4.7 Article

A test of the social cohesion hypothesis: interactive female marmots remain at home

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 276, Issue 1669, Pages 3007-3012

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0703

Keywords

dispersal; proximate causes; social cohesion hypothesis; yellow-bellied marmot

Funding

  1. National Geographic Society
  2. Unisense foundation
  3. UCLA Faculty Senate Faculty Research Grants
  4. UCLA Division of Life Sciences Dean's recruitment and retention funds
  5. US Department of Education GAANN Fellowship
  6. UCLA George Bartholomew Research Fellowship
  7. RMBL Snyder Graduate Research Fellowship
  8. [NSF-DBI-0242960]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individuals frequently leave home before reaching reproductive age, but the proximate causes of natal dispersal remain relatively unknown. The social cohesion hypothesis predicts that individuals who engage in more (affiliative) interactions are less likely to disperse. Despite the intuitive nature of this hypothesis, support is both limited and equivocal. We used formal social network analyses to quantify precisely both direct and indirect measures of social cohesion in yellow-bellied marmots. Because approximately 50 per cent of female yearlings disperse, we expected that social relationships and network measures of cohesion would predict dispersal. By contrast, because most male yearlings disperse, we expected that social relationships and cohesion would play a less important role. We found that female yearlings that interacted with more individuals, and those that were more socially embedded in their groups, were less likely to disperse. For males, social interactions were relatively unimportant determinants of dispersal. This is the first strong support for the social cohesion hypothesis and suggests that the specific nature of social relationships, not simply the number of affiliative relationships, may influence the propensity to disperse.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available