The social network structure of a wild meerkat population: 2. Intragroup interactions

  • Joah R. Madden
  • Julian A. Drewe
  • Gareth P. Pearce
  • Tim H. Clutton-Brock
Original Paper


Knowledge of the structure of networks of social interactions is important for understanding the evolution of cooperation, transmission of disease, and patterns of social learning, yet little is known of how environmental, ecological, or behavioural factors relate to such structures within groups. We observed grooming, dominance, and foraging competition interactions in eight groups of wild meerkats (Suricata suricatta) and constructed interaction networks for each behaviour. We investigated relationships between networks for different social interactions and explored how group attributes (size and sex ratio), individual attributes (tenure of dominants), and ecological factors (ectoparasite load) are related to variation in network structure. Network structures varied within a group according to interaction type. Further, network structure varied predictably with group attributes, individual attributes, and ecological factors. Networks became less dense as group size increased suggesting that individuals were limited in their number of partners. Groups with more established dominant females were more egalitarian in their grooming and foraging competition interactions, but more despotic in their dominance interactions. The distribution of individuals receiving grooming became more skewed at higher parasite loads, but more equitable at low parasite loads. We conclude that the pattern of interactions between members of meerkat groups is not consistent between groups but instead depends on general attributes of the group, the influence of specific individuals within the group, and ecological factors acting on group members. We suggest that the variation observed in interaction patterns between members of meerkat groups may have fitness consequences both for individual group members and the group itself.


Social networks Meerkats Grooming Dominance Intragroup interactions 


  1. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCInet for windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Brotherton PNM, Clutton-Brock TH, O’Riain MJ, Gaynor D, Sharpe L, Kansky R, McIlrath GM (2001) Offspring food allocation by parents and helpers in a cooperative mammal. Behav Ecol 12:590–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, Kansky R, MacColl ADC, McIlrath G, Chadwick P, Brotherton PNM, O’Riain JM, Manser M, Skinner JD (1998) Costs of cooperative behaviour in suricates, Suricata suricatta. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clutton-Brock TH, Brotherton PNM, Russell AF, O’Riain MJ, Gaynor D, Kansky R, Griffin A, Manser M, Sharpe L, McIlrath G, Small T, Moss A, Monfort S (2001) Cooperation, control, and concession in meerkat groups. Science 291:478–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Spong G, Russell AF, Jordan NR, Bennett NC, Manser MB (2006) Intrasexual competition in cooperative mammals. Nature 444:1065–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Croft DP, Krause J, James R (2004) Social networks in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B 271:S516–S519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croft DP, James R, Ward AJW, Botham MS, Mawdsley D, Krause J (2005) Assortative interactions and social networks in fish. Oecologia 143:211–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring animal social networks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross PC, Lloyd-Smith JO, Getz WM (2005) Disentangling association patterns in fission-fusion societies using African buffalo as an example. Anim Behav 69:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doolan SP, Macdonald DW (1999) Co-operative rearing by slender-tailed meerkats (Suricata suricatta) in the southern Kalahari. Ethology 105:851–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drewe JA, Madden JR, Pearce GP (2009) The social network structure of a wild meerkat population: 1. Inter-group interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1295–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flack JC, Girvan M, de Waal FBM, Krakauer DC (2006) Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439:426–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Godfrey SS, Bull CM, James R, Murray K (2009) Network structure and parasite transmission in a group living lizard, the gidgee skink, Egernia stokesii. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1045–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffin AS, Pemberton JM, Brotherton PNM, McIlrath G, Gaynor D, Kansky R, O’Riain J, Clutton-Brock TH (2003) A genetic analysis of breeding success in the cooperative meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Behav Ecol 4:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guimarães PR, Argollo de Menezes M, Barid RW, Lusseau D, Guimarães P, dos Reis SF (2007) Vulnerability of a killer whale social network to disease outbreaks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 76(4 Pt 1):042901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. Published in digital form at:, University of California, Riverside
  17. Hinde RA (1983) Primate social relationships. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodge SJ, Flower TP, Clutton-Brock TH (2007) Offspring competition and helper associations in cooperative meerkats. Anim Behav 74:957–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krause J, Croft D, James R (2007) Social network theory in the behavioural sciences: potential applications. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kutsukake N, Clutton-Brock TH (2006) Social functions of allogrooming in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Anim Behav 72:1059–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kutsukake N, Clutton-Brock TH (2008) Do meerkats engage in conflict management following aggression? Reconciliation, submission and avoidance. Anim Behav 75:1441–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lusseau D (2003) The emergent properties of a dolphin social network. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:S186–S188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lusseau D, Newman MEJ (2004) Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:S477–S481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lusseau D, Wilson BEN, Hammond PS, Grellier K, Durban JW, Parsons KM, Barton TR, Thompson PM (2006) Quantifying the influence of sociality on population structure in bottlenose dolphins. J Anim Ecol 75:14–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Madden JR, Clutton-Brock TH (2009) Manipulating grooming by decreasing parasite load causes unpredicted changes in antagonism. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:1263–1268Google Scholar
  26. Manno TG (2008) Social networking in the Columbian ground squirrel, Spermophilus columbianus. Anim Behav 75:1221–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCowan B, Anderson K, Heagarty A, Cameron A (2008) Utility of social network analysis for primate behavioral management and well-being. Appl Anim Behav Sci 109:396–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonald DB (2007) Predicting fate from early connectivity in a social network. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:10910–10914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakamura M (2006) Lattice models in ecology and social sciences. Ecol Res 21:364–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Naug D (2009) Structure and resilience of the social network in an insect colony as a function of colony size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1023–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman MEJ (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev 45:167–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radford AN (2008) Duration and outcome of intergroup conflict influences intragroup affiliative behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2787–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramos-Fernández G, Boyer D, Aureli F, Vick LG (2009) Association networks in the spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:999–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryder TB, McDonald DB, Blake JG, Parker PG, Loiselle BA (2008) Social networks in the lek-mating wire-tailed manakin (Pipra filicauda). Proc R Soc Lond B 275:1367–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1994) Biometry: principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman and Co Ltd, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Sundaresan SR, Fischhoff IR, Dushoff J, Rubenstein DI (2007) Network metrics reveal differences in social organization between two fission-fusion species, Grevy’s zebra and onager. Oecologia 151:140–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas POR, Croft DP, Morrell LJ, Davis A, Faria JJ, Dyer JRG, Piyapong C, Ramnarine I, Ruxton GD, Krause J (2008) Does defection during predator inspection affect social structure in wild shoals of guppies. Anim Behav 75:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Wey T, Blumstein DT, Shen W, Jordán F (2008) Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. Anim Behav 75:333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolf JBW, Mawdsley D, Trillmich F, James R (2007) Social structure in a colonial mammal: unravelling hidden structural layers and their foundations by network analysis. Anim Behav 74:1293–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Young AJ, Carlson AA, Clutton-Brock T (2005) Trade-offs between extraterritorial prospecting and helping in a cooperative mammal. Anim Behav 70:829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joah R. Madden
    • 1
    • 4
  • Julian A. Drewe
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Gareth P. Pearce
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tim H. Clutton-Brock
    • 1
  1. 1.Large Animal Research Group, Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Wildlife Health and Conservation Medicine Group, Department of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Conservation Medicine Programme, School of Veterinary & Biomedical SciencesMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia
  4. 4.Animal Behaviour Group, School of PsychologyUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  5. 5.Royal Veterinary CollegeHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations