Advertisement

Kinship influences social bonds among male southern Australian bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops cf. australis)

  • Fernando Diaz-Aguirre
  • Guido J. Parra
  • Cecilia Passadore
  • Luciana Möller
Original Article

Abstract

Male mammals employ a wide variety of mating strategies in order to increase their reproductive success, which in turn influence their social behavior. In some populations of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.), males cooperate in small groups or alliances to gain access to females for mating. However, the occurrence of these male cooperative groups has been predicted to occur only under certain social and ecological conditions, driven by factors such as differences in population density, operational sex ratio, and sexual size dimorphism. Here, we used generalized affiliation indices, social network techniques, and maternally and bi-parentally inherited genetic markers to investigate the affiliation patterns and genetic relatedness among male southern Australian bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops cf. australis) in a small embayment in South Australia. Photo-identification data and biopsy samples were collected in Coffin Bay from 2013 to 2015 through systematic boat-based surveys. We found that highly sighted male dolphins formed 12 social clusters composed of two to five individuals. Genetic analyses revealed that general male affiliation patterns were significantly correlated with mtDNA haplotype sharing. In addition, preferred affiliates showed significantly higher levels of genetic relatedness compared to casual and avoided male pairs. Our results corroborate theoretical expectations for the formation of social bonds in small delphinids and suggest that a high density of dolphins, with an expected skewed operational sex ratio and no apparent sexual size dimorphism, is likely to have favored the formation of strong male affiliations. In addition, the availability of genetic relatives within the population may have favored male affiliations based on kinship relationships.

Significance statement

Male bottlenose dolphins use different strategies to gain access to females, from single roving individuals, pairs or trios in alliances, to stable mixed-sex groups. Moreover, the role of kinship in the formation of male social bonds also varies within and among populations. This variability has been attributed to differences in ecological and intrinsic factors. Here, we studied the affiliation patterns and genetic relatedness in southern Australian bottlenose dolphins and demonstrated that kinship plays an important role in the formation of close male social ties. Furthermore, the results corroborate previous findings about the factors that contribute to the formation of male social bonds in these animals.

Keywords

Bottlenose dolphins Tursiops cf. australis Male affiliations Kinship Generalized affiliation indices 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the volunteers who helped us in collecting data in the field, particularly K. Indeck and F. Vivier for their support during multiple fieldwork seasons. M. Sasaki and E. Pratt provided guidance with laboratory work. Special acknowledgements to C. Castilla for her help in formatting the manuscript. We would also like to thank the referees that have highly improved the quality of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was partially supported by Flinders University, Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment (ANZ and Equity Trustees), Nature Foundation SA, Inc., and Lirabenda Research Endowment of the Field Naturalists Society of South Australia. The first author was sponsored by a BecasChile PhD Scholarship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of Flinders University Animal Welfare Committee, approval number E310 and under permits to undertake scientific research: E26171-1, E26171-2, E26171-3, and MR00056-1 from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), South Australia, and under S115 ministerial exemptions (MEs: 9902601, 9902660, 9902714, and 9902779) from Primary Industries Resources South Australia (PIRSA).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2018_2621_MOESM1_ESM.docx (64 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 42 kb)

References

  1. Amos B, Hoelzel A (1991) Long-term preservation of whale skin for DNA analysis. Genetic ecology of whales and dolphins. Rep Int Whal Commn Special Issue 13:99–103Google Scholar
  2. Baker CS, Perry A, Bannister JL, Weinrich MT, Abernethy RB, Calambokidis J, Lien J, Lambertsen RH, Ramírez JU, Vasquez O (1993) Abundant mitochondrial DNA variation and world-wide population structure in humpback whales. P Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8239–8243.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.17.8239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes RFW (1982) Mate searching behaviour of elephant bulls in a semi-arid environment. Anim Behav 30:1217–1223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80214-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bejder L, Fletcher D, Brager S (1998) A method for testing association patterns of social animals. Anim Behav 56:719–725.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0802 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Best EC, Dwyer RG, Seddon JM, Goldizen AW (2014) Associations are more strongly correlated with space use than kinship in female eastern grey kangaroos. Anim Behav 89:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilgmann K, Griffiths OJ, Allen SJ, Möller LM (2007) A biopsy pole system for bow-riding dolphins: sampling success, behavioral responses, and test for sampling bias. Mar Mammal Sci 23:218–225.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00099.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blundell GM (2002) Sociality in river otters: cooperative foraging or reproductive strategies? Behav Ecol 13:134–141.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/13.1.134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blundell GM, Ben-David M, Groves P, Bowyer RT, Geffen E (2004) Kinship and sociality in coastal river otters: are they related? Behav Ecol 15:705–714.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti S (2002) NetDraw software for network visualization. Analytic Technologies, Lexington, KYGoogle Scholar
  10. Cairns SJ, Schwager SJ (1987) A comparison of association indices. Anim Behav 35:1454–1469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80018-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caro TM (1994) Cheetahs of the Serengeti Plains: group living in an asocial species. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Caro TM, Collins DA (1987) Male cheetah social organization and territoriality. Ethology 74:52–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00921.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carter KD, Seddon JM, Frère CH, Carter JK, Goldizen AW (2013) Fission-fusion dynamics in wild giraffes may be driven by kinship, spatial overlap and individual social preferences. Anim Behav 85:385–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charlton-Robb K, Gershwin L, Thompson R, Austin J, Owen K, McKechnie S (2011) A new dolphin species, the Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops australis sp. nov.), endemic to Southern Australian coastal waters. PLoS One 6:e24047CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiyo PI, Archie EA, Hollister-Smith JA, Lee PC, Poole JH, Moss CJ, Alberts SC (2011) Association patterns of African elephants in all-male groups: the role of age and genetic relatedness. Anim Behav 81:1093–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc Lond B 236:339–372.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1989.0027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1992) Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q Rev Biol 67:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connor R, Whitehead H (2005) Alliances II. Rates of encounter during resource utilization: a general model of intrasexual alliance formation in fission-fusion societies. Anim Behav 69:127–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Connor RC, Krützen M (2015) Male dolphin alliances in Shark Bay: changing perspectives in a 30-year study. Anim Behav 103:223–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Connor RC, Smolker RA, Richards AF (1992a) Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. In: Harcourt A, de Waal FBM (eds) Dolphin alliances and coalitions. Oxford Science Publications, New York, pp 415–443Google Scholar
  22. Connor RC, Smolker RA, Richards AF (1992b) Two levels of alliance formation among male bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.). P Natl Acad Sci USA 89:987–990.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.3.987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Connor RC, Richards AF, Smolker RA, Mann J (1996) Patterns of female attractiveness in Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. Behaviour 133:37–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Connor RC, Heithaus MR, Barre LM (1999) Superalliance of bottlenose dolphins. Nature 397:571–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Connor RC, Wells RS, Mann J, Read AJ (2000a) The bottlenose dolphin: social relationships in a fission-fusion society. In: Mann J, Connor RC, Tyack PL, Whitehead H (eds) Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 91–126Google Scholar
  26. Connor RC, Read AJ, Wrangham R (2000b) Male reproductive strategies and social bonds. In: Mann J, Connor RC, Tyack PL, Whitehead H (eds) Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 247–269Google Scholar
  27. Connor RC, Watson-Capps JJ, Sherwin WB, Krutzen M (2011) A new level of complexity in the male alliance networks of Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.). Biol Lett 7:623–626.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0852 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Diaz-Aguirre F (2017) Socio-genetic structure of southern Australian bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops cf. australis) in a South Australian embayment. PhD thesis, Flinders University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. Duchesne P, Étienne C, Bernatchez L (2006) PERM: a computer program to detect structuring factors in social units. Mol Ecol Notes 6:965–967.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01414.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Feh C (1999) Alliances and reproductive success on Camargue stallions. Anim Behav 57:705–713.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.1009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fieberg J, Kochanny C (2005) Quantifying home-range overlap: the importance of the utilization distribution. J Wildlife Manage 69:1346–1359.  https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frère CH, Krützen M, Mann J, Watson-Capps JJ, Tsai YJ, Patterson EM, Connor R, Bejder L, Sherwin WB (2010) Home range overlap, matrilineal and biparental kinship drive female associations in bottlenose dolphins. Anim Behav 80:481–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gailey G, Karczmarski L (2012) DISCOVERY: photo-identification data-management system for individually recognizable animals, http://www.cetaecoresearch.com/research-software-discovery.html
  35. Gehrt SD, Gergits WF, Fritzell EK (2008) Behavioral and genetic aspects of male social groups in raccoons. J Mammal 89:1473–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1644/07-MAMM-A-403.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gerlach G, Hodgins-Davis A, MacDonald B, Hannah RC (2007) Benefits of kin association: related and familiar zebrafish larvae (Danio rerio) show improved growth. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1765–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0409-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilson A, Syvanen M, Levine K, Banks J (1998) Deer gender determination by polymerase chain reaction: validation study and application to tissues, bloodstains, and hair forensic samples from California. Calif Fish Game 84:159–169Google Scholar
  38. Godde S, Humbert L, Côté SD, Réale D, Whitehead H (2013) Correcting for the impact of gregariousness in social network analyses. Anim Behav 85:553–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goodall J (1986) The chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  40. Grinnell J, Packer C, Pusey AE (1995) Cooperation in male lions: kinship, reciprocity or mutualism? Anim Behav 49:95–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80157-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. J Theor Biol 7:1–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Harcourt A, de Waal FBM (eds) (1992) Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford Science Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Holekamp KE, Smith JE, Strelioff CC, Van Horn RC, Watts HE (2012) Society, demography and genetic structure in the spotted hyena. Mol Ecol 21:613–632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  45. Jones OR, Wang J (2010) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Kays RW, Gittleman JL, Wayne RK (2000) Microsatellite analysis of kinkajou social organization. Mol Ecol 9:743–751.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2000.00921.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Krützen M, Barre LM, Möller LM, Heithaus MR, Simms C, Sherwin WB (2002) A biopsy system for small cetaceans: darting success and wound healing in Tursiops spp. Mar Mammal Sci 18:863–878.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01078.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krützen M, Sherwin WB, Connor RC, Barre LM, Van de Casteele T, Mann J, Brooks R (2003) Contrasting relatedness patterns in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) with different alliance strategies. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:497–502.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krützen M, Barré LM, Connor RC, Mann J, Sherwin WB (2004a) “O father: where art thou?”—paternity assessment in an open fission-fusion society of wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Mol Ecol 13:1975–1990.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02192.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Krützen M, Sherwin WB, Berggren P, Gales N (2004b) Population structure in an inshore cetacean revealed by microsatellite and mtDNA analysis: bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Mar Mammal Sci 20:28–47.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01139.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lusseau D (2003) Male and female bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. have different strategies to avoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 257:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lusseau D (2007) Why are male social relationships complex in the doubtful sound bottlenose dolphin population? PLoS One 2:e348.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000348 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. McSweeney DJ, Baird RW, Mahaffy SD (2007) Site fidelity, associations, and movements of Cuvier’s (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville’s (Mesoplodon densirostris) beaked whales off the island of Hawai’i. Mar Mammal Sci 23:666–687.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2007.00135.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mitani JC (1985) Mating behaviour of male orangutans in the Kutai Reserve. Anim Behav 33:392–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitani JC, Merriwether DA, Zhang C (2000) Male affiliation, cooperation and kinship in wild chimpanzees. Anim Behav 59:885–893.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1389 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Möller LM (2012) Sociogenetic structure, kin associations and bonding in delphinids. Mol Ecol 21:745–764.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05405.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Möller LM, Beheregaray LB (2001) Coastal bottlenose dolphins from South-Eastern Australia are Tursiops aduncus according to sequences of the mitochondrial DNA control region. Mar Mammal Sci 17:249–263.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01269.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Möller LM, Beheregaray LB, Harcourt RG, Krützen M (2001) Alliance membership and kinship in wild male bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) of southeastern Australia. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1941–1947.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Newman MEJ (2004) Analysis of weighted networks. Phys Rev E 70:056131.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.056131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Newman MEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. P Natl Acad Sci USA 103:8577–8582.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:026113.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Olsén KH, Järvi T (1997) Effects of kinship on aggression and RNA content in juvenile Arctic charr. J Fish Biol 51:422–435.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jfbi.1997.0445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Owen ECG (2003) The reproductive and ecological functions of the pair-bond between allied, adult male bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  64. Packer C, Gilbert DA, Pusey AE, O’Brieni SJ (1991) A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions. Nature 351:562–565.  https://doi.org/10.1038/351562a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Parker PG, Waite TA, Decker MD (1995) Kinship and association in communally roosting black vultures. Anim Behav 49:395–401.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1995.0052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Parsons K, Durban J, Claridge D, Balcomb KC, Noble LR (2003) Kinship as a basis for alliance formation between male bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Bahamas. Anim Behav 66:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Passadore C, Möller L, Diaz-Aguirre F, Parra GJ (2017) Demography of southern Australian bottlenose dolphins living in a protected inverse estuary. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 27:1186–1197.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pratt EAL, Beheregaray LB, Bilgmann K, Zanardo N, Diaz-Aguirre F, Möller LM (2018) Hierarchical metapopulation structure in a highly mobile marine predator: the southern Australian coastal bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops cf. australis). Conserv Genet 19:637–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-1043-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Randic S, Connor RC, Sherwin WB, Krützen M (2012) A novel mammalian social structure in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.): complex male alliances in an open social network. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:3083–3090.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Saunders B (2012) Shores and shallows of Coffin Bay. An identification guide. Australian Printing Specialists, Torrensville, SAGoogle Scholar
  72. Silk JB (2002) Kin selection in primate groups. Int J Primatol 23:849–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smith JE (2014) Hamilton’s legacy: kinship, cooperation and social tolerance inmammalian groups. Anim Behav 92:291–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman-primates and other mammals—evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sunnucks P, Hales DF (1996) Numerous transposed sequences of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I-II in aphids of the genus Sitobion (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Mol Biol Evol 13:510–524.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025612 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org
  77. van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang J (2007) Triadic IBD coefficients and applications to estimating pairwise relatedness. Genet Res 89:135–153.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672307008798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang J (2011) COANCESTRY: a program for simulating, estimating and analysing relatedness and inbreeding coefficients. Mol Ecol Resour 11:141–145.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02885.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Waterman JM (1997) Why do male cape ground squirrels live in groups? Anim Behav 53:809–817.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Watts DP (1998) Coalitionary mate guarding by male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 44:43–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Watts DP (2002) Reciprocity and interchange in the social relationships of wild male chimpanzees. Behaviour 139:343–370.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853902760102708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wells RS, Scott MD, Irvine AB (1987) The social structure of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins. In: Genoways HH (ed) Current Mammalogy. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp 247–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Whitehead H (1990) Rules for roving males. J Theor Biol 145:355–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80115-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Whitehead H (1993) The behaviour of mature male sperm whales on the Galápagos Islands breeding grounds. Can J Zool 71:689–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Whitehead H (1999) Testing association patterns of social animals. Anim Behav 57:26–29.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Whitehead H (2009) SOCPROG programs: analysing animal social structures. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:765–778.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0697-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Whitehead H, Connor R (2005) Alliances I. How large should alliances be? Anim Behav 69:117–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.02.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Whitehead H, James R (2015) Generalized affiliation indices extract affiliations from social network data. Methods Ecol Evol 6:836–844.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wilson DRB (1995) The ecology of bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth, Scotland: a population at the northern extreme of the species’ range. PhD thesis, University of AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  91. Wiszniewski J, Allen SJ, Möller LM (2009) Social cohesion in a hierarchically structured embayment population of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins. Anim Behav 77:1449–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.02.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wiszniewski J, Brown C, Möller LM (2012a) Complex patterns of male alliance formation in a dolphin social network. J Mammal 93:239–250.  https://doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-366.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wiszniewski J, Corrigan S, Beheregaray LB, Möller LM (2012b) Male reproductive success increases with alliance size in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus). J Anim Ecol 81:423–431.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01910.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Würsig B, Jefferson TA (1990) Methods of photo-identification for small cetaceans. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cetacean Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution Lab, College of Science and EngineeringFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia
  2. 2.Molecular Ecology Lab, College of Science and EngineeringFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations