ArticleBehavioral ecology and sociobiology2025
Animal social networks are robust to changing association definitions.
Article in Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Not so social in old age: demography as one driver of decreasing sociality.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The interconnecting links between individuals in an animal social network are often defined by discrete, directed behaviours, but where these are difficult to observe, a network link (edge) may instead be defined by individuals sharing a space at the same time, which can then be used to infer a social association. The method by which these associations are defined should be informed by the biological significance of edges, and therefore often vary between studies. Identifying an appropriate measure of association remains a challenge to behavioural ecologists. Here, we use automatically recorded feeder visit data from four bird systems to compare three methods to identify a social association: (1) strict time-window, (2) co-occurrence in a group, and (3) arrival-time. We tested the similarity of the resulting networks by comparing the repeatability and sensitivity of individuals' social traits (network degree, strength, betweenness). We found that networks constructed using different methods but applying similar, ecologically relevant definitions of associations based on individuals' spatio-temporal co-occurrence, showed similar characteristics. Our findings suggest that the different methods to construct animal social networks are comparable, but result in subtle differences driven by species biology and feeder design. We urge researchers to carefully evaluate the ecological context of their study systems when making methodological decisions. Specifically, researchers in ecology and evolution should carefully consider the biological relevance of an edge in animal social networks, and the implications of adopting different definitions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00265-025-03559-7.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.