Dynamics of communities in two fission-fusion species, Grevy's zebra and onagerChayant Tantipathananandh1, Tanya Y. Berger-Wolf1, Siva R. Sundaresan2, Ilya R. Fischhoff2, and Daniel I. Rubenstein2
1Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA2Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, USA
IntroductionWe consider the problem of identifying communities in populations with changing social affiliations over time. Ours is the first community identification method that does not aggregate information over time but takes the dynamic nature of interactions explicitly into consideration, accounting for a fluid and changing community structure.
Here we apply our method to two equid species: Grevy's zebra (Equus grevyi) and onagers (Equus hemionus khur). The two populations are of similar fission-fusion species with territorial males and harem females. However, there are ecological differences which have been expected to result in different social patterns between the two species. The results of applying our method not only confirm the ecological insight but quantify it and provide visual supporting evidence of the difference. In particular, Grevy's zebra have a more cohesive social structure, which suggests a preference of individual company. In contrast, the social groups in onagers are more happenstance, which suggests that group formation is a byproduct of other ecological factors, such as congregation at a waterhole or seeking strength in numbers against predation
OnagersGrevy’s zebras
A recurring community
A persistentcommunity
Fleeting small communities, otherwise isolated individuals.
Dynamic Community Identification MethodWe assume that social individuals need to maintain the following properties:
• Individual Conservatism They rarely change community affiliations• Group Loyalty
• They tend to stay near by other individuals from the same community to socialize• They tend to be unseen at the same time
Deviations from these assumptions are possible and ideally need to be at minimum to maintain socialization. Finding dynamic community that minimizes these deviations is NP-complete.
Example Analysis
Figure 2. Each color represents one community. Color of a group indicates which community the group represents (which may or may not be dominating color within group). Color of individuals indicate its affiliation at the moment.
Green individual in blue group
Green individual absent from green group
Affiliation Change:Green-blue-green
A smallcommunity
ReferencesSundaresan, S. R., Fischhoff, I. R., Dushoff, J. & Rubenstein, D. I. 2007. Network metrics reveal differences in social organization between two fission-fusion species, Grevy's zebra and onager. Oecologia, 151, 140-149.
Tantipathananandh, C., Berger-Wolf T., Kempe, D. 2007. A Framework For Identifying Communities in Dynamic Social Networks. Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD, 717-726.
fission
fusion
fission
fusion
fission
ObservationWe assume that the input is obtained as a sequence of population snapshots.
Day 3Day 3
Day 1Day 1Groups of individuals in each snapshot
are defined by spatial proximitytim
e
11
22
44
55
1122
33
44
55 T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
1122 334455
55
55 22
11
22 33 44 11
55 22 33 1144
22 3355 44
44 1133
Observed Individuals
UnseenIndividuals
Static Networks
Dynamic Networks
Entire group was unseen
The recurring community (see below)
Top Related