Reality mining of animal social systems

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 541-551

  Krause, Jens ^a,b   Krause, Stefan ^c   Arlinghaus, Robert ^a,b   Psorakis, Ioannis ^d   Roberts, Stephen ^d   Rutz, Christian ^e  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGY AND INLAND FISHERIES   (Germany)

^b HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c LÜBECK UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animal social network; Biologging; Biotelemetry; Group living; High resolution data; Movement; Proximity logging; Social behaviour

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BIOTELEMETRY; DATA MINING; DATA PROCESSING; DATA SET; MOVEMENT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL NETWORK; SOCIAL STRUCTURE;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL SOCIAL NETWORK; BIOLOGGING; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIRD; DATA MINING; EQUIPMENT; EVALUATION STUDY; GROUP-LIVING; HIGH-RESOLUTION DATA; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PHYSIOLOGY; PROXIMITY LOGGING; REMOTE SENSING; REVIEW; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TELEMETRY;

ANIMAL SOCIAL NETWORK; BIOLOGGING; BIOTELEMETRY; GROUP-LIVING; HIGH-RESOLUTION DATA; MOVEMENT; PROXIMITY LOGGING; SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR;

ANIMALS; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; BIRDS; DATA MINING; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MOVEMENT; REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84882571429     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.002     Document Type: Review

References (100)

1. Han J., Kamber M. Data Mining: Concept and Techniques 2006, Morgan Kaufmann.
2. Eagle N., Pentland A.S. Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Pers. Ubiqui. Comput. 2006, 10:255-268.
3. Eagle N., et al. Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:15274-15278.
4. Mitchell T.M. Mining our reality. Science 2009, 326:1644-1645.
5. Giles J. Computational social science: making the links. Nature 2012, 488:448-450.
6. Onnela J., et al. Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:7332-7336.
7. Gonzalez M.C., et al. Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 2008, 453:779-782.
8. Cooke S.J., et al. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:334-343.
9. Ropert-Coudert Y., Wilson R.P. Trends and perspectives in animal-attached remote sensing. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3:437-444.
10. Rutz C., Hays G.C. New frontiers in biologging science. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:289-292.
11. Krause J., et al. New technology facilitates study of social networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26:5-6.
12. Cooke S.J., et al. Biotelemetry and biologging. Fisheries Techniques 2013, American Fisheries Society, (in press). 3rd edn. A.V. Zale (Ed.).
13. Eagle N., Pentland A.S. Eigenbehaviors: identifying structure in routine. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63:1057-1066.
14. Rutz C., et al. Automated mapping of social networks in wild birds. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:R669-R671.
15. Krause J., et al. Social network theory in the behavioural sciences: potential applications. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007, 62:15-27.
16. Croft D.P., et al. Exploring Animal Social Networks 2008, Princeton University Press.
17. Kenward R.E. A Manual for Wildlife Radio Tagging 2001, Academic Press.
18. Holland K.N., et al. Inter-animal telemetry: results from first deployment of acoustic 'business card' tags. Endang. Species Res. 2009, 10:287-293.
19. Cagnacci F., et al. Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365:2157-2162.
20. Tomkiewicz S.M., et al. Global positioning system and associated technologies in animal behaviour and ecological research. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365:2163-2176.
21. Stokesbury M.J.S., et al. Tracking diadromous fishes at sea using hybrid acoustic and archival tags. Challenges for Diadromous Fishes in a Dynamic Global Environment 2009, American Fisheries Society, Symposium 69 (Bethesda, Maryland).
22. Cooke S.J., et al. Use of CDMA acoustic telemetry to document 3-D positions of fish: relevance to the design and monitoring of aquatic protected areas. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2005, 39:17-27.
23. Espinoza M., et al. Testing a new acoustic telemetry technique to quantify long-term, fine-scale movements of aquatic animals. Fish. Res. 2011, 108:364-371.
24. Bergé J., et al. Probability of detection and positioning error of a hydro acoustic telemetry system in a fast-flowing river: intrinsic and environmental determinants. Fish. Res. 2012, 125-126:1-13.
25. Mennill D., et al. A novel digital telemetry system for tracking wild animals: a field test for studying mate choice in a lekking tropical bird. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012, 3:663-672.
26. Ryder T.B., et al. Proximity data-loggers increase the quantity and quality of social network data. Biol. Lett. 2012, 8:917-920.
27. Ceriotti M., et al. Motes in the jungle: lessons learned from a short-term WSN deployment in the Ecuador cloud forest. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on real-world wireless sensor networks 2010.
28. Psorakis I., et al. Inferring social network structure in ecological systems from spatio-temporal data streams. J. R. Soc. Interface 2012, 9:3055-3066.
29. Aplin L.M., et al. Social networks predict patch discovery in a wild population of songbirds. Proc. R. Soc. B 2012, 279:4199-4205.
30. Bonter D.N., Bridge E.S. Applications of radio frequency identification (RFID) in ornithological research: a review. J. Field Ornithol. 2011, 82:1-10.
31. Streit S., et al. Automatic life-long monitoring of individual insect behaviour now possible. Zoology 2003, 106:169-171.
32. Robinson E.J.H., et al. Radio tagging reveals the roles of corpulence, experience and social information in ant decision making. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63:627-636.
33. Guttridge T.L., et al. Novel acoustic technology for studying free-ranging shark social behaviour by recording individuals' interactions. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e9324.
34. Handcock R.N., et al. Monitoring animal behaviour and environmental interactions using wireless sensor networks, GPS Collars and satellite remote sensing. Sensors 2009, 9:3586-3603.
35. Markham A.C., Wilkinson A.J. EcoLocate: a heterogeneous wireless network system for wildlife tracking. Telecommunications, Automation and Industrial Electronics 2008, 293-298. Springer.
36. Davis R.W., et al. Hunting behavior of a marine mammal beneath the Antarctic fast ice. Science 1999, 283:993-996.
37. Takahashi A., et al. Penguin-mounted cameras glimpse underwater group behaviour. Proc. R. Soc. B 2004, 271:S281-S282.
38. Rutz C., et al. Video cameras on wild birds. Science 2007, 318:765.
39. Moll R.J., et al. A new 'view' of ecology and conservation through animal-borne video systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:660-668.
40. Bluff L.A., Rutz C. A quick guide to video-tracking birds. Biol. Lett. 2008, 4:319-322.
41. Rutz C., Troscianko J. Programmable, miniature video-loggers for deployment on wild birds and other wildlife. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012, 4:114-122.
42. Choudhury T., Pentland A. The sociometer: measuring human networks. Proc. 7th IEEE Int. Symp. Wearable Computers 2003, 1530-0811.
43. Sakamoto K.Q., et al. Can ethograms be automatically generated using body acceleration data from free-ranging birds?. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e5379.
44. Nathan R., et al. Using tri-axial acceleration data to identify behavioral modes of free-ranging animals: general concepts and tools illustrated for griffon vultures. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215:986-996.
45. Shamoun-Baranes J., et al. From sensor data to animal behaviour: an oystercatcher example. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e37997.
46. Vyssotski, et al. EEG responses to visual landmarks in flying pigeons. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19:1159-1166.
47. Patterson T.A., et al. State-space models of individual animal movement. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23:87-94.
48. Guarie E., et al. A novel method of identifying behavioural changes in animal movement data. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12. 395-308.
49. Boettinger A.N. Inferring ecological and behavioral drivers of African elephant movement using a linear filtering approach. Ecology 2011, 92:1648-1657.
50. Newman M.E.J. Networks: An Introduction 2010, Oxford University Press.
51. Scott J. Social Network Analysis 2000, Sage Publications.
52. Ohtsuki H., et al. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature 2006, 441:502-505.
53. Santos F.C., et al. Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogenous populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103:3490-3494.
54. Watson-Haigh N.S., et al. Proximity loggers: data handling and classification for quality control. Sens. J. IEEE 2012, 12:1611-1617.
55. Drewe J.A., et al. Performance of proximity loggers in recording intra- and inter-species interactions: a laboratory and field-based validation study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e39068.
56. Cote D., et al. A coded acoustic telemetry system for high precision monitoring of fish location and movement: application to the study of nearshore nursery habitat of juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 1998, 32:54-62.
57. Hanson, et al. Stability of swimming performance and activity hierarchies among wild largemouth bass at multiple temporal scales: evidence for context-dependent shuffling between seasons. Can. J. Zool. 2010, 88:324-333.
58. Bocaletti S., et al. Complex networks: structure and dynamics. Phys. Rep. 2006, 424:175-308.
59. Cross P., et al. Wildlife contact analysis: emerging methods, questions, and challenges. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2012, 66:1437-1447.
60. Marschall N. Methodological Pitfalls in Social Network Analysis: Why Current Methods Produce Questionable Results 2007, VDM Verlag.
61. Borgatti S.P., et al. UCINET for Windows, Version 6: Software for Social Network Analysis 2002, Analytic Technologies.
62. Whitehead H. Socprog programs: analysing animal social structures. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63:765-778.
63. Fink G.A. Markov Models for Pattern Recognition 2008, Springer-Verlag.
64. Balch T., et al. How multi-robot systems research will accelerate our understanding of social animal behaviour. Proc. IEEE 2006, 94:1445-1463.
65. Cane V. On fitting low-order Markov chains to behaviour sequences. Anim. Behav. 1978, 26:332-338.
66. Haccou P. Analysis of time-inhomogeneity in Markov chains applied to mother-infant interactions of rhesus monkeys. Anim. Behav. 1983, 31:927-945.
67. Asher L., et al. Recent advances in the analysis of behavioural organization and interpretation as indicators of animal welfare. J. R. Soc. Interface 2009, 6:1103-1119.
68. Haccou P., Meelis E. Statistical Analysis of Behavioural Data: An Approach Based on Time-Structured Models 1994, Oxford University Press.
69. Krause J., et al. Animal social networks: an introduction. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63:967-973.
70. King A., et al. Selfish-herd behaviour of sheep under threat. Curr. Biol. 2012, R561-R562.
71. Blonder B., et al. Temporal dynamics and network analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012, 3:958-972.
72. Feldman A., Balch T. Representing honey bee behaviour for recognition using human trainable models. Adapt. Behav. 2004, 12:241-250.
73. Herbert-Read J., et al. Inferring the rules of interaction of social fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:18726-18731.
74. Katz Y., et al. Inferring the structure and dynamics of schooling fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:18720-18725.
75. Herbert-Read J.E., et al. The role of individuality in collective group movement. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2013, 10.1098/rspb.2012.2564.
76. Wasserman S., Faust K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications 1994, Cambridge University Press.
77. Crook J.H. The evolution of social organisation and visual communication in the weaver birds (Ploceinae). Behav. Suppl. 1964, 10:1-178.
78. Jarman P.J. The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 1974, 48:215-267.
79. Zhang P., et al. Habitat monitoring with ZebraNet: design and experiences. Wireless Sensor Networks: A Systems Perspective 2005, 235-257. Artech House.
80. Ji W., et al. Contact rates between possums revealed by proximity data loggers. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42:595-604.
81. Hamede R.K., et al. Contact networks in a wild Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) population: using social network analysis to reveal seasonal variability in social behaviour and its implications for transmission of devil facial tumour disease. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:1147-1157.
82. Böhm M., et al. Dynamic interactions among badgers: implications for sociality and disease transmission. J. Anim. Ecol. 2008, 77:735-745.
83. Böhm M., et al. Contact networks in a wildlife-livestock host community: identifying high-risk individuals in the transmission of bovine TB among badgers and cattle. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e5016.
84. Marsh M.K., et al. Use of proximity loggers and network analysis to quantify social interactions in free-ranging wild rabbit populations. Wildl. Res. 2011, 38:1-12.
85. Tambling C.J., Belton L.E. Feasibility of using proximity tags to locate female lion Panthera leo kills. Wildl. Biol. 2009, 15:435-441.
86. Perkins S.E., et al. Comparison of social networks derived from ecological data: implications for inferring infectious disease dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 2009, 78:1015-1022.
87. Haddadi H., et al. Determining association networks in social animals: choosing spatial-temporal criteria and sampling rates. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2011, 65:1659-1668.
88. Bailey P.J., Britt A.G. Electronic identification and tracking of cattle in Victoria, Australia. Performance Recording of Animals - State of the Art 2001, 327-330. Wageningen Academic Publishers.
89. Dyo V., et al. Evolution and sustainability of a wildlife monitoring sensor network. Sen. Sys. 2010, 2010:127-140.
90. Klefoth T., et al. The role of ecological context and predation risk-stimuli in revealing the true picture about the genetic basis of boldness evolution in fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2012, 66:547-559.
91. Ji W., et al. Mate ID: first trial of a novel device for measuring possum contacts. Advances in the Biological Control of Possums 1999, 92-95. The Royal Society of New Zealand.
92. Douglas M.E., et al. MateID: design and testing of a novel device for recording contacts between free-ranging animals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2006, 34:203-207.
93. Juang P., et al. Energy-Efficient Computing for Wildlife Tracking: Design Tradeoffs and Early Experiences with ZebraNet 2002, ASPLOS X.
94. Prange S., et al. New radiocollars for the detection of proximity among individuals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2006, 34:1333-1344.
95. Rutz C., St Clair J.J.H. The evolutionary origins and ecological context of tool use in New Caledonian crows. Behav. Processes 2012, 89:153-165.
96. Farine D.R., et al. Social network analysis of mixed-species flocks: exploring the structure and evolution of interspecific social behaviour. Anim. Behav. 2012, 84:1271-1277.
97. Lauw H.W., et al. Social network discovery by mining spatio-temporal events. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 2005, 11:97-118.
98. Whitehead H. Analyzing Animal Societies: Quantitative Methods for Vertebrate Social Analysis 2008, Chicago University Press.
99. Krings G., et al. Effects of time window size and placement on the structure of aggregated networks. Arxiv 2012, 1202.1145.
100. Oh K.P., Badyaev A.V. Structure of social networks in a passerine bird: consequences for sexual selection and the evolution of mating strategies. Am. Nat. 2010, 176:80-89.