Does the social network structure of wild animal populations differ from that of animals in captivity?
Captivity
Dominance
Grooming
Network position
Social network analysis
Journal
Behavioural processes
ISSN: 1872-8308
Titre abrégé: Behav Processes
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7703854
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
02
04
2020
revised:
16
08
2020
accepted:
14
06
2021
pubmed:
21
6
2021
medline:
4
8
2021
entrez:
20
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The social behaviour of wild animals living in groups leads to social networks with structures that produce group-level effects and position individuals within them with differential consequences for an individual's fitness. Social dynamics in captivity can differ greatly from those in wild conspecifics given the different constraints on social organization in wild populations, e.g. group size, predation pressure, distribution of resources (food, mates), which are all regulated by human carers in captive populations. The social networks of animals in zoos is expected to differ from those of free-living conspecifics. While many studies have described the social networks of a wide diversity of wild and captive animals, none has directly compared the networks of multiple groups of a single species both in the wild and in captivity. Meerkats, Suricata suricatta, are an excellent species to compare the social networks of wild and captive groups. We replicated the methods of Madden et al. (2009, 2011), who studied eight groups in the wild, in fifteen captive groups. We tested how network structures and individual positions in grooming, foraging competition and dominance networks differed between wild and captive groups. Groups of wild and captive meerkats differed in various aspects of their social network structure. Differences in the network may be due to individuals occupying different network positions and the difference in the number and strength of their connections to other individuals. This distinct way of interacting and associating could be a result of group specific attributes, such as group size, and/or the attributes of the donor and recipient, including sex, status or age. Critically, the differences may be explained by the dissimilar living environment that each encounters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34147575
pii: S0376-6357(21)00130-3
doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104446
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104446Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.