4.2 Article

Captive Hamilton's frog (Leiopelma hamiltoni) associates non-randomly under retreat sites: preliminary insights into their social networks

期刊

NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 236-251

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03014223.2021.1994426

关键词

Amphibians; anuran; association rates; coefficient of variation; lagged association rates; Leiopelma pakeka; sociability; refuge sharing; retreat site; weighted degree

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that captive Hamilton's frogs tend to selectively share retreat sites with specific individuals rather than choosing randomly. Pair-wise associations were stable over short periods but decreased over time.
Hamilton's frog (Leiopelma hamiltoni) is often found co-habiting retreat sites in the wild and in captivity, but whether co-habitation is a facet of sociality remains to be explored. We investigated the association patterns of retreat site sharing in four captive colonies of L. hamiltoni using a social networking framework. We tested whether the strength and heterogeneity of associations between individuals of each network varied from expected, or if frogs shared retreat sites randomly. We also investigated the temporal stability of pair-wise associations. In all tanks, we found that frogs shared retreat sites significantly more than would be expected if they displayed no degree of association. Further, we observed more preferred and avoided pairings than would be expected at random. Temporal stability between pairs of individuals within a tank were stable over short time periods (10-50 days) but decreased over time. High variation within and between tanks, however, prevented us from establishing a clear trend in temporal stability. Our results suggest that captive L. hamiltoni frogs, at least over the short-term, preferentially select retreat sites with specific individuals, and from this we infer that sociality in the form of retreat site sharing may form a key component of L. hamiltoni biology.

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

4.2
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