Socially interacting or indifferent neighbours? Randomization of movement paths to tease apart social preference and spatial constraints

Summary Understanding how animals interact with their physical and social environment is a major question in ecology, but separating between these factors is often challenging. Observed interaction rates may reflect social behaviour – preferences or avoidance of conspecifics or certain phenotypes. Yet, environmental spatiotemporal heterogeneity also affects individual space use and interaction rates. For instance, clumped and ephemeral resources may force individuals to aggregate independently of sociality. Proximity-based social networks (PBSNs) are becoming increasingly popular for studying social structures thanks to the parallel improvement of biotracking technologies and network randomization methods. While current methods focus on swapping individual identities among network nodes or in the data streams that underlies the network (e.g. individuals movement paths), we still need better tools to distinguish between the contribution of sociality and other factors towards those interactions. We propose a novel method that randomizes path segments among different time stamps within each individual separately (Part I). Temporal randomization of whole path segments (e.g. full days) retains their original spatial structure while decoupling synchronization among individuals. This allows researchers to compare observed dyadic association rates with those expected by chance given explicit space use of the individuals in each dyad. Further, since environmental changes are commonly much slower than the duration of social interactions, we can differentiate between these two factors (Part II). First, an individual's path is divided into successive time windows (e.g. weeks), and days are randomized within each time window. Then, by exploring how the deviations between randomized and observed networks change as a function of time window length, we can refine our null model to account also for temporal changes in the activity areas. We used biased-correlated random walk models to simulate populations of socially indifferent or sociable agents for testing our method for both false-positive and negative errors. Applying the method to a data set of GPS-tracked sleepy lizards (Tiliqua rugosa) demonstrated its ability to reveal the social organization in free-ranging animals while accounting for confounding factors of environmental spatiotemporal heterogeneity. We demonstrate that this method is robust to sampling bias and argue that it is applicable for a wide range of systems and tracking techniques, and can be extended to test for preferential phenotypic assortment within PBSNs.

[1]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Environment modulates population social structure: experimental evidence from replicated social networks of wild lizards , 2016, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  Jens Krause,et al.  Network position: a key component in the characterization of social personality types , 2012, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[3]  R. Kays,et al.  Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet , 2015, Science.

[4]  Stephan T. Leu,et al.  Association networks reveal social organization in the sleepy lizard , 2010, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  A Cockburn,et al.  Individual personalities predict social behaviour in wild networks of great tits (Parus major). , 2013, Ecology letters.

[6]  C. Bull,et al.  Population ecology of the sleepy lizard, Tiliqua rugosa, at Mt Mary, South Australia , 1995 .

[7]  Steeve D. Côté,et al.  Correcting for the impact of gregariousness in social network analyses , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  David Lusseau,et al.  The emergent properties of a dolphin social network , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  Hamed Haddadi,et al.  Determining association networks in social animals: choosing spatial–temporal criteria and sampling rates , 2011, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[10]  Stuart Bearhop,et al.  The consequences of unidentifiable individuals for the analysis of an animal social network , 2015, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  A contact-based social network of lizards is defined by low genetic relatedness among strongly connected individuals , 2014, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  John T. Finn,et al.  Applying network methods to acoustic telemetry data: Modeling the movements of tropical marine fishes , 2014 .

[13]  Richard James,et al.  Dynamic social networks in guppies (Poecilia reticulata) , 2014, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[14]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Measuring phenotypic assortment in animal social networks: weighted associations are more robust than binary edges , 2014, Animal Behaviour.

[15]  Daniel T. Blumstein,et al.  Social cohesion in yellow-bellied marmots is established through age and kin structuring , 2010, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  Sean F. Hanser,et al.  Social network theory: new insights and issues for behavioral ecologists , 2009, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[17]  Edward J. Brooks,et al.  Developing a deeper understanding of animal movements and spatial dynamics through novel application of network analyses , 2012 .

