Social and ecological determinants of fission–fusion dynamics in the spotted hyaena

Smith, Jennifer E.; Kolowski, Joseph M.; Graham, Katharine E.; Dawes, Stephanie E.; Holekamp, Kay E.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.001

Cited by 222 publications

(201 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

189

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Communal den-sites are often re-situated within a clan's territory (Kruuk 1972, Mills 1990, Boydston et al 2006) and this could lead to dynamics in hyaena density distribution correlated to the time-scale of these den moves. Interacting with the above two factors, the fissionfusion social system of hyaenas leads to substantial intra-clan group size variation across time and space (Smith et al 2008), and may contribute to density variation across these dimensions within clan territories. The importance of spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the co-existence of competing species is a well-established concept within community ecology (Polis et al 1989, Holt and Polis 1997, Mills and Funston 2003, Owen-Smith 2004, and as such the temporal and spatial heterogeneity in hyaena density demonstrated in this study may promote the co-existence of other large carnivores with hyaenas in HiP via the creation of dynamic interference competition refugia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity in the density of spotted hyaenas in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, South Africa

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity in the density of spotted hyaenas in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, South Africa

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, Smith et al (2010) noted that although coalitions are common in hyenas, they are rarely concerned with access to resources. The authors argue that although coalition formation might allow females to more effectively defend a carcass against within-group competitors, the feeding time lost due to the coordination of coalitionary behaviour, and the escalation in aggression that this would entail (reducing feeding efficiency and attracting additional competitors) appears to make such a tactic prohibitively costly (Smith et al, 2008(Smith et al, , 2010; but see Vogel et al, 2007). The opportunity costs of engaging in a coalitionary conflict may also depend on age (e.g., Bissonnette, 2009), on the reproductive states of the individuals involved (e.g., Wasser & Starling, 1988;Barrett & Henzi, 2002), or on group composition and demography.…”

Section: Investment and Opportunity Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

110

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coalitions and alliances are ubiquitous in humans and many other mammals, being part of the fabric of complex social systems. Field biologists and ethologists have accumulated a vast amount of data on coalition and alliance formation, while theoretical biologists have developed modelling approaches. With the accumulation of empirical data and sophisticated theory, we are now potentially able to answer a host of questions about how coalitions emerge and are maintained in a population over time, and how the psychology of this type of cooperation evolved. Progress can only be achieved, however, by effectively bridging the communication gap that currently exists between Coalitions in theory and reality empiricists and theoreticians. In this paper, we aim to do so by asking three questions: (1) What are the primary questions addressed by theoreticians interested in coalition formation, and what are the main building blocks of their models? (2) Do empirical observations support the assumptions of current models, and if not, how can we improve this situation? (3) Has theoretical work led to a better understanding of coalition formation, and what are the most profitable lines of inquiry for the future? Our overarching goal is to promote the integration of theoretical and field biology by motivating empirical scientists to collect data on aspects of coalition formation that are currently poorly quantified and to encourage theoreticians to develop a comprehensive theory of coalition formation that is testable under real-world conditions.

show abstract

“…In contrast to network fragmentation and subgroup cohesion, we found variation in subgroup sizes to have a weak negative effect on network modularity. Fluid subgroup sizes are common in many social species (e.g., in spotted hyenas, elks, chimpanzees, bottlenose dolphins, and African lions) and can be brought about by changes in resource availability, intragroup aggression, demographic factors (such as sex ratio), dominance hierarchy, and female reproductive state (13,15,16).…”

Section: Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Unraveling the disease consequences and mechanisms of modular structure in animal social networks

Sah

Leu

Cross

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

162

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disease risk is a potential cost of group living. Although modular organization is thought to reduce this cost in animal societies, empirical evidence toward this hypothesis has been conflicting. We analyzed empirical social networks from 43 animal species to motivate our study of the epidemiological consequences of modular structure in animal societies. From these empirical studies, we identified the features of interaction patterns associated with network modularity and developed a theoretical network model to investigate when and how subdivisions in social networks influence disease dynamics. Contrary to prior work, we found that disease risk is largely unaffected by modular structure, although social networks beyond a modular threshold experience smaller disease burden and longer disease duration. Our results illustrate that the lowering of disease burden in highly modular social networks is driven by two mechanisms of modular organization: network fragmentation and subgroup cohesion. Highly fragmented social networks with cohesive subgroups are able to structurally trap infections within a few subgroups and also cause a structural delay to the spread of disease outbreaks. Finally, we show that network models incorporating modular structure are necessary only when prior knowledge suggests that interactions within the population are highly subdivided. Otherwise, null networks based on basic knowledge about group size and local contact heterogeneity may be sufficient when data-limited estimates of epidemic consequences are necessary. Overall, our work does not support the hypothesis that modular structure universally mitigates the disease impact of group living. modularity | sociality | community structure | wildlife disease | infection

show abstract

Social and ecological determinants of fission–fusion dynamics in the spotted hyaena

Cited by 222 publications

References 73 publications

Heterogeneity in the density of spotted hyaenas in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, South Africa

Heterogeneity in the density of spotted hyaenas in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, South Africa

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Unraveling the disease consequences and mechanisms of modular structure in animal social networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About