Research ArticleBEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY

Adaptive social strategies in a solitary carnivore

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  11 Oct 2017:
Vol. 3, no. 10, e1701218
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701218
  • Fig. 1 Puma network.

    Graphical representation of the network overlaid the territories of resident and subadult male pumas. M29 and M85, territorial males represented with puma icons, delineate the spatial extent of the two communities identified through our analysis. Inset: An interaction between two adult females (UncF2 and F51) over the prey killed by F51.

  • Table 1 Puma attributes.

    Individual pumas (n = 13) and their attributes, including age, weight, and the community cluster to which they belonged (1, 2), as identified through our analyses, followed by their network attributes. F, female; M, male; NA, not applicable.

    Puma IDAge (months)Weight (kg)CommunityOutgoing toleranceReceiving toleranceBetweenness centralityEigenvector centrality
    M682255132300.08
    M2954701218280.02
    M21727510200
    F571054012000.02
    F1098440156430.06
    F618245118300.18
    F51704811411260.12
    UncF2NANA10200
    M8584742418100.35
    F4972432115500.53
    F108764522700.1
    F478447220330.73
    UncF1NANA20400
  • Table 2 Correlations between frequency of tolerance and puma characteristics.

    Here, we present Pearson correlation coefficients and their associated P values based upon a two-tailed null hypothesis of no correlation (in parentheses). Age, weight, and sex are correlations between an individual puma’s attributes and their tolerances with all other pumas (n = 13); spatial overlap and relatedness are dyadic attributes correlated with the number of tolerances for that pair (n = 156). Spatial overlap is the proportion of the home range of the puma exhibiting tolerance that is overlapped by the home range of the puma receiving tolerance. Relatedness is a single value because it represents the dyadic relationship between two pumas in each interaction rather than the attributes of each puma. Larger positive values indicate a positive correlation, and larger negative values indicate a negative correlation. Values close to 0 indicate that the variables were not correlated.

    Exhibiting tolerance
    (out-degree)
    Receiving tolerance
    (in-degree)
    Age (months)0.213 (P = 0.48)−0.09 (P = 0.77)
    Weight (kg)−0.283 (P = 0.35)0.573 (P = 0.04)
    Male (versus female)−0.391 (P = 0.19)0.442 (P = 0.13)
    Spatial overlap0.485 (P < 0.01)0.08 (P = 0.32)
    Relatedness−0.011 (P = 0.89)
  • Table 3 Results of CUG tests.

    Results of our CUG tests, with empirical values of network statistics and the probability of observing a greater value in a random network of the same size and density.

    Empirical
    value
    Probability versus
    simulations
    Direct reciprocity0.23<0.001
    Hierarchical reciprocity
    (transitivity)
    0.38<0.001
    Modularity0.380.014
    Clustering0.400.019
    Exhibiting tolerance
    centralization
    0.260.060
    Receiving tolerance
    centralization
    0.180.299
  • Table 4 Results of our ERGMs.

    Coefficients are analogous to logistic regression coefficients (log-odds change per unit increase in the associated predictor). SEs of the estimates are in parentheses. *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.

    Binary edgesValued edges
    Land-tenure and kinship hypotheses
    Relatedness2.22 (2.09)0.25 (0.68)
    Spatial overlap1.44 (1.09)0.88* (0.37)
    Male receiving1.02 (0.65)0.42** (0.16)
    Male sharing−0.67 (0.47)−0.68** (0.26)
    Social behavior hypotheses
    Direct reciprocity2.04* (0.83)0.78* (0.31)
    Hierarchical reciprocity (transitivity)0.91* (0.46)0.28* (0.14)
    Generalized reciprocity (cyclicality)−0.18 (0.36)−0.09 (0.14)
    Basic network attributes
    Density−4.02*** (0.91)0.48* (0.22)
    Any shares−4.42*** (0.42)
    Even-distribution receiving2.59. (1.52)
    Even-distribution sharing−0.45 (0.97)

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/3/10/e1701218/DC1

    fig. S1. GOF plots.

    movie S1. A typical female-female interaction at a carcass.

    movie S2. A highly aggressive female-female interaction at a carcass.

    movie S3. A typical male-female interaction at a carcass of prey killed by the female (F51).

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • fig. S1. GOF plots.
    • Legends for movies S1 to S3

    Download PDF

    Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:

    • movie S1 (.mov format). A typical female-female interaction at a carcass.
    • movie S2 (.mov format). A highly aggressive female-female interaction at a carcass.
    • movie S3 (.mov format). A typical male-female interaction at a carcass of prey killed by the female (F51).

    Files in this Data Supplement: