Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 7, pp 1199–1208 | Cite as

Using home range estimates to construct social networks for species with indirect behavioral interactions

  • Vincent A. FormicaEmail author
  • Malcolm E. Augat
  • Mollie E. Barnard
  • R. Eileen Butterfield
  • Corlett W. Wood
  • Edmund D. BrodieIII
Methods

Abstract

Social network analysis has become a vital tool for studying patterns of individual interactions that influence a variety of processes in behavior, ecology, and evolution. Taxa in which interactions are indirect or whose social behaviors are difficult to observe directly are being excluded from this rapidly expanding field. Here, we introduce a method that uses a probabilistic and spatially implicit technique for delineating social interactions. Kernel density estimators (KDE) are nonparametric techniques that are often used in home range analyses and allow researchers studying social networks to generate interaction matrices based on shared space use. We explored the use of KDE analysis and the effects of altering KDE input parameters on social network metrics using data from a natural population of the spatially persistent forked fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus.

Keywords

Social networks Kernel density estimation Home range Bolitotherus cornutus Indirect behavioral interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mountain Lake Biological Station faculty and staff, especially M. Larsen, for logistical support throughout the field season. We would also like to thank A. Wilkinson, J. McGlothlin, E. Liebgold, L. Avila, M. Formica, P. Fields, J. Krause, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful discussions on earlier versions of this manuscript. Many field assistants, graduate students, and REU students at MLBS assisted in the nocturnal data collection, and we are very grateful for their help. We are especially indebted to D.L. Gaggia for his tireless assistance in the field. A. Snedden and Wet-A-Hook technologies provided materials and advice for beetle labeling. Funding was provided by the University of Virginia, Mountain Lake Biological Station, the Norman A. Meinkoth Field Biology Award from the Department of Biology at Swarthmore College, Swarthmore College chapter of Sigma Xi, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute grant to Swarthmore College Biology Department, and the National Science Foundation REU grant to MLBS (DBI-0453380).

References

  1. Bell WJ, Cardé RT (1984) Chemical ecology of insects. Sinauer Associates, Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools
  3. Bezanson M, Garber P, Murphy J, Premo L (2008) Patterns of subgrouping and spatial affiliation in a community of mantled howling monkeys (Alouatta palliata). Am J Primatol 70:282–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (1999) UCINET 6.0. Analytic Technologies, NatickGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JS, Laundre JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne PG, Keogh JS (2007) Terrestrial toadlets use chemosignals to recognize conspecifics, locate mates and strategically adjust calling behaviour. Anim Behav 74:1155–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwell AE, Shorey HH, Baumer P, Vanvorhiskey SE (1978) Sex-pheromone scent marking by females of Pectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J Chem Ecol 4:717–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conner JF (1988) Field-measurements of natural and sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 42:736–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conner JF (1989) Density-dependent sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 43:1378–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conner JF, Camazine S, Aneshansley D, Eisner T (1985) Mammalian breath-trigger of defensive chemical response in a tenebrionid beetle (Bolitotherus cornutus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corner LAL, Pfeiffer DU, Morris RS (2003) Social-network analysis of Mycobacterium bovis transmission among captive brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). Prev Vet Med 59:147–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Croft D, James R, Ward A, Botham M, Mawdsley D, Krause J (2005) Assortative interactions and social networks in fish. Oecologia 143:211–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Croft DP, James R, Thomas POR, Hathaway C, Mawdsley D, Laland KN, Krause J (2006) Social structure and co-operative interactions in a wild population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:644–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring animal social networks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. doNascimento RR, Morgan ED (1996) Chemicals involved in the communication system of social insects: their source and methods of isolation and identification, with special emphasis on ants. Quimica Nova 19:156–165Google Scholar
  17. Epple G, Belcher AM, Greenfield KL, Scolnick L, Smith AB, Kuderling I, Zeller U (1987) Making sense out of scents-species-differences in scent glands, scent marking behavior and scent mark composition in the Callitrichidae. Int J Primat 8:434–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fieberg J (2007) Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. Ecology 88:1059–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald TD, Pescador-Rubio A, Turna MT, Costa JT (2004) Trail marking and processionary behavior of the larvae of the weevil Phelypera distigma (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J Insect Behav 17:627–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flack J, Girvan M, De Waal F, Krakauer D (2006) Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439:426–429Google Scholar
  21. Gautier P, Miaud C (2003) Faecal pellets used as an economic territorial marker in two terrestrial alpine salamanders. Ecoscience 10:134–139Google Scholar
  22. Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorman ML (1990) Scent marking strategies in mammals. Rev Suisse Zool 97:3–30Google Scholar
  24. Gosling LM, Roberts SC (2001) Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Adv Study Behav 30:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heatwole H, Heatwole A (1968) Movements, host-fungus preferences, and longevity of Bolitotherus cornutus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 61:18–23Google Scholar
  26. Holliday AE, Walker FM, Brodie ED III, Formica VA (2009) Differences in defensive volatiles of the forked fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus, living on two species of fungus. J Chem Ecol 35:1302–1308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (1997) Animal movement extension to arcview. Alaska Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaeger RG, Gabor CR (1993) Intraspecific chemical communication by a territorial salamander via the postcloacal gland. Copeia 1993:1171–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kernohan BJ, Millspaugh JJ, Jenks JA, Naugle DE (1998) Use of an adaptive kernel home-range estimator in a GIS environment to calculate habitat use. J Environ Manag 53:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liles M (1956) A study of the life history of the forked fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus (Panzer). Ohio J Sci 56:329–3289Google Scholar
  31. Lusseau D, Newman MEJ (2004) Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks. Proc R Soc Biol Sci Ser B 271:S477–S481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan ED (2009) Trail pheromones of ants. Physiol Entomol 34:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pace AE (1967) Life history and behavior of a fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus (Tenebrionidae). Occas Pap Mus Zool Univ Mich 653:1114–1128Google Scholar
  34. Perkins S, Cagnacci F, Stradiotto A, Arnoldi D, Hudson P (2009) Comparison of social networks derived from ecological data: implications for inferring infectious disease dynamics. J Anim Ecol 78:1015–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rhodes M (2007) Roost fidelity and fission-fusion dynamics of white-striped free-tailed bats (Tadarida australis). J Mammal 88:1252–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rozhnov VV (2004) Mediated communication by scent mark in mammals: on changes in the paradigm and a new approach to studies of marking behavior. Zoologichesky Zhurnal 83:132–158Google Scholar
  37. Scordato ES, Drea CM (2007) Scents and sensibility: information content of olfactory signals in the ringtailed lemur, Lemur catta. Anim Behav 73:301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seaman DE, Powell RA (1996) An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith TE, Abbott DH (1998) Behavioral discrimination between circumgenital odor from peri-ovulatory dominant and anovulatory female common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Am J Primatol 46:265–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sueur C, Petit O (2008) Organization of group members at departure is driven by social structure in Macaca. Int J Primat 29:1085–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Tschinkel WR (1975a) Comparative study of chemical defensive system of tenebrionid beetles—chemistry of secretions. J Insect Physiol 21:753–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tschinkel WR (1975b) Comparative study of chemical defensive system of tenebrionid beetles. 2. Defensive behavior and ancillary features (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 68:439–453Google Scholar
  46. Vonhof MJ, Whitehead H, Fenton MB (2004) Analysis of Spix’s disc-winged bat association patterns and roosting home ranges reveal a novel social structure among bats. Anim Behav 68:507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Washabaugh K, Snowdon CT (1998) Chemical communication of reproductive status in female cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus oedipus). Am J Primatol 45:337–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. White AM, Swaisgood RR, Zhang HM (2002) The highs and lows of chemical communication in giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): effect of scent deposition height on signal discrimination. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whitehead H (2008) Analyzing animal societies: quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Whitehead H (2009) SOCPROG programs: analysing animal social structures. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:765–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolf JBW, Trillmich F (2008) Kin in space: social viscosity in a spatially and genetically substructured network. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 275:2063–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Worton BJ (1995) Using Monte-Carlo simulation to evaluate kernel-based home-range estimators. J Wildl Manag 59:794–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent A. Formica
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Malcolm E. Augat
    • 2
  • Mollie E. Barnard
    • 2
  • R. Eileen Butterfield
    • 3
  • Corlett W. Wood
    • 1
    • 2
  • Edmund D. BrodieIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Mountain Lake Biological Station, Department of BiologyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologySwarthmore CollegeSwarthmoreUSA
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations