Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 8, pp 1379–1391 | Cite as

Validation of an automated data collection method for quantifying social networks in collective behaviours

  • Fumiaki Y. Nomano
  • Lucy E. Browning
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
  • Simon C. Griffith
  • Andrew F. Russell


The social network of preferences among group members can affect the distribution and consequences of collective behaviours. However, the behavioural contexts and taxa in which social network structure has been described are still limited because such studies require extensive data. Here, we highlight the use of an automated passive integrated transponder (PIT)-tag monitoring system for social network analyses and do so in a novel context—nestling provisioning in an avian cooperative breeder, for which direct observation of social behaviours is difficult. First, we used observers and cameras to arrive at a suitable metric of nest visit synchrony in the PIT-tag data. Second, we validated the use of this metric for social network analyses using internal nest video cameras. Third, we used hierarchical regression models with ‘sociality’ parameter to investigate structure of networks collected from multiple groups. Use of PIT tags led to nest visitation duration and frequency being obtained with a high degree of accuracy for all group members, except for the breeding female for whom accurate estimations required the use of a video camera due to her high variability in visitation time. The PIT-tag dataset uncovered significant variability in social network structure. Our results highlight the importance of combining complementary observation methods when conducting social network analyses of wild animals. Our methods can also be generalised to multiple contexts in social systems wherever repeated encounters with other individuals in closed space have ecological implications.


Social network Collective behaviour PIT tag Cooperative breeding Hierarchical model 



We are very grateful to D. Croft, the Dowling family and Z. Turner for logistical support at Fowlers Gap; E. Berg, M. Hall, B. Rose, J. Savage, S. Sharp, E. Sorato, I. Stewart and B. Woodward for invaluable assistance with fieldwork; M. Magrath and S. Zabramski for help with the PIT-tag system; and L. A. Rollins for assistance with lab work. We are also grateful to three anonymous referees for their comments on the early version of the manuscript. We thank M. T. Kimura for helpful advice throughout the study. Funding was provided by grants from Natural Environment Research Council (studentship, LEB; New Investigators, AFR), Australian Research Council (AFR, SCG), the Royal Society University Fellowship Scheme (AFR), and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (FYN).

Ethical standards

Fieldwork was carried out under the approval of the UNSW Animal Care and Ethics Committee (license number 06/40A) and the authority of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme. We did not detect any harmful effects of the tags on the birds, which are consistent with studies on different, but similarly sized passerines (Nicolaus et al. 2008; Schroeder et al. 2011).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2014_1757_MOESM1_ESM.docx (545 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 545 kb)


  1. Aplin LM, Farine DR, Morand-Ferron J, Sheldon BC (2012) Social networks predict patch discovery in a wild population of songbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:4199–4205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aplin LM, Farine DR, Morand-Ferron J, Cole EF, Cockburn A, Sheldon BC (2013) Individual personalities predict social behaviour in wild networks of great tits (Parus major). Ecol Lett 16:1365–1372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger-Wolf TY, Saia J (2006) A framework for analysis of dynamic social networks.KDD ‘06 Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 523–528Google Scholar
  4. Blumstein DT, Wey TW, Tang K (2009) A test of the social cohesion hypothesis: interactive female marmots remain at home. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:3007–3012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bode NWF, Wood AJ, Franks DW (2011) The impact of social networks on animal collective motion. Anim Behav 82:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridge ES, Bonter DN (2011) A low-cost radio frequency identification device for ornithological research. J Field Ornithol 82:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browning LE, Patrick SC, Rollins LA, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2012a) Kin selection, not group augmentation, predicts helping in an obligate cooperatively breeding bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:3861–3869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browning LE, Young CM, Savage JL, Russell DJF, Barclay H, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2012b) Carer provisioning rules in an obligate cooperative breeder: prey type, size and delivery rate. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1639–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Côté IM, Poulin R (1995) Parasitism and group size in social animals: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 6:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croft DP, James R, Ward AJW, Botham MS, Mawdsley D, Krause J (2005) Assortative interactions and social networks in fish. Oecologia 143:211–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring animal social networks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross PC, Creech TG, Ebinger MR, Heisey DM, Irvine KM, Creel S (2012) Wildlife contact analysis: emerging methods, questions, and challenges. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1437–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eubank S, Guclu H, Kumar VSA, Marathe MV, Srinivasan A, Toroczkai Z, Wang N (2004) Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature 429:180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farine DR, Garroway CJ, Sheldon BC (2012) Social network analysis of mixed-species flocks: exploring the structure and evolution of interspecific social behaviour. Anim Behav 84:1271–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franz M, Nunn CL (2009) Network-based diffusion analysis: a new method for detecting social learning. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:829–1836Google Scholar
  16. Franz M, Nunn CL (2010) Investigating the impact of observation errors on the statistical performance of network-based diffusion analysis. Learn Behav 38:235–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaston AJ (1978) The evolution of group territorial behavior and cooperative breeding. Am Nat 112:1091–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons JW, Andrews KM (2004) PIT tagging: simple technology at its best. Bioscience 54:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillam EH, O’Shea TJ, Brigham RM (2011) Nonrandom patterns of roost emergence in big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. J Mammal 92:1253–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoff PD, Raftery AE, Handcock MS (2002) Latent space approaches to social network analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 79:1090–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holme P, Park SM, Kim BJ, Edling CR (2007) Korean university life in a network perspective: dynamics of a large affiliation network. Physica A 373:821–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jamison BE, Beyer RS, Robel RJ, Pontius JS (2000) Passive integrated transponder tags as markers for chicks. PoultrySci 79:946–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ji W, White PCL, Clout MN (2005) Contact rates between possums revealed by proximity data loggers. J Appl Ecol 42:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnstone RA, Hinde CA (2006) Negotiation over offspring care—how should parents respond to each other’s efforts? Behav Ecol 17:818–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnstone RA, Manica A, Fayet AL, Stoddard MC, Rodriguez-Gironés MA, Hinde CA (2014) Reciprocity and conditional cooperation between great tit parents. Behav Ecol 25:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joyce EM, Sillett TS, Holmes RT (2001) An inexpensive method for quantifying incubation patterns of open-cup nesting birds, with data for Black-throated Blue Warblers. J Field Ornithol 72:369–379Google Scholar
  28. Kerth G, Ebert C, Schmidtke C (2006) Group decision making in fission-fusion societies: evidence from two-field experiments in Bechstein’s bats. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2785–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krause J, Wilson ADM, Croft DP (2011) New technology facilitates the study of social networks. Trends Ecol Evol 26:5–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krause J, Krause S, Arlinghaus R, Psorakis I, Roberts S, Rutz C (2013) Reality mining of animal social systems. Trends Ecol Evol 28:541–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krivitsky PN, Handcock MS (2008) Networks with latentnet. J Stat Softw 24:1–23Google Scholar
  32. Kurth J, Loftin C, Zydlewski J, Rhymer J (2007) PIT tags increase effectiveness of freshwater mussel recaptures. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leu ST, Bashford J, Kappeler PM, Bull CM (2010) Association networks reveal social organization in the sleepy lizard. Anim Behav 79:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mariette MM, Griffith SC (2012) Nest visit synchrony is high and correlates with reproductive success in the wild Zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. J Avian Biol 43:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mariette MM, Pariser EC, Gilby AJ, Magrath MJL, Pryke SR, Griffith SC (2011) Using an electronic monitoring system to link offspring provisioning and foraging behavior of a wild passerine. Auk 128:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nagy M, Akos Z, Biro D, Vicsek T (2010) Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks. Nature 464:890–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 85:935–956PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Newman MEJ (2003) Properties of highly clustered networks. Phys Rev E 68:026121–1–6Google Scholar
  40. Nicolaus M, Bouwman KM, Dingemanse NJ (2008) Effect of PIT tags on the survival and recruitment of great tits Parus major. Ardea 96:286–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nomano FY, Browning LE, Rollins LA, Nakagawa S, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2013) Feeding nestlings does not function as a signal of social prestige in cooperatively breeding chestnut-crowned babblers. Anim Behav 86:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ottosson O, Bäckman J, Smith HG (2001) Nest-attenders in the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) during nestling rearing: a possible case of prospective resource exploration. Auk 118:1069–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patriquin KJ, Leonard ML, Broders HG, Garroway CJ (2010) Do social networks of female northern long-eared bats vary with reproductive period and age? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:899–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perkins SE, Cagnacci F, Stradiotto A, Arnoldi D, Hudson PJ (2009) Comparison of social networks derived from ecological data: implications for inferring infectious disease dynamics. J Anim Ecol 78:1015–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pinter-Wollman N, Hobson EA, Smith JE, Edelman AJ, Shizuka D, de Silva S, Waters JS, Prager SD, Sasaki T, Wittemyer G, Fewell J, McDonald DB (2014) The dynamics of animal social networks: analytical, conceptual, and theoretical advances. Behav Ecol 25:242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Portelli DJ, Barclay H, Russell DJF, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2009) Social organisation and foraging ecology of the cooperatively breeding Chestnut-crowned Babbler (Pomatostomus ruficeps). EMU 109:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Psorakis I, Roberts SJ, Rezek I, Sheldon BC (2012) Inferring social network structure in ecological systems from spatio-temporal data streams. J R Soc Interface 9:3055–3066PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rifkin JL, Nunn CL, Garamszegi LZ (2012) Do animals living in larger groups experience greater parasitism? A meta-analysis. Am Nat 180:70–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson EJH, Richardson TO, Sendova-Franks AB, Feinerman O, Franks NR (2009) Radio tagging reveals the roles of corpulence, experience and social information in ant decision making. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:627–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rollins LA, Browning LE, Holleley CE, Savage JL, Russell AF, Griffith SC (2012) Building genetic networks using relatedness information: a novel approach for the estimation of dispersal and characterization of group structure in social animals. Mol Ecol 21:1727–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruckstuhl KE (2007) Sexual segregation in vertebrates: proximate and ultimate causes. Integr Comp Biol 47:245–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Russell AF, Portelli DJ, Russell DJF, Barclay H (2010) Breeding ecology of the chestnut-crowned babbler: a cooperative breeder in the desert. EMU 110:324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rutz C, Burns ZT, James R, Ismar SMH, Burt J, Otis B, Bowen J, St Clair JJH (2012) Automated mapping of social networks in wild birds. Curr Biol 22:R669–R671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schroeder J, Cleasby IR, Nakagawa S, Ockendon N, Burke T (2011) No evidence for adverse effects on fitness of fitting passive integrated transponders (PITs) in wild house sparrows Passer domesticus. J Avian Biol 42:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shen S-F, Chen H-C, Vehrencamp SL, Yuan H-W (2010) Group provisioning limits sharing conflict among nestlings in joint-nesting Taiwan yuhinas. Biol Lett 6:318–321PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sih A, Hanser SF, McHugh KA (2009) Social network theory: new insights and issues for behavioral ecologists. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:975–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sorato E, Gullett PR, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2012) Effects of predation risk on foraging behaviour and group size: adaptations in a social cooperative species. Anim Behav 84:823–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spiegelhalter D, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc B 64:583–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS version 1.4 user manual. MRC Biostatistics Unit, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Streatfeild CA, Mabry KE, Keane B, Crist TO, Solomon NG (2011) Intraspecific variability in the social and genetic mating systems of prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Anim Behav 82:1387–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Voelkl B, Kasper C (2009) Social structure of primate interaction networks facilitates the emergence of cooperation. Biol Lett 5:462–464PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitehead H (2008) Analyzing animal societies: quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Young CM, Browning LE, Savage JL, Griffith SC, Russell AF (2013) No evidence for deception over allocation to brood care in a cooperative bird. Behav Ecol 24:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zahavi A (1974) Communal nesting by the Arabian babbler: a case of individual selection. Ibis 116:84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zemljič B, Hlebec V (2005) Reliability of measures of centrality and prominence. Soc Networks 27:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fumiaki Y. Nomano
    • 1
  • Lucy E. Browning
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
    • 4
  • Simon C. Griffith
    • 5
  • Andrew F. Russell
    • 6
  1. 1.Graduate School of Environmental SciencesHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Fowlers Gap Arid Zone Research Station, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  6. 6.Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK

Personalised recommendations