How demographic processes shape animal social networks

Shizuka, Daizaburo; Johnson, Allison E.

doi:10.1093/beheco/arz083

Cited by 123 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although space accounted for 439 an overwhelming amount of variation, many other factors had substantial effects. The 440 categorical random effect for interannual variation was substantial, and there were 441 detectable linear annual effects and population size effects, as expected given the important 442 roles of demography in structuring social networks (Shizuka & Johnson 2019). Individual-443 level factors had weaker contributions to model fit and smaller effect sizes: most notably, 444 genetic and individual random effects were negligible when spatial autocorrelation was 445 accounted for, confirming the importance of considering space when assessing heritability 446 independently of space in this population (Stopher et al 2012a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Multiple spatial behaviours govern social network positions in a wild ungulate

Albery

Morris

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

13The structure of wild animal social systems governs many eco-evolutionary processes, and 14 is determined by a complex combination of intrinsic and extrinsic drivers. Spatial structuring 15 is a key determinant of sociality, but quantifying spatial components alongside multiple other 16 drivers remains difficult due to data scarcity and analytical complexity. We used a 43-year 17 dataset detailing a wild red deer population to investigate how individuals' spatial behaviours 18 drive social network positioning, while simultaneously assessing other potential contributing 19 factors. Using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) multi-matrix animal models, 20we demonstrate important roles of space sharing, two-dimensional point locations, and 21 especially annually varying spatiotemporal locations, alongside reduced but detectable 22 impacts of demography, genetics, and individual-level traits. Interestingly, spatial patterns 23 and other drivers differed considerably among different social network metrics. These results 24 indicate strong, multifaceted spatiotemporal structuring, emphasising the importance of 25 considering multiple components of spatial behaviour when investigating the causes and 26 consequences of sociality. 27 28

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Multiple spatial behaviours govern social network positions in a wild ungulate

Albery

Morris

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interactions with more individuals result in increased opportunities for parasite transmission, while simultaneously making it possible for information to proliferate within a group or population. When an infection is present, the interplay between infection and information may lead to both long‐ and short‐term changes in social structures, which can affect both individual fitness and entire populations (Pelletier et al , Shizuka and Johnson ). However, studying the tradeoff between efficient information transmission and rapid spread of parasites is challenging due to the difficulty of combining data that reveal infection status, and data that indicate information transmission.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infected or informed? Social structure and the simultaneous transmission of information and infectious disease

Evans

Silk

Boogert

et al. 2020

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social interactions present opportunities for both information and infection to spread through populations. Social learning is often proposed as a key benefit of sociality, while infectious disease spread are proposed as a major cost. Multiple empirical and theoretical studies have demonstrated the importance of social structure for the transmission of either information or harmful pathogens and parasites, but rarely in combination. We provide an overview of relevant empirical studies, discuss differences in the transmission processes of infection and information, and review how these processes have been modelled. Finally, we highlight ways in which animal social network structure and dynamics might mediate the tradeoff between the sharing of information and infection. We reveal how modular social network structures can promote the spread of information and mitigate against the spread of infection relative to other network structures. We discuss how the maintenance of long‐term social bonds, clustering of social contacts in time, and adaptive plasticity in behavioural interactions, all play important roles in influencing the transmission of information and infection. We provide novel hypotheses and suggest new directions for research that quantifies the transmission of information and infection simultaneously across different network structures to help tease apart their influence on the evolution of social behaviour.

show abstract

“…It is also important to recognize that a population’s rate of turnover, and the strength of inter-individual differences in a group (and population), will set limits to the temporal scale for predicting social network changes using the NRN approach [42]. If inter-individual differences in network position and plasticity are found to be important then, as long as the same individuals are present and turnover in the population is low, there is likely to be high predictability across time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Network reaction norms: taking into account network position and network plasticity in response to environmental change

Bonnell

Vilette

Henzi

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

6Recent studies have highlighted the link between consistent inter-individual differences 1 7 in behaviour and consistency in social network position. There is also evidence that network 1 8 structures can show temporal dynamics, suggesting that consistency in social network position 1 9 3 1 behaviour. 3 2 3 3 Introduction: 3 4Consistent inter-individual differences in behaviour are common in animal groups [1, 2]. 5How such behavioural differences develop, are maintained, and selected form the focus of 3 6 current research efforts, as do questions relating to the ecological and evolutionary consequences 3 7of such inter-individual differences [3, 4]. There is also great interest in the extent to which 3 8 animals are able to vary their behaviour in response to environmental changes, and whether and 3 9 how this behavioural plasticity co-varies with inter-individual differences in mean behavioural 4 0rates. This is captured by the notion of a "behavioural reaction norm" (BRN)-the set of 4 1 behavioural phenotypes an individual produces in a given set of environments-a concept drawn 4 2 from life history theory [5, 6]. Analytically, a BRN can be identified using multi-level regression 4 3 models, where the fitting of random intercepts captures inter-individual differences in the 4 4 expression of a given behaviour, and random slopes capture individual differences in plasticity 4 5 across an environmental gradient. Thus, BRNs provide information on how animals differ both 4 6 in their mean level of a given behavioural trait, and in how strongly they respond to 4 7 environmental variation. 4 8 Within social groups, patterns of inter-individual consistency have also been observed in 4 9 social network position (e.g., central individuals remain central across time) [7-11]. Again, it is 5 0an open question as to how these differences arise and are maintained [12]. There is also 5 1 evidence to suggest that consistent inter-individual differences in behaviour and social network 5 2 position interact [13, 14], which implies either that, for social animals, network position reflects 5 3 certain behavioural predispositions, and/or that certain behavioural predispositions may arise in 5 4 7 1 whether some animals are more consistently central -measured as eigenvector centrality -over 7 2 time (i.e., inter-individual differences in intercepts); (ii) the extent to which individuals on 7 3 average respond to social and environmental changes (i.e., mean network plasticity in the 7 4 population/group); (iii) the extent to which individuals differ from this mean response (i.e., 7 5inter-individual differences in network plasticity or variation in slope); and finally, (iv) to 7 6 quantify the relationship between inter-individual differences in mean network position and 7 7 network plasticity (i.e., covariation between intercepts and slopes), e.g., do more (or less) central 7 8 individuals display a stronger (or weaker) response to environmental changes? 7 9 Methods: 8 0 Networks through time: 8 1 Social networks are often built on...

show abstract

How demographic processes shape animal social networks

Cited by 123 publications

References 81 publications

Multiple spatial behaviours govern social network positions in a wild ungulate

Multiple spatial behaviours govern social network positions in a wild ungulate

Infected or informed? Social structure and the simultaneous transmission of information and infectious disease

Network reaction norms: taking into account network position and network plasticity in response to environmental change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About