4.4 Article

A longitudinal network analysis of social dynamics in rooks corvus frugilegus: repeated group modifications do not affect social network in captive rooks

期刊

CURRENT ZOOLOGY
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 379-388

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cz/zow083

关键词

corvids; preferential attachment; social interactions; social network analysis; temporal dynamics; triadic closure

类别

资金

  1. French Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous studies have investigated the remarkable variation of social features and the resulting structures across species. Indeed, relationships are dynamic and vary in time according to various factors such as environmental conditions or individuals attributes. However, few studies have investigated the processes that stabilize the structures within a given species, and the behavioral mechanisms that ensure their coherence and continuity across time. Here, we used a dynamic actor-based model, RSiena, to investigate the consistency of the temporal dynamic of relationships of a group of captive rooks facing recurrent modifications in group composition (i.e., the loss and introduction of individuals). We found that changes in relationships (i.e., formation and removal) followed consistent patterns regardless of group composition and sex-ratio. Rooks preferentially interacted with paired congeners (i.e., unpopular attachment) and were more likely to form relationships with individuals bonded to a current social partner (i.e., friends of friends, or triadic closure). The sex of individuals had no effect on the dynamic of relationships. This robust behavioral mechanisms formed the basis of inter-connected networks, composed of sub-structures of individuals emerging from the enmeshment of dyadic and triadic motifs. Overall, the present study reveals crucial aspects of the behavioral mechanisms shaping rooks social structure, suggesting that rooks live in a well-integrated society, going far beyond the unique monogamous pair-bond.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据