A protocol for assessing bias and robustness of social network metrics using GPS based radio-telemetry data.
Bootstrapping
Correlation
GPS-based radiotelemetry
Network metrics
Permutations
Social network analysis
Sub-sampling
Uncertainty
Journal
Movement ecology
ISSN: 2051-3933
Titre abrégé: Mov Ecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101635009
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Aug 2024
06 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
15
01
2024
accepted:
15
07
2024
medline:
7
8
2024
pubmed:
7
8
2024
entrez:
6
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Social network analysis of animal societies allows scientists to test hypotheses about social evolution, behaviour, and dynamic processes. However, the accuracy of estimated metrics depends on data characteristics like sample proportion, sample size, and frequency. A protocol is needed to assess for bias and robustness of social network metrics estimated for the animal populations especially when a limited number of individuals are monitored. We used GPS telemetry datasets of five ungulate species to combine known social network approaches with novel ones into a comprehensive five-step protocol. To quantify the bias and uncertainty in the network metrics obtained from a partial population, we presented novel statistical methods which are particularly suited for autocorrelated data, such as telemetry relocations. The protocol was validated using a sixth species, the fallow deer, with a known population size where Through the protocol, we demonstrated how pre-network data permutations allow researchers to assess non-random aspects of interactions within a population. The protocol assesses bias in global network metrics, obtains confidence intervals, and quantifies uncertainty of global and node-level network metrics based on the number of nodes in the network. We found that global network metrics like density remained robust even with a lowered sample size, while local network metrics like eigenvector centrality were unreliable for four of the species. The fallow deer network showed low uncertainty and bias even at lower sampling proportions, indicating the importance of a thoroughly sampled population while demonstrating the accuracy of our evaluation methods for smaller samples. The protocol allows researchers to analyse GPS-based radio-telemetry or other data to determine the reliability of social network metrics. The estimates enable the statistical comparison of networks under different conditions, such as analysing daily and seasonal changes in the density of a network. The methods can also guide methodological decisions in animal social network research, such as sampling design and allow more accurate ecological inferences from the available data. The R package aniSNA enables researchers to implement this workflow on their dataset, generating reliable inferences and guiding methodological decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Social network analysis of animal societies allows scientists to test hypotheses about social evolution, behaviour, and dynamic processes. However, the accuracy of estimated metrics depends on data characteristics like sample proportion, sample size, and frequency. A protocol is needed to assess for bias and robustness of social network metrics estimated for the animal populations especially when a limited number of individuals are monitored.
METHODS
METHODS
We used GPS telemetry datasets of five ungulate species to combine known social network approaches with novel ones into a comprehensive five-step protocol. To quantify the bias and uncertainty in the network metrics obtained from a partial population, we presented novel statistical methods which are particularly suited for autocorrelated data, such as telemetry relocations. The protocol was validated using a sixth species, the fallow deer, with a known population size where
RESULTS
RESULTS
Through the protocol, we demonstrated how pre-network data permutations allow researchers to assess non-random aspects of interactions within a population. The protocol assesses bias in global network metrics, obtains confidence intervals, and quantifies uncertainty of global and node-level network metrics based on the number of nodes in the network. We found that global network metrics like density remained robust even with a lowered sample size, while local network metrics like eigenvector centrality were unreliable for four of the species. The fallow deer network showed low uncertainty and bias even at lower sampling proportions, indicating the importance of a thoroughly sampled population while demonstrating the accuracy of our evaluation methods for smaller samples.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The protocol allows researchers to analyse GPS-based radio-telemetry or other data to determine the reliability of social network metrics. The estimates enable the statistical comparison of networks under different conditions, such as analysing daily and seasonal changes in the density of a network. The methods can also guide methodological decisions in animal social network research, such as sampling design and allow more accurate ecological inferences from the available data. The R package aniSNA enables researchers to implement this workflow on their dataset, generating reliable inferences and guiding methodological decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39107862
doi: 10.1186/s40462-024-00494-6
pii: 10.1186/s40462-024-00494-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
55Subventions
Organisme : Science Foundation Ireland
ID : 18/CRT/6049
Pays : Ireland
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Albery GF, Kirkpatrick L, Firth JA, et al. Unifying spatial and social network analysis in disease ecology. J Anim Ecol. 2021;90:45–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13356 .
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13356
pubmed: 32984944
Amin B, Jennings DJ, Smith AF, et al. In utero accumulated steroids predict neonate anti-predator response in a wild mammal. Funct Ecol. 2021;35(6):1255–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13790 .
doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.13790
Amin B, Verbeek L, Haigh A, et al. Risk-taking neonates do not pay a survival cost in a free-ranging large mammal, the fallow deer (dama dama). R Soc Open Sci. 2022;9(9):220578. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220578 .
doi: 10.1098/rsos.220578
pubmed: 36147938
pmcid: 9490327
Aplin LM, Farine DR, Morand-Ferron J, et al. Social networks predict patch discovery in a wild population of songbirds. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012;279:4199–205. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1591 .
