4.1 Article

Long-term social structure of long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) in the Strait of Gibraltar

期刊

ACTA ETHOLOGICA
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 81-94

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10211-008-0045-2

关键词

pilot whales; social structure; Strait of Gibraltar; cetacean

资金

  1. General Direction for Biodiversity of the Spanish Ministry of Environment
  2. Autonomous City of Ceuta ( Spain)
  3. Foundation Loro Parque
  4. Foundation Biodiversidad
  5. Nature Life Project [LIFE02NAT/E/8610]
  6. CNRS
  7. Ministere de la Recherche Scientifique
  8. La Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale/ Fondation BNP-Paribas
  9. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Strait of Gibraltar is inhabited by around 216 pilot whales, which are present all year round, and nothing is known about their social structure. The aim of this study is to analyse the inter-individual association patterns within this pilot whales community to (1) provide an insight on their long-term social system and (2) to assess the relationship between sexes within this social system. Between 1999 and 2006, 23,004 km was sampled in the Strait of Gibraltar, and 4,887 images of dorsal fins of pilot whales were taken from 226 groups. The sex of 56 of the individuals could be determined genetically. The strength of the behavioural relationships between dyads of individuals was calculated, and the temporal aspects of the social structure were evaluated, showing in a non-random social structure made by constant companions. The preferred associations between individuals consisted in associations of males-females. Eight long-term units could be found with different degrees of association rates. Consequently, we propose that, in the Strait, the pilot whales exhibit a hierarchical social system composed of a population encompassing several clans of pilot whales each containing several pods. Pods will then be formed by several line units, similar to killer whale matrilineal units.

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

4.1
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