Does the social network structure of wild animal populations differ from that of animals in captivity?


Journal

Behavioural processes
ISSN: 1872-8308
Titre abrégé: Behav Processes
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7703854

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
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

104446

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Xareni P Pacheco (XP)

Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Psychology, Washington Singer Building, University of Exeter, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK; Centre for Research in Applied Biological Sciences, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Instituto Literario 100, Centro, 50000 Toluca, Mexico. Electronic address: xareni.ppacheco@gmail.com.

Joah R Madden (JR)

Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Psychology, Washington Singer Building, University of Exeter, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK. Electronic address: J.R.Madden@exeter.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH