Jukuri, open repository of the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes. For other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher’s terms. There may be differences between this version and the publisher’s version. You are advised to cite the publisher’s version. This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Reetta Hämäläinen, Mira H. Kajanus, Jukka T. Forsman, Sami M. Kivelä, Janne- Tuomas Seppänen & Olli J. Loukola Title: Ecological and evolutionary consequences of selective interspecific information use Year: 2023 Version: Published version Copyright: The Author(s) 2023 Rights: CC BY 4.0 Rights url: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Please cite the original version: Hämäläinen, R., Kajanus, M.H., Forsman, J.T., Kivelä, S.M., Seppänen, J.-T. & Loukola, O.J. (2023) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of selective interspecific information use. Ecology Letters, 26, 490–503. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14184 490 | Ecology Letters. 2023;26:490–503.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ele INTRODUCTION Social information, its selective use and extension to interspecific context Animals need to make decisions throughout their life, and the decisions (e.g. about foraging, breeding sites and reproductive investment) often have fitness con- sequences. To make adaptive decisions, animals need reliable information about their ecological and social environments. Information that individuals obtain may include directly acquired personal information, informa- tion transferred through parental effects or information acquired in a social context from con- or heterospecif- ics (Danchin et al., 2004; Farine et al., 2015; Samplonius et al.,  2017; Seppänen et al.,  2007). Acquisition of so- cial information may be faster and cheaper than gath- ering information merely via own observations (Dall P E R S P E C T I V E Ecological and evolutionary consequences of selective interspecific information use Reetta Hämäläinen1 | Mira H. Kajanus1,2 | Jukka T. Forsman3 | Sami M. Kivelä1 | Janne- Tuomas Seppänen4 | Olli J. Loukola1 Received: 28 March 2022 | Revised: 2 February 2023 | Accepted: 4 February 2023 DOI: 10.1111/ele.14184 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2023 The Authors. Ecology Letters published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Reetta Hämäläinen and Mira H. Kajanus shared first authorship. 1Ecology and Genetics, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland 2Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland 3Natural Resources Institute Finland, Oulu, Finland 4Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Correspondence Reetta Hämäläinen and Mira H. Kajanus, University of Oulu, PO Box 3000, Oulu FI- 90014, Finland. Email: reetta.hamalainen@oulu.fi and mira.h.kajanus@jyu.fi Funding information Academy of Finland, Grant/Award Number: 122665, 125720, 309995, 314833, 319898 and 345363; Koneen Säätiö, Grant/ Award Number: 202010852; Ministry of the Environment, Finland, Grant/ Award Number: VN/14343/2022; Pohjois- Pohjanmaan Rahasto, Grant/Award Number: 60182024, 60212359 and 60221957; Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica; University of Oulu Kvantum Institute; University of Oulu, Unit of Ecology and Genetics Editor: Noa Pinter- Wollman Abstract Recent work has shown that animals frequently use social information from individuals of their own species as well as from other species; however, the ecological and evolutionary consequences of this social information use remain poorly understood. Additionally, information users may be selective in their social information use, deciding from whom and how to use information, but this has been overlooked in an interspecific context. In particular, the intentional decision to reject a behaviour observed via social information has received less attention, although recent work has indicated its presence in various taxa. Based on existing literature, we explore in which circumstances selective interspecific information use may lead to different ecological and coevolutionary outcomes between two species, such as explaining observed co- occurrences of putative competitors. The initial ecological differences and the balance between the costs of competition and the benefits of social information use potentially determine whether selection may lead to trait divergence, convergence or coevolutionary arms race between two species. We propose that selective social information use, including adoption and rejection of behaviours, may have far- reaching fitness consequences, potentially leading to community- level eco- evolutionary outcomes. We argue that these consequences of selective interspecific information use may be much more widespread than has thus far been considered. K E Y W O R D S character displacement, competition, copying, evolutionary arms race, public information, rejection, social information, social learning, species coexistence | 491HÄMÄLÄINEN et al. et al., 2005). The study of social information use among conspecifics has already a long tradition in ecology and behaviour (e.g. Armansin et al.,  2020; Danchin et al.,  2004; Galef,  1995; Kawamura,  1959; Seppänen et al.,  2007). Yet the integration of social information into ecological theories, such as competition theory (Gil et al., 2019), community ecology (Little et al., 2022; O'Connor et al., 2019) and evolutionary theories (Ashby & Farine, 2022; Danchin et al., 2011) has only recently gained more attention. The concept of social information use consists of the source of the information (hereafter information source), social information that the information source produces, for example behaviour or occurrence at a specific loca- tion (hereafter observed behaviour), and a user of that information (hereafter information user) that adjusts its own behaviour according to the observed behaviour. In addition, social information use may be selective, which requires some observable, varying property of the infor- mation source on which the information user can choose whether to copy or not the observed behaviour; for exam- ple, age, size, dominance rank, prior habitat occupancy (Laland, 2004), or indicators of success, like signs of par- asitisation (Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020) or reproductive success (Forsman & Seppänen, 2011; Schuett et al., 2017; Seppänen et al.,  2011). Given some basis for selectiv- ity, individuals may adaptively switch between social and directly acquired personal information, or choose whom to copy, rather than use a fixed strategy. For ex- ample, information user that is older, more experienced or has different phenology than the source, may rather ignore the social information, and instead rely on in- nate responses, past experiences and personal informa- tion (Galef & Laland, 2005; Kendal et al., 2018; Laland et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2015). Theoretical studies sug- gest information use is perhaps adaptive only when it is employed selectively (Enquist et al., 2007; Henrich & Gil- White, 2001; Kendal et al., 2005; Laland, 2004). In addition to decisions whether and whom to copy, the information user may also actively utilise social in- formation to avoid the observed behaviour (i.e. reject; see Box 1 and Figure 1) when the information source ap- pears to be unsuccessful. This “reject- the- unsuccessful”- strategy (Forsman et al.,  2018, 2022; Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020; Romero- González, Royka, et al., 2020; but see Slagsvold & Wiebe,  2017) is complementary to the “copy- the- successful” (Laland, 2004) and “critical social learning”- strategies (Enquist et al., 2007). “Copy- the- successful and reject- the- unsuccessful” strategy need reliable and observable characteris- tics that indicate the adaptiveness and maladaptive- ness of the behavioural repertoire of the information source. Characteristics associated with fitness such as clutch sizes in birds (Morinay, Forsman, Germain, et al.,  2020; Seppänen et al.,  2011) and signs of parasi- tisation in insect nests (Loukola, Gatto, et al.,  2020) plausibly are examples of such salient characteristics. Selective information use can then feature information user copying any behaviour of source individuals with high relative breeding success, while behaviours of in- formation sources with low relative breeding success (e.g. small clutch size; Seppänen et al.,  2011; Loukola et al., 2013; Forsman et al., 2022) or unsuccessful nest- ing (e.g. parasitised nest in solitary mason bees [Osmia spp.]; Loukola, Gatto, et al.,  2020) tend to be rejected, not just ignored. Many case studies show that a selective decision to either copy or reject behaviours could have adaptive consequences (e.g. Forsman et al., 2014, 2022; Hämäläinen, Hoppitt, et al., 2021; Loukola et al., 2013; Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020; Romero- González, Royka, et al.,  2020; Szymkowiak et al.,  2016), underlining the need to integrate this strategy into the broader theory of interspecific social information use. Active rejection of observed behaviour must not be confused with resource partitioning, which may also be mediated by social information use (e.g. Templeton et al., 2017). In addition, active rejection may be challeng- ing to distinguish from simply ignoring the behaviour of the source individual, especially in a natural environ- ment. Conclusively demonstrating that not doing some- thing represents social information use, often requires a specific experimental set- up. Experimental studies where the observer individuals are restricted to choose between only two alternatives and the apparent choice and suc- cess of the information source is experimentally manip- ulated (e.g. manipulation of breeding success [Loukola et al., 2012, 2013; Forsman et al., 2022] or parasitisation signs [Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020]), have been used to demonstrate rejection behaviour. For example, an exper- imental set- up for ecologically similar bird species could include manipulated apparent choice between two nest boxes with different symbols by the information source (e.g. early breeding species), together with clutch size manipulation (high or low). The information user (e.g. late breeding species) is then offered a choice between two nest boxes with the same symbols as on the boxes apparently been available to the information source (see Figure S1). The information user is predicted to copy the nest box symbol choice of the information source when the clutch size is high and reject the symbol when the clutch size is low (see e.g. Forsman et al., 2022; Loukola et al., 2013). Rejection would result in choosing the sym- bol that is opposite to the one displayed by the source of information. In the above- mentioned experimental set- up, active rejection can be readily demonstrated at the level of the study population as a non- random preference for the opposite alternative to the one exhibited by low- success information sources. Mere ignoring of the association between nest- site feature and the associated success would result in random choices between the two al- ternative features (i.e. same or opposite choice as the information source) by the individuals of the informa- tion user population. Rejection behaviour cannot be 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 492 | SELECTIVE INTERSPECIFIC INFORMATION USE distinguished from ignoring the information at the level of a single individual, but a sample from a study popula- tion is needed. It is important to realise that the scientific necessity of binary, manipulated, artificial experimental set- up is not an argument that the demonstrated selec- tive information use only occurs in similar situations in the wild. In a natural environment, individuals rarely, if ever, have a situation where they make decisions between only two choices. The experiment only demonstrates the observer species' ability and propensity for selective so- cial information use, making it a plausible explanation for natural behavioural patterns that fit with the pre- dicted consequences of selective social information use. The mechanisms of conformity and anticonformity biases are also based on social information use but dif- fer from selective information use. In conformity bias, there is a preference for the behaviour demonstrated by the majority (Borofsky & Feldman,  2022; Denton et al.,  2020; Henrich & Boyd,  1998). For example, wild vervet monkeys abandon personal foraging preferences in favour of group norms that are new to them (van de Waal et al., 2013), and great tits (Parus major) match their BOX 1 Active rejection An individual may selectively copy or reject an observed behaviour (e.g. choice of prey) of a con- or hetero- specific based on the outcome of this behaviour (e.g. breeding success; Figure 1). If the observed individual (information source) has made a poor decision leading to a seemingly negative outcome, rejecting this decision should be more advantageous than copying it (Forsman et al., 2018). Seppänen et al. (2007) state: “Active re- jection of behaviours of poor individuals can facilitate decision making by reducing the set of alternatives to choose from, thus reducing uncertainty. Especially when the number of alternatives to choose from is small, being able to discard even one of the alternatives provides considerable advantage. In the case of just two alter- natives (a binary choice), rejection of the alternative exhibited by a poor individual leaves just one alternative to be adopted”. Accordingly, several binary choice experiments in birds (Hämäläinen, Hoppitt, et al., 2021; Loukola et al., 2013; Seppänen et al., 2011) and bees (Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020; Romero- González, Royka, et al., 2020) have shown active rejection rather than ignoring the observed behaviour. A prerequisite for selective interspecific information use and rejection is the reliability of the information source (Forsman et al.,  2018; Loukola et al.,  2013). In birds, individuals with good problem- solving skills have larger clutch sizes than individuals with lower problem- solving skills regardless of habitat quality (Cole et al.,  2012). If breeding success can be a reliable cue of the cognitive abilities of the information source, then high and low fitness of individuals should reflect good and poor decision- making abilities, respectively. Hence, a successful individual should be copied (Loukola et al., 2013; Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020; Romero- González, Royka, et al., 2020), while it would be better to reject the decisions demonstrated by unsuccessful individuals (Loukola et al., 2013; Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020). Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) are selective in information use in relation to the learned reliability of information source; they selectively attend to the individuals whose presence had previously predicted reward, indicating copying the behaviour of seemingly successful individuals (Romero- González, Royka, et al., 2020). The concept of loss aversion is a possible rationale behind rejection behaviour. In the field of (human) Behavioural economics, loss aversion predicts that there is a tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). In animals, the relevant currency, is fitness or some reliable fit- ness correlate. Copying an unreliable or unsuccessful information source would increase the risk of poorer fit- ness consequences, thus, rejecting choices of unsuccessful individuals reduces the risk of fitness loss. Indeed, passerine birds reject the apparent choices of unsuccessful information sources that plausibly make poor de- cisions stronger than they copy the choices of successful information sources that apparently have made good decisions (Forsman et al., 2022; Forsman & Seppänen, 2011; Loukola et al., 2013; Seppänen et al., 2011). In addition, it has been proposed that information acquisition can be seen as a type of evolutionary bet hedging, as avoiding poor choices is more important for the evolution of information acquisition strategies than making the very best choices (Forsman & Kivelä, 2022). The concept of rejection is an integral part of selective information use and, together with copying, it fa- cilitates decision- making in alternative directions, depending on the perceived fitness- consequences of the alternative choices. Still, rejection has not been included in the current theory of social information use, al- though it has been recorded in individual studies among conspecifics (Kendal et al., 2009; Kurvers et al., 2010; Loukola et al., 2012; Loyau et al., 2012; Szymkowiak et al., 2016) and heterospecifics (Hämäläinen, Hoppitt, et al.,  2021; Loukola et al.,  2013; Loukola, Gatto, et al.,  2020; Morinay, Forsman, Germain, et al.,  2020; Seppänen et al., 2011; Tolvanen et al., 2018). 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 493HÄMÄLÄINEN et al. foraging technique to the most common technique in the group (Aplin et al., 2015). Anticonformity bias is opposite to the conformity bias; the behaviour demonstrated by the minority is preferred (Borofsky & Feldman, 2022; Denton et al., 2020). Anticonformity bias is often initiated by re- source limitation and competition avoidance (Borofsky & Feldman, 2022), for instance, sparrows learn a differ- ent food cue than used by the majority of the group when food availability is limited (Aljadeff et al., 2020). Hence, in conformist and anticonformist biases, a behavioural trait is adopted based on the frequency that the behaviour occurs in the group. This is contrary to selective social information use where information is used discriminately by copying or rejecting the observed behaviour based on some observable characteristics of the information source. To our knowledge conformity or anticonformity biases have not been studied in the interspecific context but, for example, mixed species foraging flocks of birds could well present groups where conformity occurs. Many studies on intraspecific social information use (e.g. Bocedi et al.,  2012; Enquist et al.,  2007; Kendal et al., 2009; Laland, 2004; Loyau et al., 2012; Whitehead et al., 2019) have demonstrated how social information is used selectively, when copying the information source, for example choosing who (e.g. age, rank and size) and when (e.g. uncertainty) to copy. Thus, there is solid ev- idence of the adaptive value of selective intraspecific social information use in many situations. However, despite an accumulating number of empirical stud- ies over a wide range of species (Forsman et al., 2018, 2022; Hämäläinen, Hoppitt, et al.,  2021; Hämäläinen, Rowland, et al.,  2021; Jaakkonen et al.,  2015; Keen et al.,  2020; Loukola, Gatto, et al.,  2020; Romero- González, Royka, et al.,  2020; Seppänen et al.,  2007; Whitehead et al.,  2019), there are gaps in our under- standing on the adaptive value of interspecific social information use. For example, it is still insufficiently understood what mechanisms may affect the tendency to copy or reject the behaviour of a heterospecific in- formation source, what is the adaptive value of selective interspecific information use, and whether and how this process differs from intraspecific information use. F I G U R E 1 A schematic illustration showing the process of selective information use for selectively deciding to copy or reject a single observed behaviour, using breeding success as the cue from the information source (orange bird) and prey choice as the decision of the information user (blue bird). The information user gains the information of poor- or high- quality information source (con- or heterospecific) from a cue, such as breeding success (clutch size, one or three eggs; PRIOR INFORMATION ON SUCCESS). In Scenario 1 (top row), the information user observes the information source with low breeding success and associates the observed prey choice (mosquito) of the information source with low breeding success of the source (OBSERVING AND MAKING ASSOCIATION). The information user then encounters a situation with the same available food resources, and when having to make a decision on which resource to consume, the information user follows the previous association between the prey choice (mosquito) and low breeding success of the information source. Thus, the information user decides to reject (DECISION: REJECTION) the observed behaviour and decides to consume the other available food resource (caterpillar), for which the information user does not have prior information on. This decision likely results in high breeding success of the information user (OUTCOME). In Scenario 2 (on the bottom row), the information user associates the prey choice (caterpillar) of the information source with high breeding success (OBSERVING AND MAKING ASSOCIATION), the information user decides to copy (DECISION: COPYING) the behaviour of the information source and consumes the same food resource (caterpillar) instead of the food resource without prior information on (mosquito). Also this decision likely results in high breeding success of the information user (OUTCOME). 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 494 | SELECTIVE INTERSPECIFIC INFORMATION USE We suggest that the adaptive value of social infor- mation use may be similar across heterospecifics as it is among conspecifics. Selective interspecific information use has been observed in birds (Forsman et al.,  2022; Forsman & Seppänen,  2011; Hämäläinen, Hoppitt, et al.,  2021; Loukola et al.,  2013; Morinay, Forsman, Germain, et al., 2020; Seppänen et al., 2011; Szymkowiak et al., 2016; Thorogood et al., 2018; Tolvanen et al., 2018) and insects (Loukola, Gatto, et al.,  2020). Selective in- terspecific information use requires a range of cognitive abilities, which may at first seem beyond those possessed by most animals, but seemingly complex behaviours can be achieved with small brain volumes and ex- plained through associative learning mechanisms (Alem et al., 2016; Gatto et al., 2021; Giurfa, 2012; Leadbeater & Chittka,  2007; Leadbeater & Dawson,  2017). Even insects can display a range of sophisticated cognitive abilities (Avargués- Weber et al., 2011; Gatto et al., 2021; Giurfa,  2012; Leadbeater & Chittka,  2007; Leadbeater & Dawson,  2017) including concept learning (Giurfa et al.,  2001), numerical skills like addition and sub- traction (Howard et al., 2019) and even tool use (Chow et al., 2022; Loukola et al., 2017). Foundation for potential eco- evolutionary consequences Interspecific information use can affect important aspects of species' ecology, such as foraging (Farine et al., 2015; Hämäläinen, Hoppitt, et al.,  2021; Keen et al.,  2020; Lewanzik et al.,  2019; Romero- González, Royka, et al., 2020; Romero- González, Solvi, et al., 2020), breed- ing site selection (Chiatante,  2019; Kivelä et al.,  2014; Morinay, Forsman, & Doligez,  2020; Szymkowiak et al., 2017), offspring survival (Lehtonen, 2019), repro- ductive investment (Forsman et al.,  2012; Hämäläinen et al.,  2022), predator avoidance (Dutour et al.,  2021; Martínez et al., 2022) and dispersal decisions (Armansin et al.,  2020; Bocedi et al.,  2012; Cantor et al.,  2021; Cayuela et al., 2018), conceivably leading to population- and community- level consequences (e.g. variation in spe- cies' densities, coexistence and intensity of competition; Goodale et al., 2010). These ecological consequences of interspecific information use may, in turn, affect fit- ness, potentially changing the direction (Borofsky & Feldman, 2022; Laland et al., 2020; Whitehead et al., 2019) or enhancing the strength (Danchin et al., 2004; Laland et al.,  2020; Martin et al.,  2021; McPeek,  2017; Paenke et al., 2007; Whitehead et al., 2019) of natural selection. Thus, selection pressures inflicted by selective inter- specific information use can potentially affect the evo- lution of ecological differences between species, which again impacts the conditions of social information use, highlighting the inherent eco- evolutionary feedback loop in selective interspecific information use. Social environment and changes within a trait space may be intertwined more than previously considered (Bailey et al.,  2018; Borofsky & Feldman,  2022; Hämäläinen, Rowland, et al.,  2021; Laland et al.,  2020; Loukola et al.,  2013; Magrath et al.,  2015; Paenke et al.,  2007; Whitehead et al., 2019). Both “copy- the- successful” and “reject- the- unsuccessful” - strategies could eventually lead to evolutionary trait convergence with successful individuals. Also, both strategies can increase realised individual specialisation within a population, which can lead to selection for adaptations facilitating trait varia- tion and trait plasticity. If selective interspecific infor- mation use and consequent trait convergence result in decreasing fitness for the information source (i.e. “infor- mation parasitism”), we predict that it may eventually lead to evolutionary trait divergence and coevolutionary arms race between the two species. We suggest that the significance of selective interspecific information use in determining the location of a species in the trait space may be severely underappreciated in the current para- digm dominated by competition and abiotic factors. To explore the potential ecological and evolution- ary dynamics produced by selective interspecific in- formation use, we examine the current evidence on interspecific social information use and the coexistence of potential competitors across species, with the focus on the selective information use. We discuss how these mechanisms may result in different ecological and evo- lutionary outcomes. We also outline future avenues to address the ecological and evolutionary significance of selective interspecific information use (Box 2) and asso- ciated testable predictions (Table 1). ECOLOGICA L A N D EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQU ENCES OF SELECTIVE INTERSPECI FIC IN FORM ATION USE Social information is expected to be most valuable when provided by information sources that have simi- lar resource needs as the information user (Jaakkonen et al.,  2015; Laland,  2004; Seppänen et al.,  2007; Szymkowiak et al.,  2017). Therefore, the difference be- tween the trait values of the information source and the user determines the balance between benefits of social information use and costs of competition, which affects the ecological dynamics and direction of trait evolution in the two interacting populations (Ashby & Farine, 2022; Borofsky & Feldman, 2022; Lee et al., 2016), and the evo- lution of the social information use. Although increased competition is one of the main consequences of social information use, even high costs need not negate the se- lection pressure for social information use (cf. Forsman & Kivelä, 2022). If selective use of socially acquired information from con- or heterospecifics alters the behaviour of the infor- mation user, it is likely to lead to ecological consequences 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 495HÄMÄLÄINEN et al. such as changes in species' distributions and community structure (Loukola et al.,  2013; Seppänen et al.,  2007). For example, when the net effect of social information use is positive, selectively copying breeding site choices of heterospecific individuals results in aggregations of con- and heterospecific individuals. On the contrary, selective rejection of heterospecific breeding site choices may result in segregations between the information source and the user, but in aggregations between the information user and other individuals of the informa- tion source population (Forsman et al.,  2022; Loukola et al., 2013). Coexistence of putative competitors is contrary to predictions of traditional competition- dominated view of species interactions. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the coexistence of species with sim- ilar resource requirements, for example resource parti- tioning in diet, space or time (Chesson, 2000; Derbridge & Koprowski, 2019; Godwin et al., 2020; Hardin, 1960; Simha et al., 2022). Yet, there is lack of evidence of such mechanisms in many study systems, particularly in pred- ator communities with unexplained spatial and tempo- ral co- occurrences of ecologically similar species (e.g. Davis et al.,  2018; Lombardi et al.,  2020; Monterroso et al.,  2020; Simha et al.,  2022). Putatively competing species could benefit, rather than suffer, from similar resource use if that facilitates social information use, for example to find or handle prey. It has been hypothe- sised by Forsman et al. (2002) and Loukola et al. (2013) that social information use may allow coexistence of ecologically more similar species than would otherwise be possible, across multiple taxa. Various mechanisms of interspecific social information use could explain aggregations of heterospecifics. In convict cichlids (Amatitlania siquia), broods have higher survival in proximity of mogas (Hypsophrys nicaraguensis) and this could be because of aggression towards shared enemies enhances the coexistence (Lehtonen,  2019). Alarm sig- nals regarding a shared predator may be highly valuable across different prey species groups and may create tax- onomically diverse eavesdropping networks in different ecosystems (Dutour et al.,  2021; Martínez et al.,  2022). For example, Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen dorsalis) may play a key role as an information source for heterospecifics in predator detection and mobbing events (Dutour et al., 2021). In Amazonian rainforest, birds and primates share an avian predator and flee more likely when hearing each other's alarm calls than when hearing BOX 2 Future directions Table 1. Lists contrasting predictions of traditional competition paradigm and selective social information use, in various interaction contexts, and suggests concrete experiments and empirical studies to test those. Specific predictions of potential evolutionary outcomes of selective interspecific information use should be derived by modelling (e.g. individual- based simulation model of two interacting heterospecific populations) and experimentally tested in more species to assess how widespread selective information use and its conse- quences are. Ideally, strong inference would require creating experimental designs that control for learned and genetically determined behaviours. Experiments utilising artificial symbols (Giurfa et al., 2001; Seppänen & Forsman, 2007) provide one such powerful method. The diversity of cues that may be utilised as information is only narrowly explored so far, and therefore the spatial and temporal limitations of these phenomena are not well understood. For example, using observed information with a time- lag (e.g. observation from previous breeding season; Forsman et al., 2014), or observ- ing multiple cues simultaneously, or observing olfactory or other traces without ever directly meeting the other individual, present interesting directions for future research. Environmental (e.g. climate change and loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitats; Both et al., 2004; Samplonius et al., 2018) and phenotypic (e.g. age or sex; Loukola et al., 2012; Forsman et al., 2022) factors may change the context of, access to, or accuracy of social information (Seppänen et al., 2007). These may alter the spatial and temporal distance between species, for example by increasing asynchrony in nesting times of birds (Both et al., 2004; Samplonius et al., 2018), potentially having profound effects on use and consequences of social information. Identifying such effects is not only of fundamental scientific interest, but is also potentially an urgent aspect of conservation biology (Holt, 2007). Lastly, we encourage to examine the heritability and additive genetic variance in the context of social infor- mation use. Existing studies show no (Morinay et al., 2018) or only weak (Tolvanen et al., 2020) evidence for a link between social information use and other heritable social traits. However, only few species have been studied in this respect and social information use may be affected by aggressiveness and boldness (Kurvers et al., 2010; Morinay, Forsman, Germain, et al., 2020; Réale et al., 2007). Heritability of these traits (Brown et al., 2007; Drent et al., 2003; Réale et al., 2007) could be reflected in the evolutionary dynamics of selective interspecific information use. 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 496 | SELECTIVE INTERSPECIFIC INFORMATION USE T A B L E 1 C on tr as ti ng p ot en ti al e co lo gi ca l a nd e vo lu ti on ar y co ns eq ue nc es o f in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n sp ec ie s, u nd er t he c om p et it io n pa ra d ig m v er su s se le ct iv e so ci al in fo rm at io n u se , i n va ri ou s in te ra ct io n co nt ex ts . R ig ht - m os t co lu m n su gg es ts e xp er im en ts o r co rr el at iv e st ud ie s to t es t th e op po si te p re d ic ti on s of c om p et it io n pa ra d ig m a nd s el ec ti ve in fo rm at io n u se . In te ra ct io n co nt ex t E xp ec te d co ns eq ue nc e of E xp er im en t o r co rr el at iv e st ud y C om pe ti ti on p ar ad ig m S el ec ti ve s oc ia l i nf or m at io n us e C o - o cc u rr en ce d ep en d in g on r es ou rc e ab u nd an ce C o - o cc u rr en ce is m or e co m m on w he n an d w he re r es ou rc es a re a bu nd an t or s ta bl e, as c om p et it iv e ex cl u si on is r el ax ed C o - o cc u rr en ce is m or e co m m on w he n an d w he re re so u rc es a re s ca rc e or e ph em er al , a s th ey ar e m or e d if fi cu lt t o fi nd a lo ne a nd s o ci al in fo rm at io n u se f ac il it at es f in d in g th em R an do m ly a ss ig n ar ea s of la nd o r fo ca l l o ca ti on s in to m an ip u la te d tr ea tm en ts o f su p er ab u nd an ce v s re du ct io n, or s ta bi li ty v s u np re d ic ta bi li ty , o f so m e sh ar ed r es ou rc e. M ea su re a nd c om pa re c o - o cc u rr en ce N ic he o ve rl ap d ep en d in g on c o - o cc u rr en ce N ic he o ve rl ap is s m al le r w he n an d w he re th e sp ec ie s co - o cc u r, a s ch ar ac te r d is pl ac em en t or b eh av io u ra l ad ju st m en ts im pa ct s re so u rc e u se N ic he o ve rl ap is la rg er w he n an d w he re t he sp ec ie s co - o cc u r, a s se le ct iv e co py in g/ re je ct in g co nv er ge s th e u se r' s n ic he t ow ar d s th e so u rc e' s R an do m ly a ss ig n an im al s in to c om m on - g ar de n vs s ep ar at e li ve s, w it h fr ee n ic he s pa ce m an ip u la te d to b e av ai la bl e to a ll s p ec ie s in b ot h tr ea tm en ts . M ea su re a nd c om pa re re al is ed n ic he s N ic he o ve rl ap d ep en d in g on f it ne ss N ic he o ve rl ap w it h he te ro sp ec if ic in d iv id u al s w it h h ig he r fi tn es s is s m al le r th an w it h lo w er - f it ne ss in d iv id u al s, a s h ig h- fi tn es s in d iv id u al s ar e li ke ly t o b e su p er io r co m p et it or s an d ex is t at p la ce s an d ti m es o pt im al fo r th at s p ec ie s N ic he o ve rl ap w it h he te ro sp ec if ic in d iv id u al s w it h h ig he r fi tn es s is la rg er t ha n w it h lo w er - fi tn es s in d iv id u al s, a s in fo rm at io n u se r co pi es b eh av io u rs o f h ig h- fi tn es s he te ro sp ec if ic a nd re je ct s th os e of lo w - f it ne ss in d iv id u al s R an do m ly a ss ig n in d iv id u al s of o ne s p ec ie s in to m an ip u la te d h ig h vs lo w f it ne ss t re at m en ts . E xp os e in d iv id u al s of an ot he r sp ec ie s to in te ra ct io n w it h m an ip u la te d an im al s. M ea su re a nd c om pa re n ic he o ve rl ap w it h h ig h vs lo w fi tn es s in d iv id u al s A ss o ci at io n b et w ee n ge ne ra li st a nd sp ec ia li st s p ec ie s A ss o ci at io ns le ss c om m on t ha n ex p ec te d by c ha nc e, a s on e is li ke ly t o b e m or e ef fi ci en t th an t he o th er in e xp lo it in g sh ar ed r es ou rc es A ss o ci at io ns m or e co m m on t ha n ex p ec te d by ch an ce , a s sp ec ia li st is li ke ly t o b e a re li ab le in d ic at or t o fi nd , a nd b eh av io u ra l g u id e to ut il is e, s ha re d re so u rc es Q u an ti fy o r ca te go ri se s p ec ie s' de gr ee o f sp ec ia li sa ti on , a nd th e pa ir w is e d if fe re nc e th er eo f, in r el at io n to r el ev an t n ic he d im en si on (s ). C om pa re p ai rw is e sp ec ia li sa ti on d if fe re nc e to p ai rw is e in ci de nc es o f as so ci at io n, e .g . i n sp ac e A pp ar en t ge ne ra li sm du e to in d iv id u al sp ec ia li sa ti on In d iv id u al s p ec ia li sa ti on m an if es ti ng a s ap pa re nt g en er al is m o f th e sp ec ie s is u n li ke ly t o o cc u r an d ev ol ve e xc ep t in a lr ea dy - g en er al is t sp ec ie s, a s in te rs p ec if ic c om p et it io n pr ev en ts in d iv id u al s p ec ia li sa ti on in to a lr ea dy - o cc up ie d n ic he s pa ce In d iv id u al s p ec ia li sa ti on m an if es ti ng a s ap pa re nt ge ne ra li sm o f th e sp ec ie s o cc u rs a nd e vo lv es re ad ily in s p ec ie s th at a re in fo rm at io n u se rs , as b eh av io u r of s uc h in d iv id u al s of te n va ry ac co rd in g to lo ca ll y av ai la bl e in fo rm at io n so u rc es a nd t he ir s uc ce ss P hy lo ge ne ti c an al ys es o f th e ev ol ut io n of p la st ic it y, ge ne ra li sm , a nd t ra it s al lo w in g in fo rm at io n u se . E st im at e th e or de r in w h ic h ge ne ra li sm a s w el l a s pl as ti ci ty a nd tr ai ts a ll ow in g in fo rm at io n u se t o ev ol ve Im pa ct o f sp ec ie s lo ss on t he e co lo gy o f re m ai n in g sp ec ie s L os s of a s p ec ie s fr om a c om m u n it y re su lt in in cr ea se d de ns it y, s uc ce ss o r o cc u rr en ce o f sp ec ie s re le as ed f ro m co m p et it io n L os s of a s p ec ie s fr om a c om m u n it y re su lt in di m in is he d de ns it y, s uc ce ss o r o cc u rr en ce o f sp ec ie s lo si ng a n in fo rm at io n so u rc e R an do m ly a ss ig n co m m u n it ie s to r em ov al o r ex cl u si on o f on e sp ec ie s. M ea su re d en si ty , s uc ce ss o r o cc u rr en ce o f ot he r sp ec ie s Im pa ct o f sp ec ie s lo ss o n th e re al is ed n ic he o f re m ai n in g sp ec ie s L os s of a s p ec ie s re su lt s in e xp an si on o r sh if t of t he r ea li se d n ic he s of r em ai n in g sp ec ie s in to t he v ac at ed n ic he s pa ce , a s co m p et it io n is r el ax ed L os s of a s p ec ie s re su lt s in e xp an si on o r sh if t of th e re al is ed n ic he s of r em ai n in g sp ec ie s ou t of th e lo st s p ec ie s' n ic he s pa ce , a s in fo rm at io n to he lp a cc es s th os e re so u rc es is lo st R an do m ly a ss ig n co m m u n it ie s to r em ov al o r ex cl u si on o f on e sp ec ie s. M ea su re r ea li se d n ic he c ha ng es in r em ai n in g sp ec ie s E vo lu ti on o f n ic he br ea dt h de p en d in g on sp ec ie s ri ch ne ss N ic he e xp an si on a nd s h if ts a re m or e co m m on o r pr on ou nc ed in s pe ci es - p oo r co m m u n it ie s, a s re so u rc es n ov el t o a sp ec ie s ar e le ss li ke ly t o b e co ns u m ed b el ow p ro fi ta bi li ty b y co m p et in g sp ec ie s N ic he e xp an si on a nd s h if ts a re m or e co m m on o r pr on ou nc ed in s pe ci es - r ic h co m m u n it ie s, a s re so u rc es n ov el t o a sp ec ie s ar e m or e li ke ly to b e d is co ve ra bl e an d ex pl oi ta bl e du e to av ai la bl e in fo rm at io n Q u an ti fy t he t em po ra l v ar ia bi li ty a nd b et a- d iv er si ty o f n ic he s am on g co m m u n it ie s w it h d if fe re nt s p ec ie s ri ch ne ss . an d co m pa re t he se m et ri cs b et w ee n sp ec ie s- ri ch a nd sp ec ie s- po or c om m u n it ie s. O r, c om pa re t he b eh av io u ra l re p er to ir e or n ic he d im en si on s of in tr od uc ed s p ec ie s in bo th s p ec ie s- ri ch a nd s p ec ie s- po or a re as 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 497HÄMÄLÄINEN et al. a common bird call (Martínez et al., 2022). Differences in foraging efficiencies and sensory capabilities can pro- vide opportunities for interspecific information use: for example, in a recent study of foraging choices in mixed- species flocks, all bird species maintained or increased their foraging overlap with other members of the flock, by selectively choosing flock mates or flexibly adjusting their behaviour (Vander Meiden et al., 2022), and mem- bers of scavenger community are attracted to vultures with superior efficiency and sensory capability for find- ing carcasses (Naves- Alegre et al., 2022). When selective interspecific information use directly, or its ecological consequences, result in higher fitness, evolutionary consequences become possible. Selection may favour traits that facilitate social information use, such as sensory and cognitive abilities. Eventually, pref- erences that initially arise via selective social informa- tion use may even become fixed themselves via evolution of alternative mechanisms. For example, if plastic prefer- ence (based on selective social information use) for het- erospecific nest site characteristics increases fitness and this situation continues over numerous generations, a direct genetic preference for the particular nest site char- acteristics may evolve in the long term through genetic assimilation (cf. Ehrenreich & Pfennig, 2016). Whether selective social information use can be stable enough over sufficiently long periods of time to allow genetic assimilation and other evolutionary outcomes remains to be studied (Box 2). It is also worth emphasising that even if genetic assimilation would eventually result in genetically determined preferences, the capability to se- lectively use social information in different contexts may be highly adaptive in unpredictable environments, and under persistent natural selection as such. Convergence Both the older (Brown & Wilson,  1956; Hardin,  1960; Macarthur & Levins,  1967; Pianka,  1974) and more recent (Chesson,  2000; Costa- Pereira et al.,  2019; Derbridge & Koprowski,  2019; Martin et al.,  2021; Pastore et al., 2021; but see Simha et al., 2022) work on species coexistence expect that mechanisms, such as competition (Pastore et al., 2021; Pianka, 1974), limiting similarity (Chesson,  