2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hypothesis testing in animal social networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
343
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 353 publications
(345 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
1
343
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This form of network randomization is rather rare in behavioural sciences [79], and ours is the first study that has used this stringent condition in the nullmodels of dominance networks. In the near future, we would like to investigate the procedure of randomization that preserves a predetermined hierarchy in a network.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This form of network randomization is rather rare in behavioural sciences [79], and ours is the first study that has used this stringent condition in the nullmodels of dominance networks. In the near future, we would like to investigate the procedure of randomization that preserves a predetermined hierarchy in a network.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, proximity logging may yield yet unknown sources of bias and/or error (false-positive joint detections and tag-induced behavioural changes), although we did not experience these problems with our data and study species. Finally, while improved data collection techniques will advance our understanding of complex social systems, increased data quantity and quality alone do not negate other analytical challenges (nonindependence, data filtering and management; see the electronic supplementary material) and the importance of using null models for testing network hypotheses [9].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…degree and weighted degree). Given that network data are not independent [48], we used flock replicates within each habitat type and included flock identity as a random effect and habitat as a fixed effect to explain variation in degree and weighted degree. To compare across networks in different habitats, we accounted for the number of possible species interactions and sampling time using a log (n or t) offset [49] where n represents the number of possible interspecific associations within the network (n 2 1, number of nodes) and t represents sampling time.…”
Section: (C) Network and Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%