Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107862›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2024

A protocol for assessing bias and robustness of social network metrics using GPS based radio-telemetry data.

Prabhleen Kaur, Simone Ciuti, Federico Ossi, Francesca Cagnacci, Nicolas Morellet, Anne Loison, Kamal Atmeh, Philip McLoughlin, Adele K Reinking, Jeffrey L Beck and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Expanding theory, methodology and empirical systems at the spatial-social interface.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Prabhleen KaurSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. prabhleen.kaur.ucd@gmail.com.
Simone CiutiLaboratory of Wildlife Ecology and Behaviour, School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Federico OssiAnimal Ecology Unit, Research and Innovation Center (CRI), Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all'Adige, Italy.
Francesca CagnacciAnimal Ecology Unit, Research and Innovation Center (CRI), Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all'Adige, Italy.
Nicolas MorelletINRAE, CEFS, Université de Toulouse, Castanet-Tolosan, 31326, France.
Anne LoisonAlpine Ecology Laboratory, Savoie Mont Blanc University, Chambéry, France.
Kamal AtmehBiometrics and Evolutionary Biology Laboratory, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Philip McLoughlinDepartment of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Adele K ReinkingCooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.
Jeffrey L BeckDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA.
Anna C OrtegaProgram in Ecology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA.
Matthew KauffmanU.S. Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, USA.
Mark S BoyceDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R3, Canada.
Amy HaighLaboratory of Wildlife Ecology and Behaviour, School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Anna DavidLaboratory of Wildlife Ecology and Behaviour, School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Laura L GriffinLaboratory of Wildlife Ecology and Behaviour, School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Kimberly ContedduLaboratory of Wildlife Ecology and Behaviour, School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Jane FaullLaboratory of Wildlife Ecology and Behaviour, School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Michael Salter-TownshendSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. michael.salter-townshend@ucd.ie.

Funding

Science Foundation Ireland 18/CRT/6049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial network analysis of animal societies allows scientists to test hypotheses about social evolution, behaviour, and dynamic processes. However, the accuracy of estimated metrics depends on data characteristics like sample proportion, sample size, and frequency. A protocol is needed to assess for bias and robustness of social network metrics estimated for the animal populations especially when a limited number of individuals are monitored.

methodsWe used GPS telemetry datasets of five ungulate species to combine known social network approaches with novel ones into a comprehensive five-step protocol. To quantify the bias and uncertainty in the network metrics obtained from a partial population, we presented novel statistical methods which are particularly suited for autocorrelated data, such as telemetry relocations. The protocol was validated using a sixth species, the fallow deer, with a known population size where

resultsThrough the protocol, we demonstrated how pre-network data permutations allow researchers to assess non-random aspects of interactions within a population. The protocol assesses bias in global network metrics, obtains confidence intervals, and quantifies uncertainty of global and node-level network metrics based on the number of nodes in the network. We found that global network metrics like density remained robust even with a lowered sample size, while local network metrics like eigenvector centrality were unreliable for four of the species. The fallow deer network showed low uncertainty and bias even at lower sampling proportions, indicating the importance of a thoroughly sampled population while demonstrating the accuracy of our evaluation methods for smaller samples.

conclusionsThe protocol allows researchers to analyse GPS-based radio-telemetry or other data to determine the reliability of social network metrics. The estimates enable the statistical comparison of networks under different conditions, such as analysing daily and seasonal changes in the density of a network. The methods can also guide methodological decisions in animal social network research, such as sampling design and allow more accurate ecological inferences from the available data. The R package aniSNA enables researchers to implement this workflow on their dataset, generating reliable inferences and guiding methodological decisions.

Indexed as

BootstrappingCorrelationGPS-based radiotelemetryNetwork metricsPermutationsSocial network analysisSub-samplingUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39107862
PMCPMC11304672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.