Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 165:80 | Cite as

Evaluating the influence of ecology, sex and kinship on the social structure of resident coastal bottlenose dolphins

  • Marie Louis
  • Benoit Simon-Bouhet
  • Amélia Viricel
  • Tamara Lucas
  • François Gally
  • Yves Cherel
  • Christophe Guinet
Original paper

Abstract

Animal social structures are shaped by external environmental factors and individual intrinsic behavioral traits. They represent a balance between the costs and benefits of group-living to maximize individual fitness. Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, societies are fission–fusion with high variations in association strength, grouping patterns and influence of kinship on social bonds throughout the wide range of habitats where they occur. Here, the drivers of social structure in resident coastal bottlenose dolphins of the Normano-Breton Gulf (English Channel) were studied using a multidisciplinary approach combining individual monitoring (photo-identification) information, genetic and ecological data. First, the ecological segregation of the social clusters was tested. Then, the influence of kinship, sex and ecological specializations on association patterns was evaluated. Stable isotopes revealed that the social clusters had relatively distinct ecological niches. Resource partitioning among social clusters may reduce competition and may allow the area to sustain a larger resident bottlenose dolphin population. Individuals did not preferentially associate with related individuals or individuals of the same sex. However, sample size was relatively low for females and, therefore, a role of kinship in shaping association patterns could not be totally ruled out for those individuals. Instead, dolphins preferentially associated with individuals of similar ecology. The study also emphasizes that stable isotope analysis is a promising tool to investigate the link between social structure and ecological specializations, particularly in taxa that are difficult to observe in the wild.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank GECC volunteers for help in the field. We are grateful to Tiphaine Chouvelon, Paula Mendez-Fernandez and Paul Tixier for advices on sample preparation for the isotopic analyses, and to Gaël Guillou and Pierre Richard for stable isotope analyses. We also thank the Molecular Core Facility at the University of La Rochelle, and Vanessa Becquet and Eric Pante for advices on molecular work. We are also grateful to Conor Ryan for advices on statistical analyses of stable isotope data. We thank Amy Lusher for English language revisions of the manuscript. This work was supported by Fondation Total, Agence de l’Eau Seine-Normandie, Fonds de Dotation pour la Biodiversité, Agence des Aires Marines Protégées, Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement, Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l’Energie and Conseil Général de la Manche. ML was supported by a CIFRE PhD studentship from the Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie during the course of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All applicable international, national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. Biopsy samples were collected under the permit 09/115/DEROG from the French ministry.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Supplementary material

227_2018_3341_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (684 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 683 kb)

References

  1. Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.001545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altizer S, Nunn CL, Thrall PH, Gittleman JL, Antonovics J, Cunningham AA, Dobson AP, Ezenwa V, Jones KE, Pedersen AB, Poss M, Pulliam JRC (2003) Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: integrating theory and empirical studies. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:517–547.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.030102.151725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansmann IC, Parra GJ, Chilvers BL, Lanyon JM (2012) Dolphins restructure social system after reduction of commercial fisheries. Anim Behav 84:575–581.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aplin LM, Farine DR, Morand-Ferron J, Cole EF, Cockburn A, Sheldon BC (2013) Individual personalities predict social behaviour in wild networks of great tits (Parus major). Ecol Lett 16:1365–1372.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barros NB, Ostrom PH, Stricker CA, Wells RS (2010) Stable isotopes differentiate bottlenose dolphins off West-Central Florida. Mar Mamm Sci 26:324–336.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00315.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck S, Kuningas S, Esteban R, Foote AD (2012) The influence of ecology on sociality in the killer whale (Orcinus orca). Behav Ecol 23(2):246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browning NE, Dold C, I-Fan J, Worthy GAJ (2014) Isotope turnover rates and diet-tissue discrimination in skin of ex situ bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J Exp Biol 217:214–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Butts C (2013) sna: tools for social network analysis. R package version 2.3-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sna
  9. Cantor M, Whitehead H (2013) The interplay between social networks and culture: theoretically and among whales and dolphins. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 368:20120340.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantor M, Wedekin LL, Guimaraes PR, Daura-Jorge FG, Rossi-Santos MR, Simoes-Lopes PC (2012) Disentangling social networks from spatiotemporal dynamics: the temporal structure of a dolphin society. Anim Behav 84:641–651.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Chapman CA, Rothman JM (2009) Within-species differences in primate social structure: evolution of plasticity and phylogenetic constraints. Primates 50:12–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-008-0123-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaverri G (2010) Comparative social network analysis in a leaf-roosting bat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1619–1630.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0975-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cherel Y, Hobson KA (2007) Geographical variation in carbon stable isotope signatures of marine predators: a tool to investigate their foraging areas in the Southern Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:281–287.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps329281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chessel D, Dufour AB, Thioulouse J (2004) The ade4 package-I: one-table methods. R News 4:5–10Google Scholar
  16. Chouvelon T, Spitz J, Caurant F, Mendez-Fernandez P, Chappuis A, Laugier F, Le Goff E, Bustamante P (2012) Revisiting the use of delta 15N in meso-scale studies of marine food webs by considering spatio-temporal variations in stable isotopic signatures—the case of an open ecosystem: the Bay of Biscay (North-East Atlantic). Prog Oceanogr 101:92–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2012.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clutton-Brock T (2007) Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318:1882–1885.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133311 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Clutton-Brock TH, Gaynor D, Kansky R, MacColl ADC, McIlrath G, Chadwick P, Brotherton PNM, O’Riain JM, Manser M, Skinner JD (1998) Costs of cooperative behaviour in suricates (Suricata suricatta). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 265:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connolly RM, Guest MA, Melville AJ, Oakes JM (2004) Sulfur stable isotopes separate producers in marine food-web analysis. Oecologia 138:161–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1415-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Connor RC, Wells R, Mann J, Read A (2000) The bottlenose dolphin: social relationships in a fission-fusion society. In: Mann J, Connor RC, Tyack P, Whitehead H (eds) Cetacean societies: field studies of whales and dolphins. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 91–126Google Scholar
  21. Connor RC, Watson-Capps JJ, Sherwin WB, Krützen 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
  22. Couzin ID (2006) Behavioral ecology: social organization in fission-fusion societies. Curr Biol 16:R169–R171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.02.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Croft DP, Krause J, Darden SK, Ramnarine IW, Faria JJ, James R (2009) Behavioural trait assortment in a social network: patterns and implications. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1495–1503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0802-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daura-Jorge FG, Cantor M, Ingram SN, Lusseau D, Simoes-Lopes PC (2012) The structure of a bottlenose dolphin society is coupled to a unique foraging cooperation with artisanal fishermen. Biol Lett 8:702–705.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0174 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. De Niro MJ, Epstein S (1977) Mechanism of carbon isotope fractionation associated with lipid-synthesis. Science 197:261–263.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.327543 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dekker D, Krackhardt D, Snijders TAB (2007) Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika 72:563–581.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-007-9016-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Di Fiore A, Rendall D (1994) Evolution of social organization—a reappraisal for primates by using phylogenetic methods. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:9941–9945CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Dinno A (2017) R package dunn.test ‘Dunn’s Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums’ version 1.3.5. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dunn.test/
  29. Dray S, Dufour AB (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dray S, Dufour AB, Chessel D (2007) The ade4 package-II: two-table and K-table methods. R News 7:47–52Google Scholar
  31. Foster EA, Franks DW, Morrell LJ, Balcomb KC, Parsons KM, van Ginneken A, Croft DP (2012) Social network correlates of food availability in an endangered population of killer whales, Orcinus orca. Anim Behav 83:731–736.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.12.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fraley C, Raftery AE (2002) Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. J Am Stat Assoc 97:611–631.  https://doi.org/10.1198/016214502760047131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fraley C, Raftery AE, Murphy TB, Scrucca L (2012) mclust version 4 for R: normal mixture modeling for model-based clustering, classification, and density estimation. Technical Report No. 597. Department of Statistics, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Frère CH, Krützen M, Mann J, Connor RC, Bejder L, Sherwin WB (2010a) Social and genetic interactions drive fitness variation in a free-living dolphin population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:19949–19954.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007997107 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Frère CH, Krützen M, Mann J, Watson-Capps JJ, Tsai YJ, Patterson EM, Connor R, Bejder L, Sherwin WB (2010b) 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
  36. Fury CA, Harrison PL (2008) Abundance, site fidelity and range patterns of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in two Australian subtropical estuaries. Mar Freshw Res 59:1015–1027.  https://doi.org/10.1071/mf08109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fury CA, Ruckstuhl KE, Harrison PL (2013) Spatial and social sexual segregation patterns in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus). PLoS One 8:e52987.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052987 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Giménez J, Ramírez F, Almunia J, Forero MG, de Stephanis R (2016) From the pool to the sea: applicable isotope turnover rates and diet to skin discrimination factors for bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 475:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Hauver S, Hirsch BT, Prange S, Dubach J, Gehrt SD (2013) Age, but not sex or genetic relatedness, shapes raccoon dominance patterns. Ethology 119:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heithaus MR (2001) Shark attacks on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in Shark Bay, Western Australia: attack rate, bite scar frequencies and attack seasonality. Mar Mamm Sci 17:526–539.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01002.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hicks BD, Staubin DJ, Geraci JR, Brown WR (1985) Epidermal growth in the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. J Invest Dermatol 85:60–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1523-1747.ep12275348 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Holekamp KE, Cooper SM, Katona CI, Berry NA, Frank LG, Smale L (1997) Patterns of association among female spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). J Mammal 78:55–64.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1382638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  45. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50(3):346–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Jackson AL, Inger R, Parnell AC, Bearhop S (2011) Comparing isotopic niche widths among and within communities: SIBER—Stable Isotope Bayesian Ellipses in R. J Anim Ecol 80:595–602.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01806.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Karczmarski L, Wursig B, Gailey G, Larson KW, Vanderlip C (2005) Spinner dolphins in a remote Hawaiian atoll: social grouping and population structure. Behav Ecol 16:675–685.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kelley JL, Morrell LJ, Inskip C, Krause J, Croft DP (2011) Predation risk shapes social networks in fission-fusion populations. PLoS One 6:e2428010.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024280 Google Scholar
  49. Kelly JF (2000) Stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen in the study of avian and mammalian trophic ecology. Can J Zool Rev Can Zool 78:1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-78-1-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Konovalov DA, Manning C, Henshaw MT (2004) KINGROUP: a program for pedigree relationship reconstruction and kin group assignments using genetic markers. Mol Ecol Notes 4:779–782.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00796.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 B Biol Sci 270:497–502.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lehmann J, Korstjens AH, Dunbar RIM (2007) Fission-fusion social systems as a strategy for coping with ecological constraints: a primate case. Evol Ecol 21:613–634.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-006-9141-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Louis M, Fontaine MC, Spitz J, Schlund E, Dabin W, Deaville R, Caurant F, Cherel Y, Guinet C, Simon-Bouhet B (2014a) Ecological opportunities and specializations shaped genetic divergence in a highly mobile marine top predator. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20141558.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Louis M, Viricel A, Lucas T, Peltier H, Alfonsi E, Berrow SD, Brownlow A, Covelo P, Dabin W, Deaville R, de Stephanis R, Gally F, Gauffier P, Penrose R, Silva MA, Guinet C, Simon-Bouhet B (2014b) Habitat-driven population structure of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the North-East Atlantic. Mol Ecol 23:857–874.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12653 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Louis M, Gally F, Barbraud C, Béesau J, Tixier P, Simon-Bouhet B, Le Rest K, Guinet C (2015) Social structure and abundance of coastal bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Normano-Breton Gulf, English Channel. J Mammal 96:481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Louis M, Buanic M, Lefeuvre C, Nilliot PL, Ridoux V, Spitz J (2017) Strong bonds and small home range in a resident bottlenose dolphin community in a Marine Protected Area (Brittany, France, Northeast Atlantic). Mar Mam Sci 33:1194–1203.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lowther-Thieleking JL, Archer FI, Lang AR, Weller DW (2015) Genetic differentiation among coastal and offshore common bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the eastern North Pacific Ocean. Mar Mamm Sci 31:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lusseau D (2003) The emergent properties of a dolphin social network. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 270:S186–S188.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lusseau D, Schneider K, Boisseau OJ, Haase P, Slooten E, Dawson SM (2003) The bottlenose dolphin community of Doubtful Sound features a large proportion of long-lasting associations—can geographic isolation explain this unique trait? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:396–405.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-003-0651-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mann J, Stanton MA, Patterson EM, Bienenstock EJ, Singh LO (2012) Social networks reveal cultural behaviour in tool-using using dolphins. Nat Commun 3:980.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1983 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. McComb K, Moss C, Durant SM, Baker L, Sayialel S (2001) Matriarchs as repositories of social knowledge in African elephants. Science 292:491–494.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057895 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Möller LM, Harcourt RG (2008) Shared reproductive state enhances female associations in dolphins. Res Lett Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/498390 Google Scholar
  64. Moreno R, Jover L, Munilla I, Velando A, Sanpera C (2010) A three-isotope approach to disentangling the diet of a generalist consumer: the yellow-legged gull in northwest Spain. Mar Biol 157:545–553.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1340-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Moura AE, Nielsen SCA, Vilstrup JT, Moreno-Mayar JV, Gilbert MTP, Gray HWI, Natoli A, Möller L, Hoelzel AR (2013) Recent diversification of a marine genus (Tursiops spp.) tracks habitat preference and environmental change. Syst Biol 62:865–877.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt051 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Natoli A, Peddemors VM, Hoelzel AR (2004) Population structure and speciation in the genus Tursiops based on microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA analyses. J Evol Biol 17:363–375.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00672.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Olin JA, Fair PA, Recks MA, Zolman E, Adams J, Fisk AT (2012) Unique seasonal forage bases within a local population of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Mar Mamm Sci 28:E28–E40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00470.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 dissertation. Ocean Sciences Department, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  69. Pace DS, Pulcini M, Triossi F (2012) Anthropogenic food patches and association patterns of Tursiops truncatus at Lampedusa island, Italy. Behav Ecol 23:254–264.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Packer C, Ruttan L (1988) The evolution of cooperative hunting. Am Nat 132:159–198.  https://doi.org/10.1086/284844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Packer C, Gilbert D, Pusey A, O’Brien S (1991) A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions. Nature 351:562–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Park SDE (2001) Trypanotolerance in West African cattle and the population genetic effects of selection. PhD dissertation, DublinGoogle Scholar
  73. Parnell AC, Jackson AL (2011) siar: stable isotope analysis in R. R package version 4.1.3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=siar
  74. Parsons KM, Durban JW, Claridge DE, Balcomb KC, Noble LR, Thompson PM (2003) Kinship as a basis for alliance formation between male bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Bahamas. Anim Behav 66:185–194.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Peterson BJ, Fry B (1987) Stable isotopes in ecosystem studies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:293–320.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.18.1.293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43:258–275.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2409206 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Quérouil S, Freitas L, Dinis A, Alves F, Cascao I, Prieto R, Silva MA, Magalhaes S, Matos JA, Santos RS (2010) Sex bias in biopsy samples collected from free-ranging dolphins. Eur J Wildl Res 56:151–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-009-0299-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  79. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2)—population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rosel PE (2003) PCR-based sex determination in Odontocete cetaceans. Conserv Genet 4:647–649.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025666212967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rossman S, Ostrom PH, Stolen M, Barros NB, Gandhi H, Stricker CA, Wells RS (2015) Individual specialization in the foraging habits of female bottlenose dolphins living in a trophically diverse and habitat rich estuary. Oecologia 178:415–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3241-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP’007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Ruckstuhl KE (2007) Sexual segregation in vertebrates: proximate and ultimate causes. Integr Comp Biol 47:245–257.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icm030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Safi K, Kerth G (2007) Comparative analyses suggest that information transfer promoted sociality in male bats in the temperate zone. Am Nat 170:465–472.  https://doi.org/10.1086/520116 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Silk JB (2007) Social components of fitness in primate groups. Science 317:1347–1351.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140734 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Silk JB, Alberts SC, Altmann J (2003) Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science 302:1231–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1088580 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Silk JB, Beehner JC, Bergman TJ, Crockford C, Engh AL, Moscovice LR, Wittig RM, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2010) Strong and consistent social bonds enhance the longevity of female baboons. Curr Biol 20:1359–1361.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.05.067 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Smith JE, Kolowski JM, Graham KE, Dawes SE, Holekamp KE (2008) Social and ecological determinants of fission-fusion dynamics in the spotted hyaena. Anim Behav 76:619–636.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Smolker RA, Richards AF, Connor RC, Pepper JW (1992) Sex-differences in patterns of association among Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. Behaviour 123:38–69.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853992x00101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stanton MA, Gibson QA, Mann J (2011) When mum’s away: a study of mother and calf ego networks during separations in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.). Anim Behav 82:405–412.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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
  92. Wells RS (1991) The role of long-term study in understanding the social structure of a bottlenose dolphin community. In: Pryor K, Kenneth SN (eds) Dolphin societies: discoveries and puzzles. University of California Press Ltd, Berkeley, pp 198–225Google Scholar
  93. Wells RS, Scott MD, Irvine AB (1987) The social structure of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins. In: Genoways HH (ed) Current mammalogy. Plenum Press, New York, pp 247–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wey TW, Blumstein DT (2010) Social cohesion in yellow-bellied marmots is established through age and kin structuring. Anim Behav 79:1343–1352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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
  96. Wilson B (1995) The ecology of bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth, Scotland: a population at the northern extreme of the species’ range. PhD dissertation, Aberdeen, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  97. Wiszniewski J, Lusseau D, Möller LM (2010) Female bisexual kinship ties maintain social cohesion in a dolphin network. Anim Behav 80:895–904.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wiszniewski J, Brown C, Möller LM (2012) 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
  99. Wittemyer G, Douglas-Hamilton I, Getz WM (2005) The socioecology of elephants: analysis of the processes creating multitiered social structures. Anim Behav 69:1357–1371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.08.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wrangham RW, Gittleman JL, Chapman CA (1993) Constraints on group-size in primates and carnivores: population-density and day-range as assays of exploitation competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, UMR 7372, CNRSUniversité de La RochelleLa RochelleFrance
  2. 2.Littoral Environnement et Sociétés, UMR 7266, CNRSUniversité de La RochelleLa RochelleFrance
  3. 3.Groupe d’Etude des Cétacés du CotentinCherbourg-OctevilleFrance
  4. 4.Scottish Ocean InstituteSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations