Search for: All records

Abstract Social relationships among animals emerge from interactions in multiple ecological and social situations. However, we seldom ask how each situation contributes to the global structure of a population, and whether different situations contribute different information about social relationships and the position of individuals within the social fabric. Griffon vultures (Gyps fulvus) interact socially in multiple situations, including communal roosting, joint flights, and co‐feeding. These social interactions can influence population‐level outcomes, such as disease transmission and information sharing that determine survival and response to changes. We examined the unique contribution of each social and ecological situation to the social structure of the population and individuals' positions within the overall social network using high‐resolution GPS tracking. We found that the number of individuals each vulture interacted with (degree) was best predicted by diurnal interactions—both during flights and on the ground (such as when feeding). However, the strength of social bonds, that is, the number of interactions an individual had (strength), was best predicted by interactions on the ground—both during the day (e.g., while feeding) and at night (e.g., while roosting) but not by interactions while flying. Thus, social situations differ in their impact on the relationships that individuals form. By incorporating the ecological situations in which social interactions occur we gain a more complete view of how social relationships are formed and which situations are important for different types of interactions. 

ABSTRACT Spatial and social behaviour are fundamental aspects of an animal's biology, and their social and spatial environments are indelibly linked through mutual causes and shared consequences. We define the ‘spatial–social interface’ as intersection of social and spatial aspects of individuals' phenotypes and environments. Behavioural variation at the spatial–social interface has implications for ecological and evolutionary processes including pathogen transmission, population dynamics, and the evolution of social systems. We link spatial and social processes through a foundation of shared theory, vocabulary, and methods. We provide examples and future directions for the integration of spatial and social behaviour and environments. We introduce key concepts and approaches that either implicitly or explicitly integrate social and spatial processes, for example, graph theory, density‐dependent habitat selection, and niche specialization. Finally, we discuss how movement ecology helps link the spatial–social interface. Our review integrates social and spatial behavioural ecology and identifies testable hypotheses at the spatial–social interface. 

Abstract Behavior is shaped by genes, environment, and evolutionary history in different ways. Nest architecture is an extended phenotype that results from the interaction between the behavior of animals and their environment. Nests built by ants are extended phenotypes that differ in structure among species and among colonies within a species, but the source of these differences remains an open question. To investigate the impact of colony identity (genetics), evolutionary history (species), and the environment on nest architecture, we compared how two species of harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex californicus and Veromessor andrei, construct their nests under different environmental conditions. For each species, we allowed workers from four colonies to excavate nests in environments that differed in temperature and humidity for seven days. We then created casts of each nest to compare nest structures among colonies, between species, and across environmental conditions. We found differences in nest structure among colonies of the same species and between species. Interestingly, however, environmental conditions did not have a strong influence on nest structure in either species. Our results suggest that extended phenotypes are shaped more strongly by internal factors, such as genes and evolutionary history, and are less plastic in response to the abiotic environment, like many physical and physiological phenotypes.