4.3 Article

Do sampling method and sample size affect basic measures of dolphin sociality ?

Journal

MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 187-198

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00242.x

Keywords

sociality; fission-fusion; bottlenose dolphin; Tursiops spp; association; group size

Funding

  1. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Georgetown University
  2. Animal Behavior Society
  3. American Society of Mammalogists
  4. Eppley Foundation for Research
  5. Helen V. Brach Foundation
  6. National Science Foundation [9753044, 0316800]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the fission-fusion social patterns of bottlenose dolphins have been described, defining and measuring sociality is difficult. No study to date has investigated how much data are necessary to accurately depict social patterns in a fission-fusion species and whether this amount differs depending on the measure used. Using the long-term Shark Bay bottlenose dolphin study we examined four different measures of sociality for mothers and dependent calves (n = 89). Our objectives were to determine (1) the amount of observation time necessary to accurately depict sociality using these measures, (2) correlations among these measures, and (3) if sampling method affects the validity of sociality measurements. A minimum of 10 h and 5 h of observations, respectively, were necessary to accurately capture calf associate numbers and percent time alone. A pairwise comparison of calf sociality measurements from focal and survey data found that calves spent from 0% to 70.2% of their time alone in focal data, but these same calves spent only 0%-7.7% alone in survey data. These findings indicate that (1) results differ depending on the type of sampling method and (2) the amount of observation time necessary to adequately capture individual variation differs depending on the measure of sociality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available