IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0252471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of number of individuals and observations per individual on a model of community structure

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Sunga
  • Quinn M R Webber
  • Hugh G Broders

Abstract

Social network analysis is increasingly applied to understand animal groups. However, it is rarely feasible to observe every interaction among all individuals in natural populations. Studies have assessed how missing information affects estimates of individual network positions, but less attention has been paid to metrics that characterize overall network structure such as modularity, clustering coefficient, and density. In cases such as groups displaying fission-fusion dynamics, where subgroups break apart and rejoin in changing conformations, missing information may affect estimates of global network structure differently than in groups with distinctly separated communities due to the influence single individuals can have on the connectivity of the network. Using a bat maternity group showing fission-fusion dynamics, we quantify the effect of missing data on global network measures including community detection. In our system, estimating the number of communities was less reliable than detecting community structure. Further, reliably assorting individual bats into communities required fewer individuals and fewer observations per individual than to estimate the number of communities. Specifically, our metrics of global network structure (i.e., graph density, clustering coefficient, Rcom) approached the ‘real’ values with increasing numbers of observations per individual and, as the number of individuals included increased, the variance in these estimates decreased. Similar to previous studies, we recommend that more observations per individual should be prioritized over including more individuals when resources are limited. We recommend caution when making conclusions about animal social networks when a substantial number of individuals or observations are missing, and when possible, suggest subsampling large datasets to observe how estimates are influenced by sampling intensity. Our study serves as an example of the reliability, or lack thereof, of global network measures with missing information, but further work is needed to determine how estimates will vary with different data collection methods, network structures, and sampling periods.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Sunga & Quinn M R Webber & Hugh G Broders, 2021. "Influence of number of individuals and observations per individual on a model of community structure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0252471
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252471
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252471&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0252471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Filippo Aureli & Colleen M. Schaffner & Norberto Asensio & David Lusseau, 2012. "What is a subgroup? How socioecological factors influence interindividual distance," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(6), pages 1308-1315.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sophie Lardy & Daniel Fortin & Olivier Pays, 2016. "Increased Exploration Capacity Promotes Group Fission in Gregarious Foraging Herbivores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0252471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.