Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
Resource availability influences global social network properties in Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni)
In: BehaviourAbstract
Increasingly we are discovering that the interactions between individuals within social groups can be quite complex and flexible. Social network analysis offers a toolkit to describe and quantify social structure, the patterns we observe, and evaluate the social and environmental factors that shape group dynamics. Here, we used 14 Gunnison’s prairie dogs networks to evaluate how resource availability and network size influenced four global properties of the networks (centralization, clustering, average path length, small word index). Our results suggest a positive correlation between overall network cohesion and resource availability, such that networks became less centralized and cliquish as biomass/m2 availability decreased. We also discovered that network size modulates the link between social interactions and resource availability and is consistent with a more ‘decentralized’ group. This study highlights the importance of how individuals modify social cohesions and network connectedness as a way to reduce intragroup competition under different ecological conditions.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Ansmann, I.C., Parra, G.J., Chilvers, B.L. & Lanyon, J.M. (2012). Dolphins restructure social system after reduction of commercial fisheries. — Anim. Behav. 84: 575-581. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.009.
-
Aureli, F., Schaffner, C.M., Boesch, C., Bearder, S.K., Call, J., Chapman, C.A., Connor, R., Fiore, A.D., Dunbar, R.I., Henzi, S.P. & Holekamp, K. (2008). Fission-fusion dynamics: new research frameworks. — Curr. Anthropol. 49: 627-654.
-
Bhadra, A., Jordán, F., Sumana, A., Deshpande, S. & Gadagkar, R. (2009). A comparative social network analysis of wasp colonies and classrooms: linking network structure to functioning. — Ecol. Complex. 6: 48-55. DOI:10.1016/j.ecocom.2008.10.004.
-
Bhadra, A. & Jordán, F. (2013). Cryptic successors unrevealed even by network analysis: a comparative study of two paper wasp species. — Netw. Biol. 3: 54-66.
-
Borgatti, S.P., Evertt, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: software for social network analysis. — Analytic Technologies, Cambridge, MA.
-
Botero, C.A. & Rubenstein, D.R. (2012). Fluctuating environments, sexual selection and the evolution of flexible mate choice in birds. — PLoS ONE 7: e32311.
-
Brown, J.L. (1974). Alternate routes to sociality in jays — with a theory for the evolution of altruism and communal breeding. — Amer. Zool. 14: 63-80.
-
Burt, W.H. (1943). Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. — J. Mamm. 24: 346-352.
-
Chaverri, G. (2010). Comparative social network analysis in a leaf-roosting bat. — Behav. Ecol. Socio. 64: 1619-1630.
-
Croft, D.P., Krause, J. & James, R. (2004). Social networks in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 271: S516-S519.
-
Croft, D.P., James, R. & Krause, J. (2008). Exploring animal social networks. — Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
-
Croft, D.P., Darden, S.K. & Wey, T.W. (2016). Current directions in animal social networks. — Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 12: 52-58.
-
de Silva, S., Ranjeewa, A.D. & Kryazhimskiy, S. (2011). The dynamics of social networks among female Asian elephants. — BMC Ecol. 11: 17.
-
Drewe, J.A., Madden, J.R. & Pearce, G.P. (2009). The social network structure of a wild meerkat population: 1. inter-group interactions. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 1295-1306.
-
Dunston, E.J., Abell, J., Doyle, R.E., Duffy, D., Poynter, C., Kirk, J., Hilley, V.B., Forsyth, A., Jenkins, E., Mcallister, D. & Freire, R. (2017). Does captivity influence territorial and hunting behaviour? Assessment for an ex situ reintroduction program of African lions Panthera leo. — Mamm. Rev. 47: 254-260.
-
Farine, D.R. & Whitehead, H. (2015). Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis. — J. Anim. Ecol. 84: 1144-1163.
-
Faust, K. & Skvoretz, J. (2002). Comparing networks across space and time, size and species. — Soc. Methods 32: 267-299.
-
Foster, E.A., Franks, D.W., Morrell, L.J., Balcomb, K.C., Parsons, K.M., van Ginneken, A. & Croft, D.P. (2012). Social network correlates of food availability in an endangered population of killer whales, Orcinus orca. — Anim. Behav. 83: 731-736.
-
Hall, E.R. & Kelson, K.R. (1959). The mammals of North America. — Ronald, New York, NY.
-
Haulsee, D., Fox, D., Breece, M., Brown, L.M., Kneebone, J., Skomal, G.B. & Oliver, M.J. (2016). Social network analysis reveals potential fission-fusion behavior in a shark. — Sci. Rep. 6: 34087. DOI:10.1038/srep34087.
-
Jetz, W. & Rubenstein, D.R. (2011). Environmental uncertainty and the global biogeography of cooperative breeding in birds. — Curr. Biol. 21: 72-78.
-
JMP (1989–2021). JMP® Version 14.0. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
-
Killworth, P.D. & Bernard, H.R. (1978). The reversal small-world experiment. — Soc. Netw. 1: 159-192.
-
King, A.J. & Sueur, C. (2011). Where next? Group coordination and collective decision making by primates. — Int. J. Primatol. 32: 1245-1267.
-
King, J.A. (1955). Social behavior, social organization, and population dynamics in a black-tailed prairie-dog town in the Black Hills of South Dakota. — University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
-
Leu, S.T., Farine, D.R., Wey, T.W., Sih, A. & Bull, C.M. (2016). Environment modulates population social structure: experimental evidence from replicated social networks of wild lizards. — Anim. Behav. 111: 23-31.
-
Levorato, V. (2014). Group measures and modeling for social networks. — J. Compl. Syst. 2014: 354385.
-
Lott, D.F. (1991). Intraspecific variation in the social systems of wild vertebrates, Vol. 2. — Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
-
Lusseau, D. & Newman, M.E.J. (2004). Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks. — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 271: S477-S481.
-
Madden, J.R., Drewe, J.A., Pearce, G.P. & Clutton-Brock, T.H. (2009). The social network structure of a wild meerkat population: 2. Intragroup interactions. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64: 81-95.
-
Maher, C.R. & Lott, D.F. (2000). A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within vertebrate species. — Am. Midl. Natur. 143: 1-29.
-
Maldonado-Chaparro, A.A., Martin, J.G., Armitage, K.B., Oli, M.K. & Blumstein, D.T. (2015). Environmentally induced phenotypic variation in wild yellow-bellied marmots. — J. Mammal. 96: 269-278.
-
McCabe, C.M. & Nunn, C.L. (2018). Effective network size predicted from simulations of pathogen outbreaks through social networks provides a novel measure of structure-standardized group size. — Front. Vet. Sci. 5: 71. DOI:10.3389/fvets.2018.00071.
-
Nandini, S., Keerthipriya, P. & Vidya, T.N.C. (2017). Seasonal variation in female Asian elephant social structure in Nagarahole-Bandipur, southern India. — Anim. Behav. 134: 135-145.
-
Newton-Fisher, N.E., Reynolds, V. & Plumptre, A.J. (2000). Food supply and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) party size in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. — Int. J. Primat. 21: 613-628.
-
Nunn, C.L., Jordán, F., McCabe, C.M., Verdolin, J.L. & Fewell, J.H. (2015). Infectious disease and group size: more than just a numbers game. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 370: 20140111.
-
Perkins, S.E., Cagnacci, F., Stradiotto, A., Arnoldi, D. & Hudson, P.J. (2009). Comparison of social networks derived from ecological data: implications for inferring infectious disease dynamics. — J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 1015-1022.
-
Prehn, S.G., Laesser, B.E., Clausen, C.G., Jønck, K., Dabelsteen, T. & Brask, J.B. (2019). Seasonal variation and stability across years in a social network of wild giraffe. — Anim. Behav. 157: 95-104.
-
Robinette, K.W., Andelt, W.F. & Burnham, K.P. (1995). Effect of group size on survival of relocated prairie dogs. — J. Wild. Manage. 59: 867-874.
-
Roe, K.A. & Roe, C.M. (2003). Habitat selection guidelines for black-tailed prairie dog relocations. — Wild. Soc. Bull. 31: 1246-1253.
-
Roe, K.A. & Roe, C.M. (2004). A relocation technique for black-tailed prairie dogs. — West. N. Amer. Nat. 64: 445-453.
-
Rubenstein, D.I., Sundaresan, S.R., Fischhoff, I.R., Tantipathananandh, C. & Berger-Wolf, T.Y. (2015). Similar but different: dynamic social network analysis highlights fundamental differences between the fission-fusion societies of two equid species, the onager and Grevy’s zebra. — PLoS ONE 10: e0138645. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0138645.
-
Salvioni, M. (1988). Home range and social behavior of three species of European Pitymys (Mammalia, Rodentia). — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22: 203-210.
-
Schradin, C., Lindholm, A.K., Johannesen, J.E.S., Schoepf, I., Yuen, C.H., Koenig, B. & Pillay, N. (2012). Social flexibility and social evolution in mammals: a case study of the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio). — Mol. Ecol. 21: 541-553.
-
Schradin, C. (2013). Intraspecific variation in social organization by genetic variation, developmental plasticity, social flexibility or entirely extrinsic factors. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 368: 20120346. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2012.0346.
-
Schutter, S.G., Whittaker, A., Jeffery, K.J. & Eggert, L.S. (2014). African forest elephant social networks: fission-fusion dynamics, but fewer associations. — Endang. Spec. Res. 25: 165-173.
-
Shier, D.M. (2006). Effect of family support on the success of translocated black-tailed prairie dogs. — Conserv. Biol. 20: 1780-1790.
-
Shier, D.M. & Owings, D.H. (2007). Effects of social learning on predator training and postrelease survival in juvenile black-tailed prairie dogs, Cynomys ludovicianus. — Anim. Behav. 73: 567-577.
-
Sih, A., Ferrari, M.C. & Harris, D.J. (2011). Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change. — Evol. Appl. 4: 367-387.
-
Slobodchikoff, C.N. (1984). Resources and the evolution of social behavior. — In: A new ecology: novel approaches to interactive systems (Price, P.W., Slobodchikoff, C.N. & Gaud, W.S., eds). Wiley, New York, NY, p. 227-251.
-
Slobodchikoff, C.N., Perla, B.S. & Verdolin, J.L. (2009). Prairie dogs: communication and community in an animal society. — Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
-
Steuer, R. & Lopez, G.Z. (2008). Global network properties. — Anal. Biol. Net. 31: 63.
-
Sundaresan, S.R., Fischhoff, I.R., Dushoff, J. & Rubenstein, D.I. (2007). Network metrics reveal differences in social organization between two fission-fusion species, Grevy’s zebra and onager. — Oecologia 151: 140-149.
-
Todd, P.M. & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. — Behav. Brain Sci. 23: 727-741.
-
Travis, S.E. & Slobodchikoff, C.N. (1993). Effects of food resource distribution on the social system of Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni). — Can. J. Zool. 71: 1186-1192.
-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1991). Utah prairie dog recovery action plan. — Prepared in cooperation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
-
Verdolin, J.L. (2007). Resources, not male mating strategies, are a determinant of social structure in Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni). — Behaviour 144: 1361-1382.
-
Verdolin, J.L. (2008). Social structure and mating system of Gunnison’s prairie dogs, Cynomys gunnisoni. — Doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY.
-
Verdolin, J.L. & Slobodchikoff, C.N. (2009). Resources, not kinship, determine social patterning in the territorial Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni). — Ethology 115: 59-69.
-
Verdolin, J.L., Traud, A.L. & Dunn, R.R. (2014). Key players and hierarchical organization of prairie dog social networks. — Ecol. Complex. 19: 140-147.
-
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications. — Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
-
Wey, T., Blumstein, D.T., Shen, W. & Jordán, F. (2008). Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. — Anim. Behav. 75: 333-344.
-
Willems, E.P., Arseneau, T.J.M., Schleuning, X. & van Schaik, C.P. (2015). Communal range defence in primates as a public goods dilemma. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 370: 20150003.
-
Wiszniewski, J., Allen, S.J. & Möller, L.M. (2009). Social cohesion in a hierarchically structured embayment population of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins. — Anim. Behav. 77: 1449-1457.
-
Wittemyer, G., Douglas-Hamilton, I. & Getz, W.M. (2005). The socioecology of elephants: analysis of the processes creating multitiered social structures. — Anim. Behav. 69: 1357-1371.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 294 | 294 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 24 | 24 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 35 | 35 | 1 |
Resource availability influences global social network properties in Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni)
In: BehaviourAbstract
Increasingly we are discovering that the interactions between individuals within social groups can be quite complex and flexible. Social network analysis offers a toolkit to describe and quantify social structure, the patterns we observe, and evaluate the social and environmental factors that shape group dynamics. Here, we used 14 Gunnison’s prairie dogs networks to evaluate how resource availability and network size influenced four global properties of the networks (centralization, clustering, average path length, small word index). Our results suggest a positive correlation between overall network cohesion and resource availability, such that networks became less centralized and cliquish as biomass/m2 availability decreased. We also discovered that network size modulates the link between social interactions and resource availability and is consistent with a more ‘decentralized’ group. This study highlights the importance of how individuals modify social cohesions and network connectedness as a way to reduce intragroup competition under different ecological conditions.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 294 | 294 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 24 | 24 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 35 | 35 | 1 |