Spatial structure of foraging meerkat groups is affected by both social and ecological factors

  • Gabriella E. C. GallEmail author
  • Marta B. Manser
Original Article


Group-living animals need to trade off the benefits and the costs of close proximity to conspecifics. Benefits can be increased, and costs reduced by preferentially choosing specific locations within a group best adjusted to an individual’s needs or by associating with specific group members and/or avoiding others. We investigated the spatial structure of meerkat (Suricata suricatta) groups and whether it was shaped by social factors such as affiliation or aggression among group members, predation risk, foraging success, or a mix of these different factors. Using social network analyses, based on spatial networks, we found associations between the dominant pair, among males and among same aged individuals, and dis-assortment by sex only in one to two of the six groups. In addition, the structure of meerkat groups was highly variable, as individual strength within the calculated networks was not repeatable over time. Meerkats seemed to adjust their location to their physical environment, as dominant individuals were located further toward the front of the group, where foraging success is likely higher and young individuals located further toward the back of the group, where they can benefit most from the vigilance effort of their conspecifics. We conclude that meerkat groups display a dynamic spatial structure depending on both the current social and physical environmental.


Group-living animals can achieve greater benefits from close association with conspecifics by choosing specific locations within a group or associating with specific group members and/or avoiding others. A considerable body of work has examined how differences in predation risk or foraging success affect the relative location of individuals within a group. Several studies investigated the association between individuals, in order to draw conclusions on the social structure. However, it is important to disentangle the impact of all of these different aspects on the spatial structure of a group. Here, we provide evidence that both the social and physical environment is important for the spatial assortment of meerkats, a social mongoose foraging in cohesive groups.


Group structure Meerkat Social network analysis Spatial location 



We thank Tim Clutton-Brock and the Kalahari Research Trust for permission to work at the Kuruman River Reserve, and the neighbouring farmers to use their land. We also thank Tim Clutton-Brock, and Dave Gaynor for the organisation of the field site and their input on the field work, and the managers and volunteers of the Kalahari Meerkat Project (KMP) for maintaining the habituation and basic data collection on the meerkats. Furthermore, we thank Bruce Boatman, Denise Camenisch, and Pauline Toni for their assistance with focal recordings, Bart Kranstauber and Ariana Strandburg-Peshkin, for helpful discussions and suggestions for the analysis and Tim Clutton-Brock, Damien Farine, Matthew Silk, and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments. This paper has relied on records of individual identities and/or life histories maintained by the KMP, which has been supported by the European Research Council (Grant No 294494 to T.H. Clutton-Brock since 1/7/2012), the University of Zurich and the Mammal Research Institute at the University of Pretoria. We thank the Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation for permission to conduct the research.

Author’s contributions

GECG and MBM collected the data with the help of three field assistants and GECG analysed the data. The article was written by both GECG and MBM. Both authors gave final approval for publication.

Funding information

This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No PDFMP3_141768 to MBM).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All data collection adhered to ASAB guidelines. All research was conducted under the permission of the ethical committee of Pretoria University (EC031-13) and the Northern Cape Conservation Service, South Africa (Permit number: FAUNA 192/2014).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2018_2490_MOESM1_ESM.docx (333 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 327 kb)


  1. Asensio N, Korstjens AH, Schaffner CM, Aureli F (2008) Intragroup aggression, fission-fusion dynamics and feeding competition in spider monkeys. Behaviour 145:983–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard JA (2000) Foraging behaviour and social organisation in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bivand R, Lewin-Koh N (2016) maptools: tools for reading and handling spatial objects. R package version 0.8–39,
  4. Bousquet CAH (2011) Group decision-making in Meerkats (Suricata suricatta). University of Zurich, PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  5. Bumann D, Krause J, Rubenstein D (1997) Mortality risk of spatial positions in animal groups: the danger of being in the front. Behaviour 134:1063–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butts CT (2014) sna: tools for social network analysis. R package version 2:3–2 Google Scholar
  7. Carter AJ, Macdonald SL, Thomson VA, Goldizen AW (2009) Structured association patterns and their energetic benefits in female eastern grey kangaroos, Macropus giganteus. Anim Behav 77:839–846Google Scholar
  8. Carter AJ, Lee AEG, Marshall HH, Tico MT, Cowlishaw G (2015) Phenotypic assortment in wild primate networks: implications for the dissemination of information. R Soc open sci 2:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock T, Manser MB (2016) Meerkats: cooperative breeding in the Kalahari. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH, Grynor D, Kansky R, MacColl ADC, Macllrath G, Chadwick P, Brotherton PNM, O'Riain JM, Manser MB, Skinner JD (1998) Costs of cooperative behavior in suricates (Suricata suricatta). Proc R Soc Lond B 265:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, McIlrath GM, MacColl ADC, Kansky R, Chadwick P, Manser M, Skinner JD, Brotherton PNM (1999a) Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. J Anim Ecol 68:672–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH, O'Riain MJ, Brotherton PNM, Gaynor D, Kansky R, Griffin AS, Manser M (1999b) Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science 284:1640–1644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Di Bitetti MS, Janson CH (2001) Social foraging and the finder's share in capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Anim Behav 62:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Blanco Y, Hirsch BT (2006) Determinants of vigilance behavior in the ring-tailed coati (Nasua nasua): the importance of within-group spatial position. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doolan SP, Macdonald DW (1996) Diet and foraging behaviour of group-living meerkats, Suricata suricatta, in the southern Kalahari. J Zool 239:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farine DR (2016a) asnipe: animal social network inference and permutations for ecologists. R package version 0.91,
  18. Farine DR (2016b) assortnet: calculate the assortativity coefficient of weighted and binary networks. R package version 0.12,
  19. Farine DR, Whitehead H (2015) Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis. J Anim Ecol 84:1144–1163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Farine DR (2014) Measuring phenotypic assortment in animal social networks: weighted associations are more robust than binary edges. Anim Behav 89:141–153Google Scholar
  21. Gall GEC, Manser MB (2017) Group cohesion in foraging meerkats: follow the moving 'vocal hot spot'. R Soc open sci 4:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gama J (2014) NISTunits: fundamental physical constants and unit conversions from NIST. R package version 1.0.0,
  23. Hall CL, Fedigan LM (1997) Spatial benefits afforded by high rank in white-faced capuchins. Anim Behav 53:1069–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry of the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen MJ, Schaerf TM, Krause J, Ward AJW (2016) Crimson spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia duboulayi) change their spatial position according to nutritional requirement. PLoS One 11:e0148334CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Hijmans RJ (2015) geosphere: spherical trigonometry. R package version 1.5–1,
  27. Hirsch BT (2007) Costs and benefits of within-group spatial position: a feeding competition model. Q Rev Biol 82:9–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirsch BT (2011) Within-group spatial position in ring-tailed coatis: balancing predation, feeding competition, and social competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hodge SJ, Flower TP, Clutton-Brock TH (2007) Offspring competition and helper associations in cooperative meerkats. Anim Behav 74:957–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hodge SJ, Thornton A, Flower TP, Clutton-Brock TH (2009) Food limitation increases aggression in juvenile meerkats. Behav Ecol 20:930–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huchard E, English S, Bell MBV, Thavarajah N, Clutton-Brock T (2016) Competitive growth in a cooperative mammal. Nature 533:532–534CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Jordan NR, Cherry MI, Manser MB (2007) Latrine distribution and patterns of use by wild meerkats: implications for territory and mate defence. Anim Behav 73:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kranstauber B, Smolla M (2016) move: visualizing and analyzing animal track data. R package version 1.6.541,
  34. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Krause J, Ruxton GD, Rubenstein D (1998) Is there always an influence of shoal size on predator hunting success? J Fish Biol 52:494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kurvers R, Adamczyk V, Kraus RHS, Hoffman JI, van Wieren SE, van der Jeugd HP, Amos W, Prins HHT, Jonker RM (2013) Contrasting context dependence of familiarity and kinship in animal social networks. Anim Behav 86:993–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kutsukake N, Clutton-Brock TH (2006) Agression and submission reflect reproductive conflict between females in cooperatively breeding meerkats Suricata suricatta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Madden JR, Kunc HP, English S, Manser MB, Clutton-Brock TH (2009) Calling in the gap: competition or cooperation in littermates' begging behaviour? Proc R Soc Lond B 276:1255–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manser MB, Jansen D, Graw B, Hollen LI, Bousquet CAH, Furrer RD, le Roux A (2014) Vocal complexity in meerkats and other mongoose species. Adv Stud Behav 46:281–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patterson MR (1984) Patterns of whole colony prey capture in the octocoral, Alcyonium siderium. Biol Bull 167:613–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna Google Scholar
  42. Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1990) Trade-offs in foraging success and predation risk with spatial position in colonial spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1993) Ontogenic shifts within the selfish herd - predation risk and foraging trade-offs change with age in colonial web-building spiders. Oecologia 95:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Reber S, Townsend SW, Manser MB (2013) Social monitoring via close calls in meerkat. Proc R Soc B 280:20131013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Revelle W (2016) psych: procedures for personality and psychological research, version 1.6.4,
  46. Revelle W (2017) psych: procedures for personality and psychological research, version 1.7.8,
  47. Ruckstuhl K, Neuhaus P (2005) Sexual segregation in vertebrates: ecology of two sexes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Interclass correlations—uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Spong GF, Hodge SJ, Young AJ, Clutton-Brock TH (2008) Factors affecting the reproductive success of dominant male meerkats. Mol Ecol 17:2287–2299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sterck EHM, Watts DP, van Schaik CP (1997) The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Teichroeb JA, White MMJ, Chapman CA (2015) Vervet (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) intragroup spatial positioning: dominants trade-off predation risk for increased food acquisition. Int J Primatol 36:154–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thavarajah NK, Fenkes M, Clutton-Brock TH (2014) The determinants of dominance relationships among subordinate females in the cooperatively breeding meerkat. Behaviour 151:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young AJ, Carlson AA, Monfort SL, Russell AF, Bennett NC, Clutton-Brock T (2006) Stress and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in cooperatively breeding meerkats. P Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12005–12010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Kalahari Meerkat ProjectNorthern CapeSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations