Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 396–405 | Cite as

The bottlenose dolphin community of Doubtful Sound features a large proportion of long-lasting associations

Can geographic isolation explain this unique trait?
  • David LusseauEmail author
  • Karsten Schneider
  • Oliver J. Boisseau
  • Patti Haase
  • Elisabeth Slooten
  • Steve M. Dawson
Original Article


More than 12 studies of different bottlenose dolphin populations, spanning from tropical to cold temperate waters, have shown that the species typically lives in societies in which relationships among individuals are predominantly fluid. In all cases dolphins lived in small groups characterised by fluid and dynamic interactions and some degree of dispersal from the natal group by both sexes. We describe a small, closed population of bottlenose dolphins living at the southern extreme of the species' range. Individuals live in large, mixed-sex groups in which no permanent emigration/immigration has been observed over the past 7 years. All members within the community are relatively closely associated (average half-weight index>0.4). Both male–male and female–female networks of preferred associates are present, as are long-lasting associations across sexes. The community structure is temporally stable, compared to other bottlenose dolphin populations, and constant companionship seems to be prevalent in the temporal association pattern. Such high degrees of stability are unprecedented in studies of bottlenose dolphins and may be related to the ecological constraints of Doubtful Sound. Fjords are low-productivity systems in which survival may easily require a greater level of co-operation, and hence group stability. These conditions are also present in other cetacean populations forming stable groups. We therefore hypothesise that ecological constraints are important factors shaping social interactions within cetacean societies.


Social organisation Tursiops spp. Environmental influences on sociality Sex segregation Grandmother hypothesis 



We would like to thank David Watts, Peter Corkeron, Richard C. Connor, Christoph Richter, Susan M. Lusseau and three anonymous referees who provided valuable comments and critiques at various stages of this study. We are indebted to Hal Whitehead for the development of his program SOCPROG, which eased the analysis of individual association data. This long-term study would not have been possible without the support of many institutions and companies. We would like to thank Fiordland Travel Ltd., Natural History New Zealand Limited, Geissendoerfer Film- und Fernsehgesellschaft, New Zealand Department of Conservation, the New Zealand Whale and Dolphin Trust, the University of Otago and the University of Otago Bridging Grant scheme for their financial and technical support. We would also like to thank Frank Wells, Paul Norris and Paul Stewart for their continuous help and moral support in the field. Maps from Fig. 1 were created using GMT from KK+W digital cartography (


  1. Allchin D (1992) Stimulation and analysis of information-center foraging. Behaviour 122:288–305Google Scholar
  2. Amos B, Schloetterer C, Tautz D (1993) Social structure of pilot whales revealed by analytical DNA profiling. Science 260:670–672PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird RW, Whitehead H (2000) Social organisation of mammal-eating killer whales: group stability and dispersal patterns. Can J Zool 78:2096–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballance LT (1990) Residence patterns, group organisation, and surfacing associations of bottlenose dolphins in Kino Bay, Gulf of California, Mexico. In: Leatherwood S, Reeves RR (eds) The bottlenose dolphin. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  5. Barta Z, Giraldeau LA (2001) Breeding colonies as information centers: a reappraisal of information-based hypotheses using the producer-scrounger game. Behav Ecol 12:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barta Z, Szep T (1995) Frequency-dependent selection on information-transfer strategies at breeding colonies: a simulation study. Behav Ecol 6:308–310Google Scholar
  7. Bearzi G, Notarbartolo-di-Sciara G, Politi E (1997) Social ecology of bottlenose dolphins in the Kvarneri (Northern Adriatic Sea). Mar Mamm Sci 13:650–668Google Scholar
  8. Bejder BL, Fletcher D, Bräger S (1998) A method of testing association patterns of social animals. Anim Behav 56:719–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bigg MA, Olesiuk PF, Ellis GM (1990) Social organisation and genealogy of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Rep Int Whal Comm Spec Issue 12:383–405Google Scholar
  10. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1977) Social organisation and foraging in emballonurid bats. III. Mating systems. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:1–17Google Scholar
  11. Bräger S, Würsig B, Acevedo A, Henningsen T (1994) Association patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Galveston Bay, Texas. J Mammal 75:431–437Google Scholar
  12. Buckley NJ (1997) Spatial-concentration effects and the importance of local enhancement in the evolution of colonial breeding in seabirds. Am Nat 149:1091–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cairns JS, Schwager SJ (1987) A comparison of association indices. Anim Behav 35:1454–1469Google Scholar
  14. Chilvers BL, Corkeron PJ (2002) Association patterns of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops aduncus, off Point Lookout, Queensland, Australia. Can J Zool 80:973–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christal J, Whitehead H (2001) Social affiliations within sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) groups. Ethology 107:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connor RC, Smolker RA, Richards AF (1992) Dolphin alliances and coalitions. In: Harcourt AH, de Waal FBM (eds) Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 415–443Google Scholar
  17. Connor RC, Wells RS, Mann J, Read AJ (2000) The bottlenose dolphin: social relationships in a fission–fusion society. In: Mann J, Connor RC, Tyack PL, Whitehead H (eds) Cetacean societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 91–126Google Scholar
  18. Corkeron PJ (1990) Aspects of the behavioral ecology of inshore dolphins Tursiops truncatus and Sousa chinensis in Moreton Bay, Australia. In: Leatherwood S, Reeves RR (eds) The bottlenose dolphin, Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  19. Crowley PH (2001) Dangerous games and the emergence of social structure: evolving memory-based strategies for the generalized hawk-dove game. Behav Ecol 12:753–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Datta SB (1992) Effects of availability of allies on female dominance structure. In: Harcourt AH, de Waal FBM (eds) Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 61–82Google Scholar
  21. dos Santos ME, Lacerda M (1987) Preliminary observations of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the Sado Estuary (Portugal). Aquat Mamm 13:65–80Google Scholar
  22. Dufault S, Whitehead H (1995) An assessment of changes with time in the marking patterns used for photoidentification of individual sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus. Mar Mamm Sci 11:335–343Google Scholar
  23. Efron B, Stein C (1981) The jackknife estimate of variance. Ann Stat 9:586–596Google Scholar
  24. Félix F (1994) Ecology of the coastal bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus in the Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador. Invest Cetacea 25:235–256Google Scholar
  25. Gibbs MT, Bowman MJ, Dietrich DE (2001) Maintenance of near-surface stratification in Doubtful Sound, a New Zealand Fjord. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 51:683–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gowans S, Whitehead H, Hooker SK (2001) Social organisation in northern bottlenose whales, Hyperoodon ampullatus: not driven by deep-water foraging. Anim Behav 62:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haase PA, Schneider K (2001) Birth demographics of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiopstruncatus, in Doubtful Sound, Fiordland, New Zealand—preliminary findings. NZ J Mar Freshw Res 35:675–680.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen LJ (1990) California coastal bottlenose dolphins. In: Leatherwood S, Reeves RR (eds) The bottlenose dolphin. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  29. Manly BFJ (1995) A note on the analysis of species co-occurrences. Ecology 76:1109–1115Google Scholar
  30. Matthews JBL, Heimdal BR (1979) Pelagic productivity and food chains in fjord systems. In: Freeland HJ, Farmer DM, Levings CD (eds) Fjord oceanography. NATO Conference Series 4(4). Plenum, New York, pp 377–398Google Scholar
  31. Perrin N, Lehmann L (2001) Is sociality driven by the costs of dispersal or the benefits of philopatry? A role for kin-discrimination mechanisms. Am Nat 158:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perrin N, Mazalov V (1999) Dispersal and inbreeding avoidance. Am Nat 154:282–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Quintana-Rizzo E, Wells RS (2001) Resighting and association patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Cedar Keys, Florida: insights into social organization. Can J Zool 79:447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossbach KA, Herzing DL (1997) Underwater observations of feeding bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) near Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas. Mar Mamm Sci 13:498–503Google Scholar
  35. Schneider K (1999) Behaviour and ecology of bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, Fiordland, New Zealand. PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  36. Shane SH (1990) Behavior and ecology of the bottlenose dolphin at Sanibel Island, Florida. In: Leatherwood S, Reeves RR (eds) The bottlenose dolphin. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  37. Smolker RA, Richards AF, Connor RC, Pepper JW (1992) Sex differences in patterns of association among Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. Behaviour 123:38–69Google Scholar
  38. Stanton BR, Pickard GL (1981) Physical oceanography of the New Zealand fiords. N Z Oceanogr Inst MemGoogle Scholar
  39. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 1871–1971Google Scholar
  40. Wells RS (1991) The role of long-term study in understanding the social structure of a bottlenose dolphin community. In: Pryor K, Norris KS (eds) Dolphin societies: discoveries and puzzles. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 199–225Google Scholar
  41. Wells RS, Scott MD, Irvine AB (1987) The social structure of free ranging bottlenose dolphins. In: Genoways HH (ed) Current mammalogy, vol 1. Plenum, New York, pp 247–305Google Scholar
  42. White FJ (1992) Pygmy chimpanzee social organisation: variation with party size and between study sites. Am J Primatol 26:203–214Google Scholar
  43. Whitehead H (1990) Assessing sperm whale populations using natural markings: recent progress. Rep Int Whal Comm Spec Issue 12:377–382Google Scholar
  44. Whitehead H (1995) Investigating structure and temporal scale in social organisations using identified individuals. Behav Ecol 6:199–208Google Scholar
  45. Whitehead H (1999a) SOCPROG 1.3, program for analyzing social structure (8 May 2001)Google Scholar
  46. Whitehead H (1999b) Testing association patterns of social animals. Anim Behav 57: F26-F29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Whitehead H, Arnbom T (1987) Social organisation of sperm whales off the Galápagos Islands, February–April 1985. Can J Zool 65:913–919Google Scholar
  48. Whitehead H, Dufault S (1999) Techniques for analysing vertebrate social structure using identified individuals: review and recommendations. Adv Stud Behav 28:33–74Google Scholar
  49. Williams JA, Dawson SM, Slooten E (1993) The abundance and distribution of bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Can J Zool 71:2080–2088Google Scholar
  50. Wilson DRB (1995) The ecology of bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth, Scotland: a population at the northern extreme of the species' range. PhD thesis, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  51. Wrangham RW (1980) Female choice of least costly males: a possible factor in the evolution of leks. Z Tierpsychol 54:357–367Google Scholar
  52. Wrangham RW, Rubenstein DI (1986) Social evolution in birds and mammals. In: Rubenstein DI, Wrangham RW (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. Würsig B, Würsig M (1977) The photographic determination of group size, composition and stability of coastal porpoises (Tursiops truncatus). Science 198:755–756Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lusseau
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Karsten Schneider
    • 2
  • Oliver J. Boisseau
    • 2
  • Patti Haase
    • 2
  • Elisabeth Slooten
    • 1
  • Steve M. Dawson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Marine SciencesUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Lighthouse Field StationUniversity of AberdeenCromartyScotland

Personalised recommendations