A framework to evaluate whether to pool or separate behaviors in a multilayer network

Abstract

A multilayer network approach combines different network layers, which are connected by interlayer edges, to create a single mathematical object. These networks can contain a variety of information types and represent different aspects of a system. However, the process for selecting which information to include is not always straightforward. Using data on two agonistic behaviors in a captive population of monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus), we developed a framework for investigating how pooling or splitting behaviors at the scale of dyadic relationships (between two individuals) affects individual- and group-level social properties. We designed two reference models to test whether randomizing the number of interactions across behavior types results in similar structural patterns as the observed data. Although the behaviors were correlated, the first reference model suggests that the two behaviors convey different information about some social properties and should therefore not be pooled. However, once we controlled for data sparsity, we found that the observed measures corresponded with those from the second reference model. Hence, our initial result may have been due to the unequal frequencies of each behavior. Overall, our findings support pooling the two behaviors. Awareness of how selected measurements can be affected by data properties is warranted, but nonetheless our framework disentangles these efforts and as a result can be used for myriad types of behaviors and questions. This framework will help researchers make informed and data-driven decisions about which behaviors to pool or separate, prior to using the data in subsequent multilayer network analyses.

Costs dictate strategic investment in dominance interactions

“…Additionally, during CHA interactions, the actor accelerates and runs at high speed, sometimes covering a substantial distance, which thus represents a considerable energetic investment relative to ‘lower-cost’ interactions involving little to no movement. While the distinction between these interaction categories is very clear in vulturine guineafowl, other studies may opt for a more quantitative approach for grouping interaction types [ 34 ], although we note that doing so could potentially require careful consideration of circularity if interaction networks that map differently onto individuals may, in fact, be the outcome of different strategies. We omit ‘fights’—as defined previously for vulturine guineafowl [ 30 ]—because these are infrequent, have no clear directionality and typically occur between social groups.…”

Costs dictate strategic investment in dominance interactions

“…Additionally, during CHA interactions the actor accelerates and runs at high speed, sometimes covering a substantial distance, which thus represents a considerable energetic investment relative to 'lower-cost' interactions involving little to no movement. While the distinction between these interaction categories is very clear in vulturine guineafowl, other studies may opt for a more quantitative approach for grouping interaction types [30], although we note that doing so could potentially require careful consideration of circularity if interaction networks that map differently onto individuals may in fact be the outcome of different strategies. We omit 'fights'-as defined previously for vulturine guineafowl [26]-because these are infrequent, have no clear directionality, and typically occur between social groups.…”

Measuring dominance certainty and assessing its impact on individual and societal health in a nonhuman primate model: a network approach

“…Researchers of social status in nonhuman animals are also recognizing with greater frequency that social status involves not just dominance relationships but also other relational interactions that include both affiliative and agonistic behaviours [10,[54][55][56][57]. As such, techniques for more flexibly evaluating the importance of multiplex components to the understanding of relationships have emerged [58][59][60][61][62]. Using the technique developed by Pósfai et al [59], we asked whether dominance certainty influences the role that individuals play in their multiplex networks [63].…”