[18]  Wayne M Getz,et al.  Factors Influencing Foraging Search Efficiency: Why Do Scarce Lappet-Faced Vultures Outperform Ubiquitous White-Backed Vultures? , 2013, The American Naturalist.

[19]  Richard James,et al.  Hypothesis testing in animal social networks. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[20]  Steven D. Prager,et al.  The dynamics of animal social networks: analytical, conceptual, and theoretical advances , 2014 .

[21]  Stephan T. Leu,et al.  The influence of refuge sharing on social behaviour in the lizard Tiliqua rugosa , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[22]  Richard James,et al.  Generalized affiliation indices extract affiliations from social network data , 2015 .

[23]  Daniel W. Franks,et al.  The impact of social networks on animal collective motion , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  David Lusseau,et al.  Incorporating uncertainty into the study of animal social networks , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  Steven C. Minta,et al.  Tests of Spatial and Temporal Interaction Among Animals. , 1992, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[26]  Wayne M. Getz,et al.  Moving beyond Curve Fitting: Using Complementary Data to Assess Alternative Explanations for Long Movements of Three Vulture Species , 2015, The American Naturalist.

[27]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Proximity as a proxy for interactions: issues of scale in social network analysis , 2015, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  J. Hutchinson,et al.  Use, misuse and extensions of “ideal gas” models of animal encounter , 2007, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[29]  Orr Spiegel,et al.  When the going gets tough: behavioural type-dependent space use in the sleepy lizard changes as the season dries , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  Jochen B. W. Wolf,et al.  Beyond habitat requirements: individual fine-scale site fidelity in a colony of the Galapagos sea lion (Zalophus wollebaeki) creates conditions for social structuring , 2007, Oecologia.

[31]  L. Bejder,et al.  A method for testing association patterns of social animals , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  C. Bull,et al.  Movement patterns in the monogamous sleepy lizard (Tiliqua rugosa): effects of gender, drought, time of year and time of day , 2006 .

[33]  Serge Planes,et al.  Evidence of social communities in a spatially structured network of a free-ranging shark species , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  C. Bull,et al.  Mate fidelity in an Australian lizard Trachydosaurus rugosus , 1988, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[35]  Trisalyn A. Nelson,et al.  Measuring Dynamic Interaction in Movement Data , 2013, Trans. GIS.

[36]  Roland Langrock,et al.  Modelling group dynamic animal movement , 2013, 1308.5850.

[37]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis , 2015, The Journal of animal ecology.

[38]  E. Revilla,et al.  Trends and missing parts in the study of movement ecology , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Stephan T. Leu,et al.  Pair-living in the absence of obligate biparental care in a lizard: Trading-off sex and food? , 2011 .

[40]  Trisalyn A Nelson,et al.  A critical examination of indices of dynamic interaction for wildlife telemetry studies. , 2014, The Journal of animal ecology.

[41]  Stewart L. Macdonald,et al.  Structured association patterns and their energetic benefits in female eastern grey kangaroos, Macropus giganteus , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[42]  Richard James,et al.  Social structure in a colonial mammal: unravelling hidden structural layers and their foundations by network analysis , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  Stephanie S. Godfrey,et al.  Lovers and fighters in sleepy lizard land: where do aggressive males fit in a social network? , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[44]  J. Krause,et al.  Personality in the context of social networks , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  Armand Jacobs,et al.  Social Network Influences Decision Making During Collective Movements in Brown Lemurs (Eulemur fulvus fulvus) , 2011, International Journal of Primatology.

[46]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  From Individuals to Groups and Back: The Evolutionary Implications of Group Phenotypic Composition , 2015, Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

[47]  Stephanie S. Godfrey,et al.  The response of a sleepy lizard social network to altered ecological conditions , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[48]  Christopher N Templeton,et al.  Spatial movements and social networks in juvenile male song sparrows. , 2012, Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology.