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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Bell WJ, Cardé RT (1984) Chemical ecology of insects. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland

    Google 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 70:282–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (1999) UCINET 6.0. Analytic Technologies, Natick

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown JS, Laundre JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:346–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Byrne PG, Keogh JS (2007) Terrestrial toadlets use chemosignals to recognize conspecifics, locate mates and strategically adjust calling behaviour. Anim Behav 74:1155–1162

    Article  Google 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 4:717–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Conner JF (1988) Field-measurements of natural and sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 42:736–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Conner JF (1989) Density-dependent sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 43:1378–1386

    Article  Google 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 16:115–118

    Article  Google 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 59:147–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Croft D, James R, Ward A, Botham M, Mawdsley D, Krause J (2005) Assortative interactions and social networks in fish. Oecologia 143:211–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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 59:644–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring animal social networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google 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 19:156–165

    CAS  Google 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 8:434–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fieberg J (2007) Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. Ecology 88:1059–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 17:627–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Flack J, Girvan M, De Waal F, Krakauer D (2006) Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439:426–429

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gautier P, Miaud C (2003) Faecal pellets used as an economic territorial marker in two terrestrial alpine salamanders. Ecoscience 10:134–139

    Google Scholar 

  22. Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gorman ML (1990) Scent marking strategies in mammals. Rev Suisse Zool 97:3–30

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gosling LM, Roberts SC (2001) Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Adv Study Behav 30:169–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Heatwole H, Heatwole A (1968) Movements, host-fungus preferences, and longevity of Bolitotherus cornutus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 61:18–23

    Google 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 35:1302–1308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (1997) Animal movement extension to arcview. Alaska Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, Anchorage

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jaeger RG, Gabor CR (1993) Intraspecific chemical communication by a territorial salamander via the postcloacal gland. Copeia 1993:1171–1174

    Article  Google 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 53:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Liles M (1956) A study of the life history of the forked fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus (Panzer). Ohio J Sci 56:329–3289

    Google 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–S481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Morgan ED (2009) Trail pheromones of ants. Physiol Entomol 34:1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pace AE (1967) Life history and behavior of a fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus (Tenebrionidae). Occas Pap Mus Zool Univ Mich 653:1114–1128

    Google 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 78:1015–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rhodes M (2007) Roost fidelity and fission-fusion dynamics of white-striped free-tailed bats (Tadarida australis). J Mammal 88:1252–1260

    Article  Google 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 83:132–158

    Google Scholar 

  37. Scordato ES, Drea CM (2007) Scents and sensibility: information content of olfactory signals in the ringtailed lemur, Lemur catta. Anim Behav 73:301–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Seaman DE, Powell RA (1996) An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  40. Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google 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 46:265–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sueur C, Petit O (2008) Organization of group members at departure is driven by social structure in Macaca. Int J Primat 29:1085–1098

    Article  Google 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 151:140–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tschinkel WR (1975a) Comparative study of chemical defensive system of tenebrionid beetles—chemistry of secretions. J Insect Physiol 21:753–783

    Article  CAS  Google 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 68:439–453

    Google 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 68:507–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Washabaugh K, Snowdon CT (1998) Chemical communication of reproductive status in female cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus oedipus). Am J Primatol 45:337–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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 51:519–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Whitehead H (2008) Analyzing animal societies: quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  50. Whitehead H (2009) SOCPROG programs: analysing animal social structures. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:765–778

    Article  Google 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 275:2063–2069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Worton BJ (1995) Using Monte-Carlo simulation to evaluate kernel-based home-range estimators. J Wildl Manag 59:794–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent A. Formica.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Krause

Appendix

Appendix

Definitions and descriptions of common weighted social network metrics (for an in-depth discussion and mathematical explanations, see Whitehead 2008).

Strength: the sum of the weights of edges connected to a node. This is the weighted number of interactants that an individual experiences. For our data set, strength represents the sum of weighted association indices, which essentially represents the frequency of potential social interactions. Depending on the data used to construct the social network, strength might represent the conspecific density experienced by an individual, the number of aggressive encounters it has participated in, or the frequency of matings.

Reach: the sum of the strengths of an individual’s social partners. Reach is a measure of how well the social partners of a focal individual are connected. A focal individual may only have a few social partners, but if those partners are well connected in the network, then the focal individual will have a high reach. Reach can be thought of as an indirect measure of connectedness, and Flack et al. (2006) suggest that reach can access the ability of a behavioral contagion (e.g., aggression) to spread from individuals.

Affinity: the ratio of how well connected a focal individual is to how well connected its social partners are. Affinity examines a focal individual’s connectedness by taking into account the weights of connections to social partners and then how well connected those social partners are to the rest of the network. Mathematically, this becomes the weighted mean strength of a node or an individual’s reach divided by its strength.

Eigenvector centrality: a more abstract metric that relates how highly connected an individual is within the entire network. Eigenvector centrality does not discriminate whether has many social partners or associates with highly connected social partners. Mathematically, eigenvector centrality is the first eigenvector of the weighted association matrix.

Clustering coefficient (CC): how well connected a focal individual’s social partners are to each other. An individual’s (or node’s) CC score is calculated as the sum of the weights on all three connections of each triangle (between three individuals) divided by the maximum weight in the network. In other words, the clustering coefficient measures how many and how often the focal individual’s social partners are themselves social partners.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Formica, V.A., Augat, M.E., Barnard, M.E. et al. Using home range estimates to construct social networks for species with indirect behavioral interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64, 1199–1208 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0957-5

Download citation

Keywords

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