonies (p14) Ecosystem Theory (p21) o Ecological Specialization o Resilience vs Efficiency o

STRATEGIES:

1. Attracting prey/mating partner

Anglerfish lures prey

Scale: Species

Organism: Anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius)

Strategy: The anglerfish is a carnivorous fish that lives in sandy and muddy bottoms of the deep ocean, up to a mile below the surface, where light is scarce. It is an ambush predator that lies half buried on the sediment and uses a luminous lure to attract prey within the reach of its jaws. The light is generated by millions of bioluminescent bacteria that live permanently inside the lure.

Abstracted principle: Lure individuals by presenting a desired item, while hiding the costs.

References:

“Light lures” excerpt from the BBC documentary series: The Blue Planet – The Deep Ask Nature: Lure attracts prey: anglerfish National Geographic Animals: The anglerfish Fish Base: The Angler

Communicating health: flamingoes

Scale: Species

Organism: Flamingo (Phoenicopterus)

Strategy: Adult flamingoes range from light pink to bright red and the color is directly correlated to how much shrimp they are eating. A well-fed flamingo is more vibrantly colored and thus more desirable to a potential mate.

Abstracted principle: A simple and effective way to advertise the desirability of an item could be to color code it in function of how well it performs on a chosen parameter.

References:

Walker, A. 2010. Biomimicry Challenge: IDEO Taps Octopi and Flamingos to Reorganize the USGBC. Fast Company. Published online May 11 2010.

Frog choruses advertise for females

Scale: System

Organism: Frog and toad species

Strategy: In many frogs and toads, males aggregate in large choruses to advertise for females. The signals they use are conspicuous and long range; therefore, choruses constitute a classic example of a communication network. The challenge of communicating in such large choruses is to balance the costs and benefits of attracting a mate, repelling rivals and avoiding predators and/or parasites.

The techniques used to overcome this challenge are:

 Increase call repetition rate

 Increase complexity of calls

 Defend calling sites/acoustic space

 Alternate or synchronize their calls with neighboring males (subset of 3 or 4 males)

 Use other communication channels (e.g. vibration)

Abstracted principle: There are a number of techniques that can prevent a signal being drowned between a large number of similar signals.

Increase signal repetition rate Increase the complexity of the signal Defend a calling space Collaborate with others to alternate/synchronize signals Use other communication channels

References:

McGregor, P. 2005. Animal Communication Networks. Cambridge University Press. Cambride, UK

Firefly choruses attract mates

Scale: System

Organism: Firefly (Pteroptyx)

Strategy: Fireflies are a group of winged beetles which use bioluminescence to attract mates. The light is produced by a chemical reaction in organs called lanterns, located in the lower abdomen of the insect. During the courtship process, firefly use flashes of light, steady glows and chemical signals to communicate with potential mates.

Tropical male fireflies, in particular, in Southeast Asia, routinely congregate in mangrove trees, in the river banks, and synchronize their flashes among large groups. This phenomenon is explained as phase synchronization and spontaneous order.

Abstracted principle: By forming congregations and synchronizing signals, individuals greatly improve the chances that their message will be received by their target.

References:

Encyclopedia of Life: Lampyridae, Lightning bug Lewis, S.M., Cratsley, C.K. 2008. Flash Signal Evolution, Mate Choice, and Predation in Fireflies. Annual Review of Entomology, 53: 293-321 TED: Steven Strogatz: Sync

2. Establishing & maintaining symbiotic relationships

Avoiding predation by providing a service: Cleaner shrimp

Stenopus hispidus © Nick Hobgood (Wikipedia) (license: CC by 2.0)

Scale: Species

Organism: Rebanded Coral Shrimp (Stenopus hispidus)

Strategy: Redbanded coral shrimp are found in reef habitats in tropical waters. Stenopus hispidus is a “cleaning shrimp.” Individuals remove and consume parasites, injured tissue and rejected food particles from some coral reef

6 organisms. S. hispidus perches near the opening of the cave or ledge in which they are living and attract fish by their posture, color patterns and their waving antennae. These locations sometimes become known as cleaning stations. Individuals have the freedom to enter the mouth and gill cavities of host organisms, without being eaten, but usually remain in contact with the substrate when cleaning. Species that S. hispidus has been known to clean include morays, tangs, grunts and groupers.

Abstracted principle: Individuals that provide a service are conspicuous in order to advertise their presence and differentiate themselves signaling they are there to provide a useful service.

References:

Encyclopedia of Life: Redbanded Coral Shrimp (Stenopus hispidus) Animal Diversity Web (University of Michigan): Stenopus hispidus

Leaves communicate pest damage

Toxin production by leaves (image from BBC documentary “How to grow a planet”)

Scale: Species

Organism: Plants

Strategy: It was recently discovered that plants can communicate through chemical signals. When a plant is attacked by an herbivore, they start producing toxins to deter the predator, but they are also able to warn other plants of the attack. They do this by releasing a chemical signal in the form of a gas from the leaves. This gas triggers biological activity in neighboring plants which start producing toxins to protect themselves

Abstracted principle: Establishing communication networks to communicate a threat as soon as it is perceived can help collaborators quickly prepare and respond in a more efficient way than without warning.

References:

How to Grow a Planet: Life From Light. BBC Documentary 2012 (minutes 50:20-53:10)

Collaboration gives flowering plants the competitive edge to take-over a giant- dominated planet

Scale: System/Evolution

Organism: Flowering plants

Strategy: Around 400 million years ago, the first plants left the ocean behind and colonized the land, changing weather patterns, the composition of the atmosphere and contributing to the creation of nutrient rich soils. In this evolving and increasingly fertile landscape, animals which had been confined for millions of years to the rivers and oceans could finally emerge to the land.

Around 230 million years ago, this lead to the evolution of dinosaurs, two thirds of which were herbivores. For 200 million years, the dinosaurs and plants were locked into an evolutionary race. Ferns evolved chemical and mechanical defenses to avoid being eaten, while conifers used wood to grow taller and taller. At the time of the single super continent Pangea, the earth was dominated by giants: the sequoias. After several years of allocating most of their energy to growth, conifers rely on wind to reproduce, blowing male pollen to a nearby female cone. It is a very wasteful process because in order to

8 ensure the gametes will meet up to 10 billion grains have to be released by a singly tree. Similarly, ferns rely on water to transport their gametes, being restricted to swampy areas. These limitations meant that the plant kingdom during Pangea was lacking diversity.

140 million years ago, a random mutation, lead to the evolution of a species of plant with an innovative reproduction strategy: the amborella plant. Botanists believe some leaves of this plant to become white petals. Beetles munched on these petals packed with pollen, but not all the pollen was eaten, some sticks to the insect’s body and is transferred to another plant. This was the birth of flowers.

Amborella trichopoda © Scott Zona (Wikimedia Commons) (license: CC by 2.0)

What followed was a new type of co-evolution based not on predation or competition but collaboration. In order to attract insects, flowers evolved different colors, odors and shapes. These adaptations were not random but evolved to attract specific insects to transfer the right pollen to the right plant. Animals were lured by these signals and once they reached the flower, they found nectar, a sugar packed liquid, which became the primary source of food for many species and ensured they kept coming back to visit the flowers and carry their pollen. Thus flowers became the evolutionary force behind entirely new species of animals, such as bees, butterflies, moths, birds, resulting in an increasing diversity of life.

Back then, the supercontinent of Pangea was splitting up, creating countless new landscapes with new climates and environments. For conifers and ferns so reliant on wind and water, the new landscapes were inaccessible; it was the chance flowering plants were waiting for. Besides having a more efficient reproductive and dispersal strategy based on cooperation, flowering plants adapt much faster to new environments. While conifers don’t reach sexual maturity until they are, on average, 40 years old, most flowering plants mature in a few months. As a result, in the time it takes to a conifer to produce one generation, the flowers can go through 120 generations. Every time there is a new generation there is a chance for genetic mutation, so the faster the life cycle, the faster can species adapt to new environments.

In hostile environment flowering plants had to evolve mechanisms that enabled their offspring to survive throughout the year, which leads to yet another innovation: seeds. By capsuling their offspring in a hard shell with a nutritious content, flowering plants produced seeds that were able to remain dormant for months or even years waiting for the right conditions to germinate. Therefore, 65 million years ago, when a 10 km-wide asteroid hit the earth, wiping out most dinosaurs and plant species, seeds allowed flowering plants to survive. Now, they needed to spread their seeds across this new barren landscape and engaged in a second collaborative relationship with a rising group of animals which replaced dinosaurs: the mammals. Flowering plants ensured mammals spread their seeds to all kinds of new environments through the evolution of nutritious fruits. This in change drove the evolution of many animal species. For instance, most primates have a diet made up mainly of fruits. In order to prevent mammals from eating fruits before the seeds matured, plants color coded them. Interestingly, the first primates were color blind, and it was the color of mature fruits that triggered the evolution of color vision.

Abstracted principle:

Looking at evolution scale processes reveals the fact that we live in a state of dynamic non-equilibrium, a complex unpredictable environment. In order to

10 adapt to constant changes and overcome disruptive shocks, the evolutionary history of flowering plants can teach us the following strategies:

Diversity – Having a diversity of independent, decentralized forms and relationships is a key resilience factor in the face of disturbance.

Faster life-cycles – faster turnover of ideas coupled with decentralization lead to small scale localized changes which can build upon each other and develop momentum and are much more likely to drive innovation than rigid, resource intensive, globalized processes.

Optimizing through collaborative relationships – The old communication paradigm was based on linear, one-way communications that pushed products to the market, and concentrated on maximizing sales (c.f. sequoias allocating most energy on maximizing growth). In contrast, the new communication paradigm, must focus on optimizing cooperative relationships by focusing on providing outcomes (solutions) rather than products, by being more flexible in order to adapt to a changing environment.

References:

How to Grow a Planet: The Power of Flowers. BBC Documentary 2012

Bromeliads creates a small community which collectively supply nutrients for the plant

Scale: System

Organism: Bromeliads

Strategy: Bromeliads are epiphytes, plants that grow on tree branches but are not parasitic; they anchor themselves around wrapping their roots around the branch without harming their host. Since they can’t access the ground, they need to capture nutrients in another way. Their long leaves grow in a tight rosette around their central bud and channel rain water down to it so that the rosette fills and forms a small pond. This small pond represents a little oasis in the canopy of the forest attracting all sorts of species and becoming a world in miniature. Leaves and other bits of vegetable detritus fall into it and decay. Birds and small mammals come to sip the water, and leave behind their nitrogen-rich droppings. Microscopic organisms of one kind or another develop in it, as they will do in any pool of standing water. Mosquitos lay rafts of eggs in its depths, though in much smaller numbers. In due course, a few dragonfly larvae will feed on a multitude of mosquito larvae. Small brilliantly colored frogs that live nowhere else but in bromeliad ponds take up residence and spawn there. Crabs, salamanders, slugs, worms, beetles, lizards, even small snakes may all join the community. All these animals release valuable nutrients into the pond that the bromeliad can uptake to survive.

Abstracted principle: Provide individuals with outcomes which are rare in their environment to attract them and form a community centered on those outcomes.

References:

Ask Nature: Epiphytes capture nutrients: Bromeliads Attenborough, D. 1995. The Private Life of Plants: A Natural History of Plant Behavior. London: BBC Books. 320 p. Kew Gardens: Epiphytes – Adaptations to an aerial habitat

3. Complex adaptive systems

SWARM THEORY

Swarming

Swarming is a collective behavior exhibited by animals of similar size who aggregate together either in a fixed area or while migrating. As a term, swarming is applied particularly to insects, but can also be applied to any other animal that exhibits swarm behaviour. The term flocking is usually used to refer specifically to swarm behaviour in birds, herding to refer to swarm behaviour in quadrupeds, shoaling or schooling to refer to swarm behaviour in fish.

As members of a big group, whether it's a flock, school, or herd, individuals increase their chances of detecting predators, finding food, locating a mate, or following a migration route. For these animals, coordinating their movements is crucially important. They do so in a decentralized manner, there is no leader. Instead, each individual interacts with its environment following three simple rules:

1. Separation - avoid crowding neighbors (short range repulsion) 2. Alignment - steer towards average heading of neighbors 3. Cohesion - steer towards average position of neighbors (long range attraction)

If every individual follows these rules, the combination of their interactions results in complex adaptive patterns by the group that would be impossible to choreograph.

Swarm Intelligence

Swarm intelligence is the collective decision-making observed in social insects such as ants, bees and termites. Individual within a colony have meager intelligence and work without a vision of the whole system. Yet collectively, they achieve surprisingly complex and effective results, such as building termite mounts or finding the most efficient paths to food sources. This all occurs in a decentralized, self-organized system coordinated through simple interactions between individual members of the colony.

Eric Bonabeau and Christoph Meyer (2001) argue that there is much to learn from the social insects’ main behavioural features:

Flexibility: the group can quickly adapt to a changing environment.

Robustness: even when one or more individuals fail, the group can still perform its tasks.

Self-organisation: the activities are neither centrally controlled, nor locally supervised but emerge from collective interactions

Ant colony optimization: increasing foraging efficiency through communication and cooperation

Scale: Species

Organism: Pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis)

Strategy: Many ant colonies form networks of foraging trails, a system that requires communication and cooperation of the individuals within the colony. To ensure efficient foraging, the colony must send foragers to food sources, which are constantly changing in terms of location. Once an ant finds a food source, it needs to communicate the location to other foragers. Ants use two mechanisms, they either lead recruits directly or they use pheromone trails.

Initially, an ant wanders randomly, upon finding food, it leave a pheromone trail as it returns to the colony. If other ants find the trail, they are likely to stop traveling at random and follow the path to the food source. These ants, in turn, leave their own trails. However, over time trails start to evaporate, reducing their attractive strength. The longer it takes for ants to travel up and down the path, the more likely the pheromones will evaporate. As a consequence, shorter paths get marked more frequently, increasing the pheromone density. This positive feedback eventually leads all the ants to follow a single, efficient path.

Ant colony optimization model

1. The first ant finds the food source (F), via any way (a), then returns to the nest (N), leaving behind a trail pheromone (b) 2. Ants indiscriminately follow four possible ways, but the strengthening of the runway makes it more attractive as the shortest route. 3. Ants take the shortest route, long portions of other ways lose their trail pheromones.

Moreover, in the case of Pharaoh ants foragers use two type of trails, positive and negative feedback trails. Positive feedback trails are created after an ant finds food and deposits pheromone on its way back to the nest in order to signal 15 the path to other ants in the colony. In contrast, negative feedback trails occur when ants mark an unsuccessful or depleted trail with a repellent trail pheromone. As a result, the trail network from the entrance of the nest does not direct foragers to random locations, but to the best feeding locations.

The key to the success of the ant colony foraging strategies is the self- organization of multiple agents. The success of the foraging network emerges from simple actions performed individually by each worker ant in response to local conditions, while being unaware of the cascading effect that action has on the overall colony.

References:

Bonabeau, E., Meyer, C. 2001. Swarm Intelligence: a whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review, May 2001: 107-114 Ratnieks, F.L.W. 2008. Biomimicry: Further Insights from Ant Colonies? In Liò, P., Yoneky, E., Crowcroft, J., Verma, D.C. (eds). Bioinspired Computing and Communication (pp 58-66). First Workshop on Bio- Inspired Design of Networks, BIOWIRE: Cambridge, UK April 2007. Robinson, E.J.H., Jackson, D.E., Holcombe, M., Ratnieks, F.L.W. 2005. ‘No entry signal’ in ant foraging. Nature (438): 442. Encyclopedia of Life: Pharaoh ant

Organization and task division in red harvester ants

Scale: System

Organism: Red harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex barbatus)

Strategy: Each morning, colonies of red harvester ants calculate the number of foragers to send out based on local conditions. Early morning patrollers go out to look for food, when any given patroller encounters food, it comes back to the nest and communicates it to the foragers by touching antennae. However, the forager will not go out immediately, it will wait until it has several contacts with different patrollers no more than 10 seconds apart. Foragers use the rate of their encounters with patrollers to tell if there is enough food and if it's safe to go out. Once the ants start foraging and bringing back food, other ants join the effort, depending on the rate at which they encounter returning foragers.

Moreover, harvester ants show another strategy to make foraging more efficient. When they locate a good source of food, red harvester ants pass the seeds down a chain all the way to their nest. However, unlike runners in a relay race, the ants are not stationary, and their transfer points are not fixed: an ant takes the seed until the next ant, transfers the food, and then goes back until it meets the previous ant in the chain to receive the next seed. The only fixed points in this process are the source of the food and the nest. This approach, known as the “bucket brigade” dramatically increases efficiency by preventing slower individuals to delay faster ones.

References:

Bonabeau, E., Meyer, C. 2001. Swarm Intelligence: a whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review, May 2001: 107-114 Peter Miller. 2007. The Genius of Swarms. National Geographic: June 2007

Group decision making in honeybee swarms

Scale: System

Organism: Honeybees (Apis mellifera)

Strategy: One of the best examples of communication and decision making in animal group is the nest selection process of swarms of up to 10,000 bees. When a bee colony becomes too large – that is when it reaches a point of diminishing returns – bee colonies split themselves in a process known as swarming, where approximately half of the hive follows the queen to establish a new colony, while the rest stays in the old hive with the daughter queen to perpetuate the old colony.

After living the hive, the newly formed swarm forms a beardlike cluster in a neighboring branch and starts the nest selection process. The colony then delegates the task of finding a new nest to a few hundred scouts. The other bees remain quiescent during the process to conserve energy. The entire process lasts a few hours. At first, the scout bees leave in random direction in search of potential nesting sites. Once they find an option, they return to the colony and perform a waggle dance to advertise her site. The pattern of the dance indicates the direction and distance to the site (Figure 3), while the intensity of the waggle dance is proportionate to the quality of the site found.

The intensity of the waggle dance is also proportionate to the number of times a scout will to go to her chosen site and back to the colony (a circuit). As a result, over time, a larger number of advocates remain for the stronger sites. Moreover, the number of scouts can also increase by recruiting those scouts who did not find a site. While these uncommitted scouts tend to follow the ones with the greater strength of dancing, they will not advocate for the site until they have seen it and assessed it for themselves. Once the number of scouts advocating for a particular site reaches a threshold number, the entire colony takes off towards the site of its new nest.

Therefore, the essence of a swarm's decision making lies in sensing a quorum (sufficient number of scouts) at one of the nest sites rather than sensing a consensus (agreement of dancing scouts) at the swarm cluster.

Abstracted principle: Seeley et al. (2006) argue there are three key factors that underline the efficiency of the honeybees communication model and ensure the effectiveness of their group decision strategy.

1. Decentralized organization: the individuals are organized in a way that allows diversity of knowledge within the group. They are not lead or

dominated by a small number of individuals, instead the decision making process is based on the actions of hundreds of individuals, each one providing autonomous information which is freely reported. 2. Non-conformity: the individuals show no tendency towards imitation. Uncommitted individuals will follow the strongest signals towards the advertised site, but they will assess the site for themselves before deciding if they will advocate for it. Through this independence of opinions the individuals propagating errors in the assessment of sites. 3. The quorum sensing process aggregates the diverse and independent opinions of individuals in a way that balances the competing needs of accuracy and speed of the decision making process.

References:

Seeley, T.D., Visscher, P.K., Passino, K.M. 2006. Group decision making in honeybee swarms. American Scientist, 54: 220-229

ECOSYSTEM THEORY

Ecological specialization

The concepts of specialist versus generalist species have a long history both in theoretical and applied ecology. Ecological specialization is intrinsically linked to the ecological niche concept, which is most often defined by Hutchinson (1975) as a hyper-volume in the multidimensional space of ecological variables (resources, predators, competitors, etc.), within which a species can maintain a viable population. An organism free of interference from other species could use the full range of conditions (biotic and abiotic) and resources in which it could survive and reproduce which is called its fundamental niche. However, as a result of pressure from, and interactions with, other organisms (i.e. competition) species are usually forced to occupy a niche that is narrower than this, and to which they are mostly highly adapted. This is termed the realized niche.

A generalist species is considered to have a wide niche breath; it is able to thrive in a wide variety of environmental conditions and can make use of a variety of different resources (for example, a heterotroph with a varied diet). In contrast, a specialist species can only thrive in a narrow range of environmental conditions or has a limited diet. In stable environment, with high diversity and abundant resources, specialists are more frequent. Being a specialist, allows species to perform tasks more efficiently. However, when environmental conditions change, generalists adapt more easily, they are more resilient. As a general trend, specialist species are increasingly shown to be declining and experiencing higher extinction risk relative to generalist species (Devictor et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, this trade-off between efficiency and resilience depends on the scale in which we study a species as well as on the context.

Scale: Leaf-cutter ants

Let’s look at scale first: leaf-cutter ants (Atta sp) are not herbivores and yet we can encounter lines of ants cutting leaves and carrying them back to their nest. In fact, what the ants are doing is farming. Foragers take the leaves into the nest and transfer them to worker ants which chew the leaves and turn them into a pulping mulch they then feed to a fungus. The fungus breaks down the proteins in the leaves and swells with proteins and sugar the ants can feed on.

