|
|
Sueur, C., & Petit, O. (2008). Shared or unshared consensus decision in macaques? Behav. Process., 78(1), 84–92.
Abstract: Members of a social group have to make collective decisions in order to synchronise their activities. In a shared consensus decision, all group members can take part in the decision whereas in an unshared consensus decision, one individual, usually a dominant member of the group, takes the decision for the rest of the group. It has been suggested that the type of decision-making of a species could be influenced by its social style. To investigate this further, we studied collective movements in two species with opposed social systems, the Tonkean macaque (Macaca tonkeana) and the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta). From our results, it appears that the decision to move is the result of the choices and actions of several individuals in both groups. However, this consensus decision involved nearly all group members in Tonkean macaques whereas dominant and old individuals took a prominent role in rhesus macaques. Thus, we suggest that Tonkean macaques display equally shared consensus decisions to move, whereas in the same context rhesus macaque exhibit partially shared consensus decisions. Such a difference in making a collective decision might be linked to the different social systems of the two studied species.
|
|
|
|
Bode, N. W. F., Wood, A. J., & Franks, D. W. (2011). The impact of social networks on animal collective motion. Anim. Behav., 82(1), 29–38.
Abstract: Many group-living animals show social preferences for relatives, familiar conspecifics or individuals of similar attributes such as size, personality or sex. How such preferences could affect the collective motion of animal groups has been rather unexplored. We present a general model of collective animal motion that includes social connections as preferential reactions between individuals. Our conceptual examples illustrate the possible impact of underlying social networks on the collective motion of animals. Our approach shows that the structure of these networks could influence: (1) the cohesion of groups; (2) the spatial position of individuals within groups; and (3) the hierarchical dynamics within such groups. We argue that the position of individuals within a social network and the social network structure of populations could have important fitness implications for individual animals. Counterintuitive results from our conceptual examples show that social structures can result in unexpected group dynamics. This sharpens our understanding of the way in which collective movement can be interpreted as a result of social interactions.
|
|
|
|
Hasenjager, M. J., & Dugatkin, L. A. Social Network Analysis in Behavioral Ecology. Advances in the Study of Behavior. Academic Press.
Abstract: Abstract In recent years, behavioral ecologists have embraced social network analysis (SNA) in order to explore the structure of animal societies and the functional consequences of that structure. We provide a conceptual introduction to the field that focuses on historical developments, as well as on novel insights generated by recent work. First, we discuss major advances in the analysis of nonhuman societies, culminating in the use of SNA by behavioral ecologists. Next, we discuss how network-based approaches have enhanced our understanding of social structure and behavior over the past decade, focusing on: (1) information transmission, (2) collective behaviors, (3) animal personality, and (4) cooperation. These behaviors and phenomena possess several features—e.g., indirect effects, emergent properties—that network analysis is well equipped to handle. Finally, we highlight recent developments in SNA that are allowing behavioral ecologists to address increasingly sophisticated questions regarding the structure and function of animal sociality.
|
|