2000; Macarthur & Levins,  1967) or character displacement (Brown & Wilson,  1956; Derbridge & Koprowski, 2019), lead to trait divergence among ecologically similar species. However, selective social information use between heterospecifics likely re- sults in fitness benefits to the information user (Forsman et al., 2022). Consequently, trait convergence could occur (Forsman et al., 2002; Forsman & Seppänen, 2011; Fox & Vasseur, 2008; Loukola et al., 2013; Tobias et al., 2014; Tobias & Seddon,  2009; Vellend,  2006). Trait conver- gence should cease at a point where the net fitness bene- fit peaks and turn into divergence if costs of competition exceed benefits of information use (Forsman et al., 2008). For example, pied flycatchers have a preference to breed near nests of large great tit females, however, the size of the flycatcher nestlings decreased in relation to increas- ing great tit body size, potentially suggesting high costs of competition (Hämäläinen et al., 2022) and leading to selection against trait convergence. Selective social information use leads to convergence of plastic traits in ecological time scale, for example, in context- dependent dispersal where breeding habitats are preferred through heterospecific attraction in both pas- serines (Chiatante, 2019; Mönkkönen et al., 1990; Parejo et al., 2005) and salamanders (Cayuela et al., 2018). Pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) may gain fitness bene- fits from heterospecific attraction (Forsman et al., 2002, 2007), suggesting selection for the capability of selective social information use and consequent plastic conver- gence of nesting site characteristics to those of the in- formation sources. Furthermore, prey species who share predators may benefit from coexistence through shared alarm calls and aggression towards the joint predator (Dutour et al., 2021; Lehtonen, 2019; Martínez et al., 2022). Different bat species eavesdrop on each other's feeding calls and use the social information other species provide in their own feeding decisions, creating a complex eaves- dropping network between species (Lewanzik et al., 2019). In intraspecific context, individuals use social information to identify novel food patches (Tóth et al., 2017) and they can quickly change their social associations according to changes in distribution of available food, proving the importance of social connections (Heinen et al.,  2022). Hence, shared predator avoidance and foraging decisions may enhance the ecological trait convergence between in- dividuals and populations, and there is potential even for evolutionary convergence through genetic assimilation. If putative competitors converge in a specific plastic trait, and as a result coexist more than by chance, trait conver- gence may intensify competition and require differentia- tion in other plastic traits. The value of social information for the user should be preserved in this process because the ecological distance between the information user and the source remains short (Seppänen et al., 2007). Characteristics such as size, age, sex or dominance rank of both the information source and the user may also affect the probability of convergence and have im- portant ecological consequences for spatial distribution of individuals in relation to other species within habitats. For example, nine- spined sticklebacks copy significantly more likely the food patch choice of large conspecific demonstrators than small ones (Duffy et al., 2009). The phenotype (size and age) of the pied flycatchers affects their own decision- making. Older flycatcher females are more likely to copy great tit decisions than yearlings, and large flycatcher females tend to reject great tit decisions independently of their age (Forsman et al., 2022). Trait convergence driven by selective social informa- tion use still remains insufficiently understood. Recently, 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 498 | SELECTIVE INTERSPECIFIC INFORMATION USE the traditional competition- dominated view on species coexistence has been challenged (Simha et al., 2022) and, for example phenotypic plasticity is suggested to allow co- existence (Hess et al.,  2022). We propose that trait convergence is the most likely ecological consequence of selective interspecific information use, and especially its evolutionary and ecological community- level conse- quences require more attention. Selective interspecific information use seems a potential mechanism explaining the many observed coexistences of putative competitors that cannot be explained by the competition theory. Divergence If the interacting populations are initially ecologi- cally so close to each other that the costs of compe- tition exceed the benefits of social information use, then selection should act against social information use (Borofsky & Feldman,  2022) and favour trait divergence (Brown & Wilson,  1956; Derbridge & Koprowski,  2019). However, social information use itself may allow the information user to choose a di- vergent strategy (Forsman et al., 2014; Loukola, Gatto, et al.,  2020; Romero- González, Royka, et al.,  2020) based on the observed fitness correlate of the infor- mation source. Behaviour of unsuccessful individuals should be avoided (reject- the- unsuccessful) to avert possible costly errors and increasing the chance to adopt optimal behaviour (Forsman & Seppänen, 2011; Romero- González, Royka, et al.,  2020; see also Forsman & Kivelä, 2022). Trait divergence between the information user and the poorly performing individu- als of the information source population may lead to evolutionary outcomes if the interaction remains sta- ble and beneficial in the long term. Consequently, the divergence takes place only in relation to poorly per- forming individuals of the information source popula- tion. Divergent behaviour may temporarily reduce the probability of competition between information users and sources, for example on the availability of nesting sites with specific characteristics (Forsman et al., 2022; Loukola et al., 2013). Additionally, if the information user correctly rejects an observed behaviour of an in- dividual with poor fitness – and copies behaviours of individuals with high fitness— a likely outcome is con- vergence towards the trait value of the individuals that have higher fitness, again intensifying competition. Rejection of behaviours exhibited by heterospecif- ics, potentially leading to a temporary trait divergence between individuals, has been found in birds (Forsman et al.,  2018; Forsman & Seppänen,  2011; Loukola et al., 2013; Morinay, Forsman, & Doligez, 2020; Morinay, Forsman, Germain, et al.,  2020; Romero- González, Royka, et al.,  2020; Seppänen et al.,  2011; Thorogood et al., 2018), cleaner fish (Labroides dimidiatus; Truskanov et al.,  2020) and also in invertebrates (Loukola, Gatto, et al.,  2020). For example, pied flycatchers may choose nesting site characteristics divergent from those exhib- ited by ecologically similar great tits if the observed great tit clutch size is small (Forsman et al.,  2022; Loukola et al., 2013). Similar behaviour has been observed in nest- ing site choice in mason bees if the nest has signs of par- asitisation (Loukola, Gatto, et al., 2020). In intraspecific context, juvenile cleaner fish behave more cooperatively after observing a client fleeing from an adult cleaner fish as a result of cheating. Thus, the juvenile fish reject the behaviour of the cheating adults. This indicates that social information use can also shape cooperation dy- namics in interaction networks (Truskanov et al., 2020), and we expect this to be the case also in the interspecific context. The rejection behaviour and resulting trait di- vergence, as observed in birds, fish and invertebrates, is suggested to alter, species' densities via the spatial and temporal distribution of individuals and therefore, com- munity structures. Furthermore, if traits diverge due to rejection behaviour to a level where social information is no longer relevant (Seppänen et al., 2007), trait diver- gence is expected to cease. Consequently, we would ex- pect to observe plastic trait divergence due to rejection behaviour at individual- level but not at population- level or in evolutionary time scales. Whether these effects are realised in nature remains unclear, largely because of the restrictive conditions under which selective interspecific information use resulting in trait divergence can be ob- served (i.e. a specific experimental setting; see Section “Social information, its selective use, and extension to interspecific context”). Trait variation, trait plasticity and apparent generalism Copying the behaviour of successful individuals of het- erospecifics at one location, while not copying the be- haviour at another location due to the absence or poor performance of the information source, can lead to in- creased trait variability in the species of the information user. Selective rejection could also plausibly have simi- lar impact on the trait variability of the user species. Particularly, if the rejected behaviour would otherwise be typical or close to expected mean for the species of the information user, individuals may end up behav- iourally in different directions, depending on chance, local conditions or individual's phenotype or experi- ence. Consequently, individuals in different places would exhibit different behaviours, and the population as a whole would show increased trait variation, which may have significant ecological implications (Dall et al., 2012; Des Roches et al., 2018; Violle et al., 2012). Notably, in the scenarios above, the increased variation (i.e. apparent generalism at the population or species level) comes from realised individual spe- cialisation, not from generalist individuals. Bolnick 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 499HÄMÄLÄINEN et al. et al.  (2003) suggest, via a collection of case studies, that the phenomenon of apparent generalism via in- dividual specialisation is neither rare nor weak. We raise the intriguing possibility that the cause (Araújo et al.,  2011) for this may often be interspecific social information use. Realised individual specialisation, initially ecologi- cally maintained by interspecific social information use, could plausibly begin to exert its own evolutionary se- lection pressures. It would select for traits that increase speed and efficiency of individual specialisation, both in the context of social information use (e.g. increased cog- nitive and sensory abilities) and independent of it (e.g. increased developmental plasticity). The result would be overall increase in phenotypic plasticity. The potential ecological and evolutionary consequences of increased plasticity itself are then very broad; for relatively recent review see Forsman (2015). Coevolutionary arms race The consequences of social information use may be asymmetric between the information source and the user (Forsman et al., 2007; Magrath et al., 2015). There is empirical evidence that the information source bears the costs of the interaction, while the information user gains a net benefit (Forsman et al., 2007; reviewed by Magrath et al.,  2015). This asymmetry could lead to an evolutionary arms race (Dawkins & Krebs,  1979). An arms race occurs if the information source evolves a counter- adaptation to conceal information used by the other species, which, in turn, selects for evolution of means to overcome those counter- adaptations in the information user, and so on (Loukola et al., 2014; Seppänen et al.,  2007) enhancing the rate of co- evolution (Laland et al.,  2020; Paenke et al.,  2007; Whitehead et al., 2019). Interspecific social information use may be one of the mechanisms resulting in evolutionary arms race in interspecific eavesdropping on olfactory cues in bee communication (Nieh et al., 2004). Superior com- petitors, meliponine bees (Trigona spinipes) find food resources using cues left by competitively inferior het- erospecifics (Melipona rufiventris) and as a result these inferior competitors may have evolved less conspicuous communication mechanisms, such as shorter odour trails. A compelling example of a coevolutionary arms race resulting from selective interspecific social infor- mation use appears to occur between competing great tits and pied flycatchers (Loukola et al., 2014). Later- breeding flycatchers acquire information on habitat suitability from tit breeding success (i.e. clutch size) and settle near successful tits, plausibly increasing competition (Forsman et al., 2018; Loukola et al., 2013). The presence of f lycatchers then negatively affects the breeding success of great tits (Forsman et al.,  2007), who then try to reduce the information parasitism of f lycatchers by hiding the information by covering eggs (Loukola, Adamik, et al., 2020; Loukola et al., 2014). To our knowledge, this is the only experimentally demonstrated example of potential arms race between species resulting from selective interspecific informa- tion use. Potential coevolution in other heritable traits not directly involved in social information use, is also a plausible outcome. CONCLUSIONS We argue that selective interspecific information use, in which observed behaviours are actively either copied or rejected depending on the perceived success of the source of the information, is a common mechanism of social in- formation use. This has important ecological and evolu- tionary consequences; it may result in trait divergence, convergence or a coevolutionary arms race between in- teracting populations. Selective interspecific informa- tion use may have broader ecological consequences than previously thought, affecting population and commu- nity dynamics. For example, social information use may explain many observed but previously unexplained co- occurrences of competitors (Davis et al., 2018; Lombardi et al., 2020; Monterroso et al., 2020; Simha et al., 2022). Given the dynamic formation of species realised niche in relation to environment and co- occurring species, popu- lations encountering conditions that trigger divergence, convergence or arms- race driven by selective interspe- cific information use should not be rare in dynamic com- munity contexts over evolutionary time. These dynamics may facilitate interspecific information use between new species pairs and break down existing social information connections between species, so the social information use networks among species evolve too. Here, we suggest potential future avenues (Box 2) and call for integrating selective interspecific information use to ecological and evolutionary theory. AU T HOR CON TR I BU T IONS Jukka T. Forsman formed the original concept, Reetta Hämäläinen and Mira H. Kajanus wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors contributed substan- tially to revisions. ACK NO W LE DGE M EN TS We thank Mahdi Aminikhah, Tuomas Kankaanpää, Thomas Merckx, Matthew Nielsen, Mahtab Yazdanian and three anonymous reviewers for commenting on previous versions of the manuscript. The work of R. Hämäläinen was funded by Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica and Finnish Cultural foundations North Ostrobothnia Regional Fund (grant numbers 60182024, 60212359), work of M.H. Kajanus was funded by University of Oulu Kvantum Institute, the Unit of 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 500 | SELECTIVE INTERSPECIFIC INFORMATION USE Ecology and Genetics and Finnish Cultural founda- tions North Ostrobothnia Regional Fund (grant num- ber 60221957), work of J.T. Forsman was funded by Academy of Finland (projects 122665 and 125720) and Kone Foundation, work of S.M. Kivelä was funded by Academy of Finland (projects 314833, 319898, 345363), work of O.J. Loukola was funded by Academy of Finland (project 309995) and Kone Foundation (project 202010852). PEER R EV I EW The peer review history for this article is available at https://publo ns.com/publo n/10.1111/ele.14184. OPEN R E SEA RCH BA DGE S This article has earned an Open Data badge for making publicly available the digitally- shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results. DATA AVA I LA BI LI T Y STAT EM EN T No new data were used. ORCI D Reetta Hämäläinen  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4047-8442 Mira H. Kajanus  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9105-6469 Jukka T. Forsman  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4156-7930 Sami M. Kivelä  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6844-9168 Janne- Tuomas Seppänen  https://orcid. org/0000-0002-5132-6268 Olli J. Loukola  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9094-2004 R E F ER E NC E S Alem, S., Perry, C.J., Zhu, X., Loukola, O.J., Ingraham, T., Søvik, E. et al. (2016) Associative mechanisms allow for social learning and cultural transmission of string pulling in an insect. PLoS Biology, 14, e1002564. Aljadeff, N., Giraldeau, L.A. & Lotem, A. (2020) Competitive advan- tage of rare behaviours induces adaptive diversity rather than so- cial conformity in skill learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287, 20201259. Aplin, L.M., Farine, D.R., Morand- Ferron, J., Cockburn, A., Thornton, A. & Sheldon, B.C. (2015) Experimentally induced in- novations lead to persistent culture via conformity in wild birds. Nature, 518, 538– 541. Araújo, M.S., Bolnick, D.I. & Layman, C.A. (2011) The ecological causes of individual specialisation. Ecology Letters, 14, 948– 958. Armansin, N.C., Stow, A.J., Cantor, M., Leu, S.T., Klarevas- Irby, J.A., Chariton, A.A. et al. (2020) Social barriers in ecological landscapes: the social resistance hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35, 137– 148. Ashby, B. & Farine, D.R. (2022) Social information use shapes the co- evolution of sociality and virulence. Evolution (N Y), 76, 1153– 1169. Avargués- Weber, A., Deisig, N. & Giurfa, M. (2011) Visual cognition in social insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 56, 423– 443. Bailey, N.W., Marie- Orleach, L. & Moore, A.J. (2018) Indirect genetic effects in behavioral ecology: does behavior play a special role in evolution? Behavioral Ecology, 29, 1– 11. Bocedi, G., Heinonen, J. & Travis, J.M.J. (2012) Uncertainty and the role of information acquisition in the evolution of context- dependent emigration. The American Naturalist, 179, 606– 620. Bolnick, D.I., Svanbäck, R., Fordyce, J.A., Yang, L.H., Davis, J.M., Hulsey, C.D. et al. (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. The American Naturalist, 161, 1– 28. Borofsky, T.M. & Feldman, M.W. (2022) Static environments with limited resources select for multiple foraging strategies rather than conformity. Ecological Monographs, 92, e01483. Both, C., Artemyev, A.v., Blaauw, B., Cowie, R.J., Dekhuijzen, A.J., Eeva, T. et al. (2004) Large- scale geographical variation con- firms that climate change causes birds to lay earlier. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 1657– 1662. Brown, C., Burgess, F. & Braithwaite, V.A. (2007) Heritable and ex- periential effects on boldness in a tropical poeciliid. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 237– 243. Brown, W.L. & Wilson, E.O. (1956) Character displacement. Systematic Zoology, 5, 49– 64. Cantor, M., Maldonado- Chaparro, A.A., Beck, K.B., Brandl, H.B., Carter, G.G., He, P. et al. (2021) The importance of individual- to- society feedbacks in animal ecology and evolution. Journal of Animal Ecology, 90, 27– 44. Cayuela, H., Grolet, O. & Joly, P. (2018) Context- dependent disper- sal, public information, and heterospecific attraction in newts. Oecologia, 188, 1069– 1080. Chesson, P. (2000) General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially- varying environments. Theoretical Population Biology, 58, 211– 237. Chiatante, G. (2019) Heterospecific social attraction in migrant birds: habitat niche overlap between two threatened shrikes. Wildlife Research, 46, 25– 36. Chow, P.K.Y., Lehtonen, T.K., Näreaho, V. & Loukola, O.J. (2022) Prior associations affect bumblebees' generalization perfor- mance in a tool- selection task. iScience, 25, 105466. Cole, E.F., Morand- Ferron, J., Hinks, A.E. & Quinn, J.L. (2012) Cognitive ability influences reproductive life history variation in the wild. Current Biology, 22, 1808– 1812. Costa- Pereira, R., Araújo, M.S., Souza, F.L. & Ingram, T. (2019) Competition and resource breadth shape niche variation and overlap in multiple trophic dimensions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286, 20190369. Dall, S.R.X., Bell, A.M., Bolnick, D.I. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. (2012) An evolutionary ecology of individual differences. Ecology Letters, 15, 1189– 1198. Dall, S.R.X., Giraldeau, L.- A., Olsson, O., McNamara, J.M. & Stephens, D.W. (2005) Information and its use by animals in evo- lutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 187– 193. Danchin, É., Charmantier, A., Champagne, F.A., Mesoudi, A., Pujol, B. & Blanchet, S. (2011) Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive in- heritance into an extended theory of evolution. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 12, 475– 486. Danchin, É., Giraldeau, L.- A., Valone, T.J. & Wagner, R.H. (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science, 1979(305), 487– 491. Davis, C.L., Rich, L.N., Farris, Z.J., Kelly, M.J., di Bitetti, M.S., di Blanco, Y. et al. (2018) Ecological correlates of the spatial co- occurrence of sympatric mammalian carnivores worldwide. Ecology Letters, 21, 1401– 1412. Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J.R. (1979) Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Biological Sciences, 205, 489– 511. Denton, K.K., Ram, Y., Liberman, U. & Feldman, M.W. (2020) Cultural evolution of conformity and anticonformity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117, 13603– 13614. Derbridge, J.J. & Koprowski, J.L. (2019) Experimental removals reveal dietary niche partitioning facilitates coexistence between native and introduced species. Ecology and Evolution, 9, 4065– 4077. 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 501HÄMÄLÄINEN et al. Des Roches, S., Post, D.M., Turley, N.E., Bailey, J.K., Hendry, A.P., Kinnison, M.T. et al. (2018) The ecological importance of intra- specific variation. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2, 57– 64. Drent, P.J., van Oers, K. & van Noordwijk, A.J. (2003) Realized heri- tability of personalities in the great tit (Parus major). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, 45– 51. Duffy, G.A., Pike, T.W. & Laland, K.N. (2009) Size- dependent di- rected social learning in nine- spined sticklebacks. Animal Behaviour, 78, 371– 375. Dutour, M., Kasper, J. & Ridley, A.R. (2021) Transfer of information between a highly social species and heterospecific community members. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 75, 1– 11. Ehrenreich, I.M. & Pfennig, D.W. (2016) Genetic assimilation: a re- view of its potential proximate causes and evolutionary conse- quences. Annals of Botany, 117, 769– 779. Enquist, M., Eriksson, K. & Ghirlanda, S. (2007) Critical social learning: a solution to Rogers's paradox of nonadaptive culture. American Anthropologist, 109, 727– 734. Farine, D.R., Aplin, L.M., Sheldon, B.C. & Hoppitt, W. (2015) Interspecific social networks promote information transmission in wild songbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282, 20142804. Forsman, A. (2015) Rethinking phenotypic plasticity and its con- sequences for individuals, populations and species. Heredity (Edinb), 115, 276– 284. Forsman, J.T., Hjernquist, M.B., Taipale, J. & Gustafsson, L. (2008) Competitor density cues for habitat quality facilitating habi- tat selection and investment decisions. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 539– 545. Forsman, J.T. & Kivelä, S.M. (2022) Evolution of searching effort for resources: a missing piece of the puzzle in the ideal free distribu- tion paradigm. Oikos, 10, e08202. Forsman, J.T., Kivelä, S.M., Jaakkonen, T., Seppänen, J.T., Gustafsson, L. & Doligez, B. (2014) Avoiding perceived past re- source use of potential competitors affects niche dynamics in a bird community. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 14, 175. Forsman, J.T., Kivelä, S.M., Tolvanen, J. & Loukola, O.J. (2022) Conceptual preferences can be transmitted via selective social information use between competing wild bird species. Royal Society Open Science, 9, 220292. Forsman, J.T. & Seppänen, J.T. (2011) Learning what (not) to do: testing rejection and copying of simulated heterospecific be- havioural traits. Animal Behaviour, 81, 879– 883. Forsman, J.T., Seppänen, J.- T. & Mönkkönen, M. (2002) Positive fitness consequences of interspecific interaction with a poten- tial competitor. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1619– 1623. Forsman, J.T., Seppänen, J.T., Mönkkönen, M., Thomson, R.L., Kivelä, S.M., Krams, I. et al. (2018) Is it interspecific informa- tion use or aggression between putative competitors that steers the selection of nest- site characteristics? A reply to Slagsvold and Wiebe. Journal of Avian Biology, 49, jav- 01558. Forsman, J.T., Seppänen, J.T. & Nykänen, I.L. (2012) Observed het- erospecific clutch size can affect offspring investment decisions. Biology Letters, 8, 341– 343. Forsman, J.T., Thomson, R.L. & Seppänen, J.T. (2007) Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between mi- grant and resident birds. Behavioral Ecology, 18, 888– 894. Fox, J.W. & Vasseur, D.A. (2008) Character convergence under com- petition for nutritionally essential resources. The American Naturalist, 172, 667– 680. Galef, B.G. (1995) Why behaviour patterns that animals learn socially are locally adaptive. Animal Behaviour, 49, 1325– 1334. Galef, B.G. & Laland, K.N. (2005) Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. BioScience, 55, 489– 499. Gatto, E., Loukola, O.J. & Agrillo, C. (2021) Quantitative abilities of invertebrates: a methodological review. Animal Cognition, 25, 5– 19. Gil, M.A., Baskett, M.L. & Schreiber, S.J. (2019) Social information drives ecological outcomes among competing species. Ecology, 100, e02835. Giurfa, M. (2012) Social learning in insects: a higher- order capacity? Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 57. Giurfa, M., Zhang, S., Jenett, A., Menzel, R., &Srinivasan, M.V. (2001) The concepts of “sameness” and “difference” in an insect. Nature, 410, 930– 933. Godwin, C.M., Chang, F.H. & Cardinale, B.J. (2020) An empiricist's guide to modern coexistence theory for competitive communi- ties. Oikos, 129, 1109– 1127. Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Magrath, R.D., Nieh, J.C. & Ruxton, G.D. (2010) Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 354– 361. Hämäläinen, L., Hoppitt, W., Rowland, H.M., Mappes, J., Fulford, A.J., Sosa, S. et al. (2021) Social transmission in the wild can reduce predation pressure on novel prey signals. Nature Communications, 12, 3978. Hämäläinen, L., Rowland, H.M., Mappes, J. & Thorogood, R. (2021) Social information use by predators: expanding the information ecology of prey defences. Oikos, 10, e08743. Hämäläinen, R., Välimäki, P. & Forsman, J.T. (2022) Size of an inter- specific competitor may be a source of information in reproduc- tive decisions. Behavioral Ecology, 34, 33– 41. Hardin, G. (1960) The competitive exclusion principle. Science, 1979, 131. Heinen, V.K., Benedict, L.M., Sonnenberg, B.R., Bridge, E.S., Farine, D.R. & Pravosudov, V. (2022) Experimental manipulation of food distribution alters social networks and information trans- mission across environments in a food- caching bird. Animal Behaviour, 193, 1– 12. Henrich, J. & Boyd, R. (1998) The evolution of conformist transmis- sion and the emergence of between- group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 215– 241. Henrich, J. & Gil- White, F.J. (2001) The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165– 196. Hess, C., Levine, J.M., Turcotte, M.M. & Hart, S.P. (2022) Phenotypic plasticity promotes species coexistence. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 6, 1256– 1261. Holt, R.D. (2007) IJEE soapbox: the unraveling of nature's informa- tion webs: the next depressing frontier in conservation? Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 53, 229– 236. Howard, S.R., Avarguès- Weber, A., Garcia, J.E., Greentree, A.D. & Dyer, A.G. (2019) Numerical cognition in honeybees enables ad- dition and subtraction. Science Advances, 5, eaav0961. Jaakkonen, T., Kivelä, S.M., Meier, C.M. & Forsman, J.T. (2015) The use and relative importance of intraspecific and interspecific so- cial information in a bird community. Behavioral Ecology, 26, 55– 64. Kawamura, S. (1959) The process of sub- culture propagation among Japanese macaques. Primates, 2, 43– 60. Keen, S.C., Cole, E.F., Sheehan, M.J. & Sheldon, B.C. (2020) Social learning of acoustic anti- predator cues occurs between wild bird species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287, 20192513. Kendal, J.R., Rendell, L., Pike, T.W. & Laland, K.N. (2009) Nine- spined sticklebacks deploy a hill- climbing social learning strat- egy. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 238– 244. Kendal, R.L., Boogert, N.J., Rendell, L., Laland, K.N., Webster, M. & Jones, P.L. (2018) Social learning strategies: bridge- building between fields. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 651– 665. Kendal, R.L., Coolen, I., van Bergen, Y. & Laland, K.N. (2005) Trade- offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 35, 333– 379. Kivelä, S.M., Seppänen, J.T., Ovaskainen, O., Doligez, B., Gustafsson, L., Mönkkönen, M. et al. (2014) The past and the present in 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 502 | SELECTIVE INTERSPECIFIC INFORMATION USE decision- making: the use of conspecific and heterospecific cues in nest site selection. Ecology, 95, 3428– 3439. Kurvers, R.H.J.M., van Oers, K., Nolet, B.A., Jonker, R.M., van Wieren, S.E., Prins, H.H.T. et al. (2010) Personality predicts the use of social information. Ecology Letters, 13, 829– 837. Laland, K.N. (2004) Social learning strategies. Learning & Behavior, 32, 4– 14. Laland, K.N., Toyokawa, W. & Oudman, T. (2020) Animal learning as a source of developmental bias. Evolution & Development, 22, 126– 142. Leadbeater, E. & Chittka, L. (2007) Social learning in insects— from miniature brains to consensus building. Current Biology, 17, R703– R713. Leadbeater, E. & Dawson, E.H. (2017) A social insect perspective on the evolution of social learning mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 7838– 7845. Lee, A.E.G., Ounsley, J.P., Coulson, T., Marcus Rowcliffe, J. & Cowlishaw, G. (2016) Information use and resource competition: an integrative framework. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283, 20152550. Lehtonen, T.K. (2019) Aggression towards shared enemies by hetero- specific and conspecific cichlid fish neighbours. Oecologia, 191, 359– 368. Lewanzik, D., Sundaramurthy, A.K. & Goerlitz, H.R. (2019) Insectivorous bats integrate social information about species identity, conspecific activity and prey abundance to estimate cost– benefit ratio of inter- actions. Journal of Animal Ecology, 88, 1462– 1473. Little, C.J., Rizzuto, M., Luhring, T.M., Monk, J.D., Nowicki, R.J., Paseka, R.E. et al. (2022) Movement with meaning: integrating information into meta- ecology. Oikos, 2022, e08892. Lombardi, J.V., MacKenzie, D.I., Tewes, M.E., Perotto- Baldivieso, H.L., Mata, J.M. & Campbell, T.A. (2020) Co- occurrence of bobcats, coyotes, and ocelots in Texas. Ecology and Evolution, 10, 4903– 4917. Loukola, O.J., Adamik, P., Adriaensen, F., Barba, E., Doligez, B., Flensted- Jensen, E. et al. (2020) The roles of temperature, nest predators and information parasites for geographical vari- ation in egg covering behaviour of tits (Paridae). Journal of Biogeography, 47, 1482– 1493. Loukola, O.J., Gatto, E., Híjar- Islas, A.C. & Chittka, L. (2020) Selective interspecific information use in the nest choice of soli- tary bees. Animal Biology, 70, 215– 225. Loukola, O.J., Laaksonen, T., Seppänen, J.T. & Forsman, J.T. (2014) Active hiding of social information from information- parasites. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 14, 32. Loukola, O.J., Perry, C.J., Coscos, L. & Chittka, L. (2017) Bumblebees show cognitive flexibility by improving on an observed complex behavior. Science, 1979, 355. Loukola, O.J., Seppänen, J.T. & Forsman, J.T. (2012) Intraspecific so- cial information use in the selection of nest site characteristics. Animal Behaviour, 83, 629– 633. Loukola, O.J., Seppänen, J.T., Krams, I., Torvinen, S.S. & Forsman, J.T. (2013) Observed fitness may affect niche overlap in compet- ing species via selective social information use. The American Naturalist, 182, 474– 483. Loyau, A., Blanchet, S., van Laere, P., Clobert, J. & Danchin, E. (2012) When not to copy: female fruit flies use sophisticated public in- formation to avoid mated males. Scientific Reports, 2, 768. Macarthur, R. & Levins, R. (1967) The limiting similarity, conver- gence, and divergence of coexisting species. The American Naturalist, 101, 377– 385. Magrath, R.D., Haff, T.M., Fallow, P.M. & Radford, A.N. (2015) Eavesdropping on heterospecific alarm calls: from mechanisms to consequences. Biological Reviews, 90, 560– 586. Martin, P.R., Burke, K.W. & Bonier, F. (2021) Plasticity versus evolu- tionary divergence: what causes habitat partitioning in urban- adapted birds? The American Naturalist, 197, 60– 74. Martínez, A.E., Parra, E., Gomez, J.P. & Vredenburg, V.T. (2022) Shared predators between primate groups and mixed species bird flocks: the potential for forest- wide eavesdropping net- works. Oikos, 2022, e08274. McPeek, M.A. (2017) The ecological dynamics of natural selec- tion: traits and the coevolution of community structure*. The American Naturalist, 189, E91– E117. Mönkkönen, M., Helle, P. & Soppela, K. (1990) Numerical and behavioural responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): heterospecific at- traction in northern breeding bird communites? Oecologia, 85, 218– 225. Monterroso, P., Díaz- Ruiz, F., Lukacs, P.M., Alves, P.C. & Ferreras, P. (2020) Ecological traits and the spatial structure of competi- tive coexistence among carnivores. Ecology, 101, e03059. Morinay, J., Forsman, J.T. & Doligez, B. (2020) Heterospecific song quality as social information for settlement decisions: an experi- mental approach in a wild bird. Animal Behaviour, 161, 103– 113. Morinay, J., Forsman, J.T., Germain, M. & Doligez, B. (2020) Behavioural traits modulate the use of heterospecific social information for nest site selection: experimental evidence from a wild bird population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287, 20200265. Morinay, J., Forsman, J.T., Kivelä, S.M., Gustafsson, L. & Doligez, B. (2018) Heterospecific nest site copying behavior in a wild bird: assessing the influence of genetics and past experience on a joint breeding phenotype. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 167. Naves- Alegre, L., Morales- Reyes, Z., Sánchez- Zapata, J.A., Sebastián- González, E. & Ovaskainen, O. (2022) Scavenging in the realm of senses: smell and vision drive recruitment at carcasses in Neotropical ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 289, 20220843. Nieh, J.C., Barreto, L.S., Contrera, F.A.L. & Imperatriz- Fonseca, V.L. (2004) Olfactory eavesdropping by a competitively foraging stingless bee, Trigona spinipes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 1633– 1640. O'Connor, M.I., Pennell, M.W., Altermatt, F., Matthews, B., Melián, C.J. & Gonzalez, A. (2019) Principles of ecology revisited: inte- grating information and ecological theories for a more unified science. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 219. Paenke, I., Sendhoff, B. & Kawecki, T.J. (2007) Influence of plas- ticity and learning on evolution under directional selection. The American Naturalist, 170, E47– E58. Parejo, D., Danchin, E. & Avilés, J.M. (2005) The heterospecific habi- tat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality? Behavioral Ecology, 16, 96– 105. Pastore, A.I., Barabás, G., Bimler, M.D., Mayfield, M.M. & Miller, T.E. (2021) The evolution of niche overlap and competitive dif- ferences. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 5, 330– 337. Pianka, E.R. (1974) Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 71, 2141– 2145. Réale, D., Reader, S.M., Sol, D., McDougall, P.T. & Dingemanse, N.J. (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evo- lution. Biological Reviews, 82, 291– 318. Romero- González, J.E., Royka, A.L., Maboudi, H., Solvi, C., Seppänen, J.T. & Loukola, O.J. (2020) Foraging bumblebees selectively attend to other types of bees based on their reward- predictive value. Insects, 11, 800. Romero- González, J.E., Solvi, C. & Chittka, L. (2020) Honey bees adjust colour preferences in response to concurrent social infor- mation from conspecifics and heterospecifics. Animal Behaviour, 170, 219– 228. Samplonius, J.M., Bartošová, L., Burgess, M.D., Bushuev, A.V., Eeva, T., Ivankina, E.V. et al. (2018) Phenological sensitivity to climate change is higher in resident than in migrant bird populations among European cavity breeders. Global Change Biology, 24, 3780– 3790. 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 503HÄMÄLÄINEN et al. Samplonius, J.M., Kromhout Van Der Meer, I.M. & Both, C. (2017) Nest site preference depends on the relative density of conspecif- ics and heterospecifics in wild birds. Frontiers in Zoology, 14, 56. Schmidt, K.A., Johansson, J. & Betts, M.G. (2015) Information- mediated allee effects in breeding habitat selection. The American Naturalist, 186, E162– E171. Schuett, W., Järvistö, P.E., Calhim, S., Velmala, W. & Laaksonen, T. (2017) Nosy neighbours: large broods attract more visitors. A field experiment in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Oecologia, 184, 115– 126. Seppänen, J.T. & Forsman, J.T. (2007) Interspecific social learning: novel preference can be acquired from a competing species. Current Biology, 17, 1248– 1252. Seppänen, J.T., Forsman, J.T., Mönkkönen, M., Krams, I. & Salmi, T. (2011) New behavioural trait adopted or rejected by observing heterospecific tutor fitness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1736– 1741. Seppänen, J.- T., Forsman, J.T., Monkkönen, M. & Thomson, R.L. (2007) Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology, 88, 1622– 1633. Simha, A., Pardo- De La Hoz, C.J. & Carley, L.N. (2022) Moving beyond the “diversity paradox”: the limitations of competition- based frameworks in understanding species diversity*. The American Naturalist, 200, 89– 1000. Slagsvold, T. & Wiebe, K.L. (2017) On the use of heterospecific infor- mation for nest site selection in birds. Journal of Avian Biology, 48, 1035– 1040. Szymkowiak, J., Thomson, R.L. & Kuczyński, L. (2016) Wood war- blers copy settlement decisions of poor quality conspecifics: sup- port for the tradeoff between the benefit of social information use and competition avoidance. Oikos, 125, 1561– 1569. Szymkowiak, J., Thomson, R.L. & Kuczynski, L. (2017) Interspecific social information use in habitat selection decisions among mi- grant songbirds. Behavioral Ecology, 28, 767– 775. Templeton, C.N., Philp, K., Guillette, L.M., Laland, K.N. & Benson- Amram, S. (2017) Sex and pairing status impact how zebra finches use social information in foraging. Behavioural Processes, 139, 38– 42. Thorogood, R., Kokko, H. & Mappes, J. (2018) Social transmission of avoidance among predators facilitates the spread of novel prey. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2, 254– 261. Tobias, J.A., Cornwallis, C.K., Derryberry, E.P., Claramunt, S., Brumfield, R.T. & Seddon, N. (2014) Species coexistence and the dynamics of phenotypic evolution in adaptive radiation. Nature, 506, 359– 363. Tobias, J.A. & Seddon, N. (2009) Signal design and perception in hy- pocnemis antbirds: evidence for convergent evolution via social selection. Evolution (N Y), 63, 3168– 3189. Tolvanen, J., Kivelä, S.M., Doligez, B., Morinay, J., Gustafsson, L., Bijma, P. et al. (2020) Quantitative genetics of the use of conspecific and heterospecific social cues for breeding site choice. Evolution (N Y), 74, 2332– 2347. Tolvanen, J., Seppänen, J.T., Mönkkönen, M., Thomson, R.L., Ylönen, H. & Forsman, J.T. (2018) Interspecific information on predation risk affects nest site choice in a passerine bird. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 18, 181. Tóth, Z., Tuliozi, B., Baldan, D., Hoi, H. & Griggio, M. (2017) The effect of social connections on the discovery of multiple hidden food patches in a bird species. Scientific Reports, 7, 816. Truskanov, N., Emery, Y. & Bshary, R. (2020) Juvenile cleaner fish can socially learn the consequences of cheating. Nature Communications, 11, 1159. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297– 323. van de Waal, E., Borgeaud, C. & Whiten, A. (2013) Potent social learn- ing and conformity shape a wild primate's foraging decisions. Science, 340, 483– 485. Vander Meiden, L., Hoppe, I.R., Shizuka, D. & Johnson, A.E. (2022) Ecological flexibility and selectivity in mixed- species flock par- ticipation in birds. bioRxiv. Vellend, M. (2006) The consequences of genetic diversity in competi- tive communities. Ecology, 87, 304– 311. Violle, C., Enquist, B.J., McGill, B.J., Jiang, L., Albert, C.H., Hulshof, C. et al. (2012) The return of the variance: intraspecific variabil- ity in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 244– 252. Whitehead, H., Laland, K.N., Rendell, L., Thorogood, R. & Whiten, A. (2019) The reach of gene– culture coevolution in animals. Nature Communications, 10, 2405. SU PPORT I NG I N FOR M AT ION Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article. How to cite this article: Hämäläinen, R., Kajanus, M.H., Forsman, J.T., Kivelä, S.M., Seppänen, J.-T. & Loukola, O.J. (2023) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of selective interspecific information use. Ecology Letters, 26, 490–503. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14184 14610248, 2023, 4, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/ele.14184 by D uodecim M edical Publications Ltd, W iley O nline Library on [29/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License