The ants farm a single species of fungus (Leucoagaricus gongylophorus) that grows nowhere else but inside leaf cutter ants’ nests. In this sense, at a large scale, leaf cutter ants are very efficient at growing a monoculture. From our own experience as human farmers we know monocultures are less resilient than polycultures since a single pest or bacteria can have detrimental effects on the entire crop. Not surprisingly, the gardens of fungus-growing ants are host to a specialized, virulent, and highly evolved fungal pathogen in the genus Escovopsis. However, in spite of these pathogens, the gardens farmed by ants have proven quite resilient over millions of years. Even though leaf cutter ants are efficient specialists at a large scale, at a smaller scale, ants have evolved a mutualistic association with ﬁlamentous bacteria (actinomycetes) that produce antibiotics that suppress the growth of Escovopsi.

References:

Barke, J., Seipke, R. F., Gruschow, S., Heavens, D., Drou, N., Bibb, M. J., Goss, R. J. M., Yu, D. W. and Hutchings, M. I. 2010. A mixed community of actinomycetes produce multiple antibiotics for the fungus farming ant Acromyrmex octospinosus. BMC Biology 8, 109. BBC Living Planet : Fungus Gardeners Currie, C.R. 2001. A Community of Ants, Fungi, and Bacteria: A Multilateral Approach to Studying Symbiosis. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55: 357–80 Devictor, V., Clavel, J., Julliard, R., Lavergne, S., Mouillot, D., Thuiller, W., Venail, P., Villéger, S., and Mouquet, N. 2010. Defining and measuring ecological specialization. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 15–25 Hutchinson, G.E. 1965. The ecological theatre and evolutionary play. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Context: mixed species flocks

The trade-off species make between resilience and efficiency also depends on the context and it has been shown that when conditions change and a threat arises or resources are limiting, some species tend to be more generalist and show increased cooperation. A good example of this is mixed species flocks.

It is not uncommon to find birds of several species flocking together. In the Eastern forests of North America, mixed flock species are formed during winter. These

23 flocks are composed by two groups: nuclear species, such as tufted titmouse and chickadees, which facilitate flock formation and initiate movements; and follower or satellite species, such as downy woodpeckers and white-breasted nutcracker. Followers tend to be smaller, more insectivorous, and feed in higher strata than matched species that participate in flocks to a lesser extent.

Morse (1969), the author showed that mixed flocking is an effective adaptation to difficult conditions. During winter, less food is available and in eastern deciduous forests, trees lose their leaves, birds more exposed to predators. Species that are vulnerable to predation follow species whose vigilance they can exploit. By doing so, they are able to reduce their own vigilance and forage at higher rates. Indeed, the two main hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the formation of mixed-species flocks is an improved feeding strategy and decrease predation risk.

On one hand, having more individuals searching for food increases the likelihood that a rich feeding patch will be located. In single species flocks, as the number of individual increases, there is more competition for resources. In contrast, mixed- species flocks partition resources, minimizing competition. Moreover, by moving together in a mixed-species flock, birds can avoid areas that have already been searched for food. Individuals in mixed flocks can also learn about new food sources from other species. For instance some species have been shown to feed on insects flushed by other birds in the course of feeding (commensal feeding).

On the other hand, flocking may decrease predation risk by increasing the number of eyes and ears available to detect predators and may confuse them as many individuals flee at once. Also a mixture of species can take advantage of different abilities. For instance, nearsighted gleaning birds such as Red-eyed Vireos move in groups (on their tropical wintering grounds) with farsighted salliers like Yellow- margined Flycatchers. The former lose some prey to the latter, but apparently are more than compensated by the latter's early detection of approaching danger. Similarly, it has been shown experimentally that chickadees and titmice are used as sentinels by Downy Woodpeckers foraging in mixed-species flocks.

References:

Dolby, Andrew & TC Grubb. 2000. Social Context Affects Risk Taking by a Satellite Species in Mixed-Species Foraging Groups. Behavioral Ecology 11(1): 110-114 Erlich, P.R., Dobkin, D.B., and Wheye, D. 1988. Mixed species flocking. Retrieved on September 28th 2012 from the Stanford University Website: http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Mixed- Species_Flocking.html

Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Magrath, R., Nieh, J.C., Ruxton, G.D. Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25 (6): 354-361. Morse, Douglas H. 1970. Ecological Aspects of Some Mixed-Species Foraging Flocks of Birds. Ecol Monogr 40: 119-168. Sridhar, H., Beauchamp, G., Shanker, K. 2009. Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis. Animal Behaviour 78: 337–347

BIOMIMICRY RESOURCES

To learn more about Biomimicry:

WEBSITES

Ask Nature (http://www.asknature.org/) AskNature is a free, open source project, built by the community and for the community. Our goal is to connect innovative minds with life's best ideas, and in the process, inspire technologies that create conditions conducive to life. To accomplish this, we're doing something that has never been done— organizing the world's biological literature by function. Biomimicry 3.8 (http://biomimicry.net/) Biomimicry 3.8 is the global leader in biomimicry innovation consulting, professional training, and educational program and curricula development. Our mission is to train, equip, and connect engineers, educators, architects, designers, business leaders, and other innovators to sustainably emulate nature’s 3.8 billion years of brilliant designs and strategies. Biomimicry for Creative Innovation (BCI) (http://www.businessinspiredbynature.com/) BCI is a network of creative innovators, professional change agents, biologists and design professionals who work in creative collaboration with each other and our clients to apply ecological thinking for radical transformation. At the heart of our work is a shared passion for creating brilliant, resilient, values-led human systems that are aligned with nature’s ecosystems. It's what we call Business Inspired by Nature. Fast Company Biomimicry Section (http://www.fastcompany.com/section/biomimicry) GreenBiz: The Biomimicry Column by Tom McKeag (http://www.greenbiz.com/business/engage/featured-blogs/the- biomimicry-column) Zygote Quarterly (http://zqjournal.org/) Our mission is to establish a credible platform showcasing the nexus of science and design in the field of biologically inspired design, using case studies, news and articles that are exemplary in their impact on the field, rigorous in their methodology, and relevant to today’s reader.

BOOKS

Architecture

Biomimicry and Architecture. Michael Pawlin. 2011. Explores the application of biomimicry to architecture. Design for Life. Sim Van Der Ryn. 2005. Van der Ryn explores how architecture has created physical and mental barriers that separate people

from the natural world, and how to recover the sould of architecture and reconnect with our natural surroundings.

Biology/Evolution

Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to the World’s Wildlife. Don E. Wilson. 2001. Over 2,000 species, from the tiny spider mite to the massive blue whale, are profiled in DK’s astonishingly wonderful Animal, produced in cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution and more than 70 expert zoologists Extreme Nature. Mark Carwardine. 2005. Interesting facts and figures about some of the most interesting natural phenomenons on earth. From the “most devious plant” to the “strangest nesting material” this book is packed full of interesting information about both common and uncommon organisms. The Future of Life. Edward O. Wilson. 2002. A great “state of the planet” survey circa 2002 covering species extinctions and the environment. Weird Nature. John Downer. Firefly Books. 2002. Some of the most fantastic behaviors of real animals are explored in this beautifully illustrated companion volume to a BBC/Discovery Channel series. Survival Strategies: Cooperation and Conflict in Animal Societies. Raghavendra Gadagkar. 1997. Why creatures great and small behave in such fascinating and seemingly perplexing ways is explained in this delightful account of the evolutionary foundations of animal social behavior. The Ghosts of Evolution: Nonsensical Fruit, Missing Partners, and Other Ecological Anachronisms. Connie Barlow. 2002. How surviving plants are clues to vanished ecological relationships. For designing systems for humans and animals.

Design

Cat’s Paws and Catapults: Mechanical Worlds of Nature and People. Steven Vogel. 1998. Investigates whether nature or human design is superior and why the two technologies have diverged so much. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things. William McDonough and Michael Braungart. 2002. An engaging description of the problem with today’s industrial patterns, and a fascinating description of how a truly sustainable, biomimetic industrial ecology would work. Decoding Design: Understanding and Using Symbols in Visual Communication. Maggie Macnab. 2008. Symbols are intuitive and immediate. Design that references these symbols creates an immediate relationship with the viewer. Design for the Real World, Human Ecology and Social Change. Victor Papanek. 1984. One of the world’s most widely read books on design. Author provides a blueprint for sensible, responsive design.

Design in Nature How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organization. Adrian Bejan. 2012. Everything—from biological life to inanimate systems—generates shape and structure and evolves in a sequence of ever-improving designs in order to facilitate flow. All are governed by the same principle, known as the Constructal Law, and configure and reconfigure themselves over time to flow more efficiently. Written in an easy style that achieves clarity without sacrificing complexity, Design in Nature is a paradigm-shifting book that will fundamentally transform our understanding of the world around us. Green Graphic Design. Brian Dougherty. 2009. Breaking down the concept of “green design” step-by-step, respected industry leader Brian Dougherty captures the ability of designer to communicate, persuade, and ultimately spread a socially and ecologically responsible message to both consumers and corporations. Mental Models: Aligning Design Strategy with Human Behavior. Indi Young. 2008. There is no single methodology for creating the perfect product – but you can increase your odds. One of the best ways is to understand users’ reasons for doing things. Mental Models gives you the tools to help you grasp, and design for, those reasons. The Information Design Handbook. Jenn Visocky O’Grady. 2008. Inspirational gallery of designs that illustrate how to communicate at a glance, logically, effectively, and with maximum benefit. Includes milestones from the history of information design that illustrate and explain breakthroughs and trends.

Economics/Business

Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Purpose – Doing Business by Respecting the Earth. Ray C. Anderson. 2009. Ecology of Commerce. Paul Hawken. 1993. Ecological analysis of business. Practical suggestions. In Our Every Deliberation: An Introduction to Seventh Generation. Jeffrey Hollender. 2009. Natural Capitalism. Paul Hawken, Armory Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins. 1999. The original comprehensive treatise on business sustainability, using numerable examples and case studies. Excerpts available online at www.natcap.org Out of Control. Kevin Kelly. 1994. How a new understanding of biology is transforming both ecology and economics. The Living Company. Arie de Geus. 1997. The author summarizes the components of the long-lived company as sensitivity to the environment,

cohesion, identity, tolerance and decentralization, and conservative financing. The Nature of Business. Giles Hutchins. 2012. This book sets out a new business paradigm. Author Giles Hutchins focuses on the emergence of new ways of operating and creating value in an increasingly volatile and interconnected world. He makes the compelling case that the 'Firm of the Future' should seek to mimic behaviours and organisations found in nature, which offer fitting models for businesses capable of flourishing in chaotic and uncertain times.

Innovation

Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization. David J. Hess. 2007. Hess identifies alternative pathways by which social movements can influence scientific and technological innovation. Bulletproof Feathers: How Science Uses Secrets to Design Cutting- Edge Technology. Robert Allen. 2010. The Gecko’s Foot: Bio-inspiration, Engineering New Materials and Devices from Nature. Peter Forbes. 2005. Presents technologists’ pure research into nano-anatomy, followed by their applied and, as many entrepreneurs hope, commercial mimicry of nature’s ingenuity.

Patterns/Systems Science

The Self-Made Tapestry: Pattern Formation in Nature. Philip Ball. 2001. This deep, beautiful exploration of the recurring patterns that we find both in the living and inanimate worlds will change how one thinks about everything from evolution to earthquakes. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, brains, Cities, and Software. Steven Johnson. 2001. Details of the development of increasingly complex and familiar behavior among simple components. The Smart Swarm: How Understanding Flock, Schools, and Colonies can Make us Better at Communicating, Decision Making, and Getting Things Done. Peter Miller. 2010. Introduces many examples of the wisdom to be gleaned about the behavior of crowds-among critters and corporations alike. The Web of Life: A new Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Fritjof Capra. 1996. Capra sets forth a new scientific language to describe interrelationships and interdependence of psychological, biological, physical, social and cultural phenomena – the “web of life”. Capra provides extraordinary new foundation for ecological policies that will allow us to

29 build and sustain communities without diminishing the opportunities for future generations. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Donella Meadows. 2008. Just before her death, scientist, farmer and leading environmentalist Meadowns (1941- 2001) explains the methodology – systems analysis – she used in her ground-breaking work and how it can be implemented for large-scale and individual problem solving. Thriving Beyond Sustainability: Pathways to a Resilient Society. Andres R. Edwards. 2010. Draws a collective map of individuals, organizations, and communities from around the world that are committed to building an alternative future – one that strives to restore ecological health; reinvent outmoded institutions; and rejuvenate our environmental, social, and economic systems. Turbulent mirror. John Briggs and David Peat. 1989. The authors explore the many faces of chaos and reveal how its laws direct most of the processes of everyday life and how it appears that everything in the universe is interconnected – discovering an “emerging science of wholeness”.

Sync: How Order Emerges From Chaos In the Universe, Nature, and Daily Life. Steven Strogatz. 2012. Steven Strogatz, a leading mathematician in the fields of chaos and complexity theory, explains how enormous systems can synchronize themselves, from the electrons in a superconductor to the pacemaker cells in our hearts. He shows that although these phenomena might seem unrelated on the surface, at a deeper level there is a connection, forged by the unifying power of mathematics.