FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Social Networks and Welfare in Future Animal Management.
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2014; 4(1); 93-118; doi: 10.3390/ani4010093

Social Networks and Welfare in Future Animal Management.

Abstract: It may become advantageous to keep human-managed animals in the social network groups to which they have adapted. Data concerning the social networks of farm animal species and their ancestors are scarce but essential to establishing the importance of a natural social network for farmed animal species. Social Network Analysis (SNA) facilitates the characterization of social networking at group, subgroup and individual levels. SNA is currently used for modeling the social behavior and management of wild animals and social welfare of zoo animals. It has been recognized for use with farm animals but has yet to be applied for management purposes. Currently, the main focus is on cattle, because in large groups (poultry), recording of individuals is expensive and the existence of social networks is uncertain due to on-farm restrictions. However, in many cases, a stable social network might be important to individual animal fitness, survival and welfare. For instance, when laying hens are not too densely housed, simple networks may be established. We describe here small social networks in horses, brown bears, laying hens and veal calves to illustrate the importance of measuring social networks among animals managed by humans. