Quantifying and understanding group size distributions can be useful for understanding group behaviour in animal populations. We analysed group size data of the blackbuck, Antilope cervicapra, from six different field sites to estimate the group size distribution of this antelope. We used likelihood based methods (AICs and likelihood ratios) to show that an exponentially truncated power law is the distribution that best describes blackbuck group data, outperforming a simple power-law, an exponential distribution, and a lognormal distribution. Our results show that distribution parameters can be used to draw novel insights regarding group dynamics, and we demonstrate this by investigating how habitat openness affects group size distributions.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Akima, H., Gebhardt, A., Petzoldt, T. & Maechler, M. (2013). akima: Interpolation of irregularly spaced data. â R package version 0.5-11, available online at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=akima.
Alexander, R.D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. â Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 325-383.
Alsott, J., Bullmore, E. & Plenz, D. (2014). powerlaw: a Python package for analysis of heavy-tailed distributions. â PLoS ONE 9: e85777.
Ballerini, M., Cabibbo, N., Candelier, R., Cavagna, A., Cisbani, E., Giardina, I., Orlandi, A., Parisi, G., Procaccini, A., Viale, M. & Zdravkovic, V. (2008). Empirical investigation of starling flocks: a benchmark study in collective animal behaviour. â Anim. Behav. 76: 201-215.
Barja, I. & Rosellini, S. (2008). Does habitat type modify group size in roe deer and red deer under predation risk by Iberian wolves? â Can. J. Zool. 86: 170-176.
Bonabeau, E. & Dagorn, L. (1995). Possible universality in the size distribution of fish schools. â Phys. Rev. E 51: R5220.
Bonabeau, E., Dagorn, L. & Freon, P. (1999). Scaling in animal group-size distributions. â Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 4472-4477.
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C.R. & Newman, M.E. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. â SIAM Rev. 51: 661-703.
Gerard, J.F. & Loisel, P. (1995). Spontaneous emergence of a relationship between habitat openness and mean group size and its possible evolutionary consequences in large herbivores. â J. Theor. Biol. 176: 511-522.
Gerard, J.F., Bideau, E., Maublanc, M.L., Loisel, P. & Marchal, C. (2002). Herd size in large herbivores: encoded in the individual or emergent? â Biol. Bull. 202: 275-282.
Griesser, M., Ma, Q., Webber, S., Bowgen, K. & Sumpter, D.J. (2011). Understanding animal group-size distributions. â PloS ONE 6: e23438.
Isvaran, K. (2005). Female grouping best predicts lekking in blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra). â Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57: 283-294.
Isvaran, K. (2007). Intraspecific variation in group size in the blackbuck antelope: the roles of habitat structure and forage at different spatial scales. â Oecologia 154: 435-444.
Jarman, P. (1974). The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology. â Behaviour 48: 215-267.
Jhala, Y.V. & Isvaran, K. (2016). Behavioural ecology of a grassland antelope, the blackbuck Antilope cervicapra: linking habitat, ecology and behaviour. â In: The ecology of large herbivores in south and southeast Asia (Ahrestani, F.S. & Sankaran, M., eds). Springer, Dordrecht, p. 151-176.
Krause, J. & Ruxton, G.D. (2002). Living in groups. â Oxford University Press.
Lingle, S. (2003). Group composition and cohesion in sympatric white-tailed deer and mule deer. â Can. J. Zool. 81: 1119-1130.
Matsuishi, T., Wada, T. & Matsumiya, Y. (1993). Optimal school selection and abundance index in purse seine fishery. â Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 59: 273-278.
Mungall, E.C. (1978). The Indian blackbuck antelope: a Texas view.â Texas Agricultural Experiment No. QL737. M86 1978.
Okubo, A. (1986). Dynamical aspects of animal grouping: swarms, schools, flocks, and herds. â Adv. Biophys. 22: 1-94.
Pépin, D. & Gerard, J.F. (2008). Group dynamics and local population density dependence of group size in the Pyrenean chamois, Rupicapra pyrenaica. â Anim. Behav. 75: 361-369.
Pulliam, H.R. & Caraco, T. (1984). Living in groups: is there and optimal group size?. â In: Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. (Krebs, J.R. & Davies, N.D., eds). Wiley, Oxford, p. 122-147.
Ranjitsinh, M.K. (1989). Indian blackbuck. â Natraj Publishers, Dehra Dun.
Salazar, M.F.M., Waldner, C., Stookey, J. & Bollinger, T.K. (2016). Infectious disease and grouping patterns in mule deer. â PloS ONE 11: e0150830.
Sumpter, D.J. (2010). Collective animal behavior. â Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Vuong, Q.H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. â Econometrica 57: 307-333.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1979 | 193 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 75 | 7 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 113 | 15 | 0 |
Quantifying and understanding group size distributions can be useful for understanding group behaviour in animal populations. We analysed group size data of the blackbuck, Antilope cervicapra, from six different field sites to estimate the group size distribution of this antelope. We used likelihood based methods (AICs and likelihood ratios) to show that an exponentially truncated power law is the distribution that best describes blackbuck group data, outperforming a simple power-law, an exponential distribution, and a lognormal distribution. Our results show that distribution parameters can be used to draw novel insights regarding group dynamics, and we demonstrate this by investigating how habitat openness affects group size distributions.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1979 | 193 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 75 | 7 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 113 | 15 | 0 |