Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany.
Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, UK.
J Anim Ecol. 2018 May;87(3):594-608. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12776. Epub 2017 Nov 27.
Many animal social structures are organized hierarchically, with some individuals monopolizing resources. Dominance hierarchies have received great attention from behavioural and evolutionary ecologists. There are many methods for inferring hierarchies from social interactions. Yet, there are no clear guidelines about how many observed dominance interactions (i.e. sampling effort) are necessary for inferring reliable dominance hierarchies, nor are there any established tools for quantifying their uncertainty. We simulate interactions (winners and losers) in scenarios of varying steepness (the probability that a dominant defeats a subordinate based on their difference in rank). Using these data, we (1) quantify how the number of interactions recorded and the steepness of the hierarchy affect the performance of five methods for inferring hierarchies, (2) propose an amendment that improves the performance of a popular method, and (3) suggest two easy procedures to measure uncertainty and steepness in the inferred hierarchy. We find that the ratio of interactions to individuals required to infer reliable hierarchies is surprisingly low, but depends on the steepness of the hierarchy and the method used. We show that David's score and our novel randomized Elo-rating are the best methods when hierarchies are not extremely steep, where the original Elo-rating, the I&SI and the recently described ADAGIO perform less well. In addition, we show that two simple methods can be used to estimate uncertainty at the individual and group level, and that the randomized Elo-rating repeatability provides researchers with a standardized measure valid for comparing the steepness of different hierarchies. We provide several worked examples to guide researchers interested in studying dominance hierarchies. Methods for inferring dominance hierarchies are relatively robust. We recommend that a ratio of observed interactions to individuals of at least 10 (for steep hierarchies), and ideally 20 serves as a good benchmark. Our simple procedures for estimating uncertainty in the observed data will facilitate evaluating whether sufficient data have been collected, while plotting the shape of the hierarchy will provide new insights into the social structure of the study organism.
许多动物的社会结构是等级制的,一些个体垄断资源。统治等级制受到了行为生态学家和进化生态学家的广泛关注。有许多方法可以从社会互动中推断出等级制度。然而,对于推断可靠的统治等级制需要观察多少个观察到的优势相互作用(即采样努力),以及如何量化它们的不确定性,都没有明确的指导方针。我们在不同陡峭程度(基于等级差异,优势者击败劣势者的概率)的情况下模拟了相互作用(胜者和败者)。使用这些数据,我们:1)量化记录的相互作用数量和等级制度的陡峭程度如何影响五种推断等级制度的方法的性能;2)提出了一种改进流行方法性能的修正方法;3)建议了两种简单的程序来测量推断等级制度中的不确定性和陡峭程度。我们发现,推断可靠等级制度所需的相互作用与个体的比率低得令人惊讶,但取决于等级制度的陡峭程度和使用的方法。我们表明,当等级制度不是非常陡峭时,大卫评分和我们的新型随机 Elo 评分是最好的方法,而原始 Elo 评分、I&SI 和最近描述的 ADAGIO 表现较差。此外,我们表明,两种简单的方法可用于估计个体和群体水平的不确定性,并且随机 Elo 评分重复性为研究人员提供了一种标准化的度量标准,可用于比较不同等级制度的陡峭程度。我们提供了几个示例,以指导对优势等级制度感兴趣的研究人员。推断优势等级制度的方法相对稳健。我们建议观察到的相互作用与个体的比例至少为 10(对于陡峭的等级制度),理想情况下为 20,作为一个良好的基准。我们用于估计观察数据不确定性的简单程序将有助于评估是否已经收集了足够的数据,而绘制等级制度的形状将为研究生物体的社会结构提供新的见解。