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1591
Balasubramaniam KN, Beisner BA, Berman CM, et al. The influence of phylogeny, social style, and sociodemographic factors on macaque social network structure. Am J Primatol. 2018;80:e22727. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22727 .
doi: 10.1002/ajp.22727
Biro PA, Dingemanse NJ. Sampling bias resulting from animal personality. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24(2):66–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.001
pubmed: 19110338
Bliss CA, Danforth CM, Dodds PS. Estimation of global network statistics from incomplete data. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e108471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108471 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108471
pubmed: 25338183
pmcid: 4206292
Bonnell TR, Vilette C. Constructing and analysing time-aggregated networks: the role of bootstrapping, permutation and simulation. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12:114–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13351 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13351
Borgatti SP, Carley KM, Krackhardt D. On the robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Soc Netw. 2006;28:124–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2005.05.001
Borgatti SP, Everett MG. Freeman LC UCINET. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 2261–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_316 .
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_316
Boyce MS, Pitt J, Northrup JM, et al. Temporal autocorrelation functions for movement rates from global positioning system radiotelemetry data. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365(1550):2213–9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0080 .
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0080
Cagnacci F, Boitani L, Powell RA, et al. Animal ecology meets gps-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:2157–62. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0107 .
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0107
Calabrese JM, Fleming CH, Gurarie E. ctmm: an r package for analyzing animal relocation data as a continuous-time stochastic process. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:1124–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12559 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12559
Caravaggi A, Banks PB, Burton AC, et al. A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv. 2017;3(3):109–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.48 .
doi: 10.1002/rse2.48
Castles M, Heinsohn R, Marshall HH, et al. Social networks created with different techniques are not comparable. Anim Behav. 2014;96:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.07.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.07.023
Ciuti S, Muhly TB, Paton DG, et al. Human selection of elk behavioural traits in a landscape of fear. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012;279(1746):4407–16. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1483 .
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1483
Costenbader E, Valente TW. The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Soc Netw. 2003;25:283–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(03)00012-1 .
doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(03)00012-1
Crofoot MC. “next-gen’’ tracking in primatology: opportunities and challenges. In: Dolins FL, editor. Spatial analysis in field primatology: applying GIS at varying scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021. p. 42–63.
doi: 10.1017/9781107449824.004
Croft DP, James R, Krause J. Exploring animal social networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400837762 .
doi: 10.1515/9781400837762
Croft DP, Madden JR, Franks DW, et al. Hypothesis testing in animal social networks. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(10):502–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.012
pubmed: 21715042
Cross PC, Creech TG, Ebinger MR, et al. Wildlife contact analysis: emerging methods, questions, and challenges. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012;66:1437–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1376-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s00265-012-1376-6
Davis GH, Crofoot MC, Farine DR. Estimating the robustness and uncertainty of animal social networks using different observational methods. Anim Behav. 2018;141:29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.04.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.04.012
Dawson DE, Farthing TS, Sanderson MW, et al. Transmission on empirical dynamic contact networks is influenced by data processing decisions. Epidemics. 2019;26:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2018.08.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2018.08.003
pubmed: 30528207
Egan ME, Pepin KM, Fischer JW, et al. Social network analysis of white-tailed deer scraping behavior: implications for disease transmission. Ecosphere. 2023;14(2): e4434. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4434 .
doi: 10.1002/ecs2.4434
Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Fried EI. Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: a tutorial paper. Behav Res Methods. 2017;50(1):195–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1 .
doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1
pmcid: 5809547
Farine DR. Proximity as a proxy for interactions: issues of scale in social network analysis. Anim Behav. 2015;104:e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.11.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.11.019
Farine DR. A guide to null models for animal social network analysis. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8:1309–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12772 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12772
pubmed: 29104749
pmcid: 5656331
Farine DR, Carter GG. Permutation tests for hypothesis testing with animal social network data: problems and potential solutions. Methods Ecol Evol. 2022;13:144–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13741 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13741
pubmed: 35873757
Farine DR, Strandburg-Peshkin A. Estimating uncertainty and reliability of social network data using Bayesian inference. R Soc Open Sci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150367 .
doi: 10.1098/rsos.150367
pubmed: 26473059
pmcid: 4593693
Farine DR, Whitehead H. Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84:1144–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12418 .
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12418
pubmed: 26172345
pmcid: 4973823
Farine DR, Aplin LM, Sheldon BC, et al. Interspecific social networks promote information transmission in wild songbirds. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;282:20142804. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2804 .
