In general, one animal is considered dominant over another animal if it has won more fights than its opponent. Whether this difference in won and lost fights is significant is neglected in most studies. Thus, the present study evaluates the impact of two different calculation methods for dyadic interactions with a significant asymmetric outcome on the results of social network analysis regarding agonistic interactions of pigs in three different mixing events (weaned piglets, fattening pigs and gilts). Directly after mixing, all animals were video recorded for 17 (fattening pigs, gilts) and 28 h (weaned piglets), documenting agonistic interactions. Two calculation methods for significant dyads, that is, dyadic interactions with a clear dominant subordinate relationship in which one animal has won significantly more fights than its encounter, were proposed: pen individual limits were calculated by a sign test considering the differences of won and lost fights of all dyadic interactions in each pen; dyad individual limits were determined by a one-sided sign test for each individual dyad. For all data sets (ALL, including all dyadic interactions; PEN or DYAD, including only significant dyads according to pen or dyad individual limits), networks were built based on the information of initiator and receiver with the pigs as nodes and the edges between them illustrating attacks. General network parameters describing the whole network structure and centrality parameters describing the position of each animal in the network were calculated. Both pen and dyad individual limits revealed only a small percentage of significant dyads for weaned piglets (12.4% or 8.8%), fattening pigs (4.2% or 0.6%) and gilts (3.6% or 0.4%). The comparison between the data sets revealed only high Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (rS) for the density, that is, percentage of possible edges that were actually present in the network, whereas the centrality parameters showed only moderate rS values (0.37 to 0.75). Thus, the rank order of the animals changed due to the exclusion of insignificant dyads, which shows that the results obtained from social network analysis are clearly influenced if insignificant dyads are excluded from the analyses. Due to the fact that the pen individual limits consider the overall level of agonistic interactions within each pen, this calculation method should be preferred over the dyad individual limits. Otherwise, too many animals in the group became isolated nodes with zero centrality for which no statement about their position within the network can be made.

Simple SummaryThe importance of animals within a social group can be ranked with the aid of centrality parameters, e.g., measures derived from social network analysis. In the present study, it was investigated whether these centrality parameters capture a similar rank order compared to dominance indices which are calculated based on the number of won and lost fights. Social networks for animals in three repeated mixing events were built (weaned piglets, fattening pigs, gilts) based on different types of interactions (in the present study, initiating and receiving agonistic interactions, and winning or losing a fight). Centrality parameters based on active behavior, especially winning an agonistic interaction, showed a similar rank order compared to the dominance indices. Also, the results of partial least squares structural equation modelling showed that the networks built on information about winning or losing a fight could best illustrate the dominance structure with an explained variance of about 60% for all three age groups. Thus, network analysis can provide information about the dominance structure within the group and also has the advantage of including indirect relationships between the animals which cannot be supported by the dyadic approach.AbstractDominance indices are often calculated using the number of won and lost fights of each animal focusing on dyadic interactions. Social network analysis provides new insights into the establishment of stable group structures going beyond the dyadic approach. Thus, it was investigated whether centrality parameters describing the importance of each animal for the network are able to capture the rank order calculated by dominance indices. Therefore, two dominance indices and five centrality parameters based on two network types (initiator-receiver and winner-loser networks) were calculated regarding agonistic interactions observed in three mixing events (weaned piglets, fattening pigs, gilts). Comparing the two network types, the winner-loser networks demonstrated highly positive correlation coefficients between out-degree and outgoing closeness and the dominance indices. These results were confirmed by partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), i.e., about 60% of the variance of the dominance could be explained by the centrality parameters, whereby the winner-loser networks could better illustrate the dominance hierarchy with path coefficients of about 1.1 for all age groups. Thus, centrality parameters can portray the dominance hierarchy providing more detailed insights into group structure which goes beyond the dyadic approach.

Dominance indices are calculated by considering the differences between the number of won and lost fights. Whether these differences show a significant asymmetric outcome or not is neglected. Thus, two calculation methods for the limits of significant dyads are proposed using a sign test based on the differences in won and lost fights, considering all dyadic interactions in the pen (PEN: pen individual limits), and a sign test focusing on each individual dyad (DYAD: dyad individual limits). These were compared to the data set containing all dyadic interactions (ALL). Agonistic interactions in three mixing events were video recorded for two and a half days (weaned piglets) or one and a half days (fattening pigs, gilts). Dominance indices (DI) were calculated for all data sets. Pen/dyad individual limits revealed a small number of significant dyads (weaned piglets: 12.4%/8.8%; fattening pigs: 4.2%/0.6%; gilts: 3.6%/0.4%). Pen individual limits should be selected as they allow adaption of the limits according to the fighting frequency. Spearman rank correlation coefficients of the dominance indices between the data sets were always above 0.7, implying that the rank order remained relatively stable. Information about the impact of significant dyads on sociometric measures is important to prevent misinterpretations about the social structure in animal groups and should be considered in future studies.

No abstract