首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Wildlife contact analysis: emerging methods, questions, and challenges
Authors:Paul C Cross  Tyler G Creech  Michael R Ebinger  Dennis M Heisey  Kathryn M Irvine  Scott Creel
Institution:1. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, 2327 University Way, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT, 59715, USA
2. Department of Ecology, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA
3. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA
4. Department of Ecology, Montana State University, 302 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA
5. U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison, WI, 53711, USA
Abstract:Recent technological advances, such as proximity loggers, allow researchers to collect complete interaction histories, day and night, among sampled individuals over several months to years. Social network analyses are an obvious approach to analyzing interaction data because of their flexibility for fitting many different social structures as well as the ability to assess both direct contacts and indirect associations via intermediaries. For many network properties, however, it is not clear whether estimates based upon a sample of the network are reflective of the entire network. In wildlife applications, networks may be poorly sampled and boundary effects will be common. We present an alternative approach that utilizes a hierarchical modeling framework to assess the individual, dyadic, and environmental factors contributing to variation in the interaction rates and allows us to estimate the underlying process variation in each. In a disease control context, this approach will allow managers to focus efforts on those types of individuals and environments that contribute the most toward super-spreading events. We account for the sampling distribution of proximity loggers and the non-independence of contacts among groups by only using contact data within a group during days when the group membership of proximity loggers was known. This allows us to separate the two mechanisms responsible for a pair not contacting one another: they were not in the same group or they were in the same group but did not come within the specified contact distance. We illustrate our approach with an example dataset of female elk from northwestern Wyoming and conclude with a number of important future research directions.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号