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2804
Ferreira AC, Covas R, Silva LR, et al. How to make methodological decisions when inferring social networks. Ecol Evol. 2020;10:9132–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6568 .
doi: 10.1002/ece3.6568
pubmed: 32953051
pmcid: 7487238
Foley CJ, Sillero-Zubiri C. Open-source, low-cost modular gps collars for monitoring and tracking wildlife. Methods Ecol Evol. 2020;11:553–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13369 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13369
Franks DW, Ruxton GD, James R. Sampling animal association networks with the gambit of the group. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2010;64:493–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0865-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0865-8
Frantz TL, Cataldo M, Carley KM. Robustness of centrality measures under uncertainty: examining the role of network topology. Comput Math Organ Theory. 2009;15:303–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-009-9063-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s10588-009-9063-5
Franz M, Nunn CL. Network-based diffusion analysis: a new method for detecting social learning. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009;276(1663):1829–36. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1824 .
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1824
Gilbertson ML, White LA, Craft ME. Trade-offs with telemetry-derived contact networks for infectious disease studies in wildlife. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12:76–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13355 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13355
pubmed: 33692875
Gile K, Handcock MS. Model-based assessment of the impact of missing data on inference for networks 1. 2006; www.stat.washington.edu/handcock
Griffin LL, Haigh A, Amin B, et al. Artificial selection in human–wildlife feeding interactions. J Anim Ecol. 2022;91(9):1892–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13771 .
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13771
pubmed: 35927829
pmcid: 9546373
Hart J, Weiss MN, Franks D, et al. Bison: a Bayesian framework for inference of social networks. Methods Ecol Evol. 2023;14(9):2411–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.14171 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210x.14171
pubmed: 38463700
He P, Klarevas-Irby JA, Papageorgiou D, et al. A guide to sampling design for gps-based studies of animal societies. Methods Ecol Evol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13999 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13999
Hock K, Fefferman NH. Extending the role of social networks to study social organization and interaction structure of animal groups. Ann Zool Fenn. 2011;48(6):365–70. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.048.0604 .
doi: 10.5735/086.048.0604
James R, Croft DP, Krause J. Potential banana skins in animal social network analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2009;63(7):989–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0742-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0742-5
Kanngiesser P, Sueur C, Riedl K, et al. Grooming network cohesion and the role of individuals in a captive chimpanzee group. Am J Primatol. 2011;73:758–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20914 .
doi: 10.1002/ajp.20914
pubmed: 21698658
Kaur P. aniSNA: statistical network analysis of animal social networks. R package version 1.1.1. 2024.
Kaur P, Ciuti S, Reinking AK, et al. anisna: an r package to assess bias and uncertainty in social networks obtained from animals sampled via direct observations or satellite telemetry. bioRxiv. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.10.593659 .
doi: 10.1101/2024.05.10.593659
pubmed: 38979358
pmcid: 11160757
Krause J, Croft DP, James R. Social network theory in the behavioural sciences: Potential applications. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007;62(1):15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0445-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00265-007-0445-8
pubmed: 32214613
pmcid: 7079911
Krause J, Lusseau D, James R. Animal social networks: an introduction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2009;63(7):967–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0747-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0747-0
Krause J, James R, Croft DP. Personality in the context of social networks. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:4099–106. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0216 .
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0216
Krause J, Krause S, Arlinghaus R, et al. Reality mining of animal social systems. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013;28:541–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.002
pubmed: 23856617
Krause S, Wilson AD, Ramnarine IW, et al. Guppies occupy consistent positions in social networks: mechanisms and consequences. Behav Ecol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw177 .
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arw177
Kulahci IG, Rubenstein DI, Bugnyar T, et al. Social networks predict selective observation and information spread in ravens. R Soc Open Sci. 2016;3(7): 160256. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160256 .
doi: 10.1098/rsos.160256
pubmed: 27493780
pmcid: 4968472
Lusseau D, Newman MEJ. Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks. Proc R Soc Biol Sci. 2004;271(suppl 6):S477–81. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0225 .
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0225
Lusseau D, Whitehead H, Gero S. Incorporating uncertainty into the study of animal social networks. Anim Behav. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.029 .
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.029
Morellet N, Van Moorter B, Cargnelutti B, et al. Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26(7):999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9624-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s10980-011-9624-0
Neethirajan S, Kemp B. Social network analysis in farm animals: sensor-based approaches. Animals. 2021;11:434.
doi: 10.3390/ani11020434
pubmed: 33567488
pmcid: 7914829
Ogino M, Maldonado-Chaparro AA, Aplin LM, et al. Group-level differences in social network structure remain repeatable after accounting for environmental drivers. R Soc Open Sci. 2023;10(7): 230340. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230340 .
doi: 10.1098/rsos.230340
pubmed: 37476518
pmcid: 10354494
Ortega AC, Aikens EO, Merkle JA, et al. Migrating mule deer compensate en route for phenological mismatches. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37750-z .
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37750-z
pubmed: 37037806
pmcid: 10086060
Ozella L, Price E, Langford J, et al. Association networks and social temporal dynamics in ewes and lambs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2022;246: 105515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105515 .
doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105515
Perkins SE, Cagnacci F, Stradiotto A, et al. Comparison of social networks derived from ecological data: implications for inferring infectious disease dynamics. J Anim Ecol. 2009;78(5):1015–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01557.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01557.x
pubmed: 19486206
Pike TW, Samanta M, Lindström J, et al. Behavioural phenotype affects social interactions in an animal network. Proc R Soc Biol Sci. 2008;275(1650):2515–20. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0744 .
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0744
R Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2022; https://www.R-project.org/
Reinking AK, Smith KT, Mong TW, et al. Across scales, pronghorn select sagebrush, avoid fences, and show negative responses to anthropogenic features in winter. Ecosphere. 2019;10(5): e02722. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2722 .
doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2722
Robitaille AL, Webber QM, Wal EV. Conducting social network analysis with animal telemetry data: applications and methods using spatsoc. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10:1203–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13215 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13215
Salter-Townshend M, White A, Gollini I, et al. Review of statistical network analysis: models, algorithms, and software. Stat Anal Data Min. 2012;5:243–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/sam.11146 .
doi: 10.1002/sam.11146
Shimada M, Sueur C. The importance of social play network for infant or juvenile wild chimpanzees at Mahale mountains National Park, Tanzania. Am J Primatol. 2014;76(11):1025–36.
doi: 10.1002/ajp.22289
pubmed: 24990324
Silk MJ, Jackson AL, Croft DP, et al. The consequences of unidentifiable individuals for the analysis of an animal social network. Anim Behav. 2015;104:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.005
Silk MJ, Croft DP, Delahay RJ, et al. Using social network measures in wildlife disease ecology, epidemiology, and management. BioScience. 2017;67(3):245–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw175 .
doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw175
pubmed: 28596616
pmcid: 5384163
Silk MJ, Croft DP, Delahay RJ, et al. The application of statistical network models in disease research. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8:1026–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12770 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12770
Smith JA, Moody J. Structural effects of network sampling coverage i: nodes missing at random. Soc Netw. 2013;35(4):652–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.09.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2013.09.003
Smith JA, Moody J, Morgan JH. Network sampling coverage II: the effect of non-random missing data on network measurement. Soc Netw. 2017;48:78–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.04.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.04.005
Smith JA, Morgan JH, Moody J. Network sampling coverage iii: imputation of missing network data under different network and missing data conditions. Soc Netw. 2022;68:148–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.05.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.05.002
Smith JE, Pinter-Wollman N. Observing the unwatchable: integrating automated sensing, naturalistic observations and animal social network analysis in the age of big data. J Anim Ecol. 2021;90(1):62–75.
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13362
pubmed: 33020914
Snijders TAB, Borgatti SP. Non-parametric standard errors and tests for network statistics. Connections. 1999;22:161–70.
Sosa S, Jacoby DMP, Lihoreau M, et al. Animal social networks: towards an integrative framework embedding social interactions, space and time. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13539 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210x.13539
Sosa S, Sueur C, Puga-Gonzalez I. Network measures in animal social network analysis: their strengths, limits, interpretations and uses. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13366 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13366
Spiegel O, Leu ST, Sih A, et al. Socially interacting or indifferent neighbours? Randomization of movement paths to tease apart social preference and spatial constraints. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:971–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12553 .
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12553
Superbie C, Stewart KM, Regan CE, et al. Northern boreal caribou conservation should focus on anthropogenic disturbance, not disturbance-mediated apparent competition. Biol Cons. 2022;265: 109426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109426 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109426
Webber QM, Wal EV. Trends and perspectives on the use of animal social network analysis in behavioural ecology: a bibliometric approach. Anim Behav. 2019;149:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.01.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.01.010
Whitehead H. Analyzing animal societies quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. OCLC: 1004846468; 2008.
Whitehead H. Socprog programs: analysing animal social structures. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2009;63:765–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0697-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00265-008-0697-y
Wilber M, Pepin KM, Campa H, et al. Modelling multi-species and multi-mode contact networks: implications for persistence of bovine tuberculosis at the wildlife-livestock interface. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56(6):1471–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13370 .
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13370
Yang A, Schlichting PE, Wight B, et al. Effects of social structure and management on risk of disease establishment in wild pigs. J Anim Ecol. 2021;90(4):820–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13412 .
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13412
pubmed: 33340089
Yang A, Wilber MQ, Manlove KR, et al. Deriving spatially explicit direct and indirect interaction networks from animal movement data. Ecol Evol. 2023;13: e9774. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9774 .
doi: 10.1002/ece3.9774
pubmed: 36993145
pmcid: 10040956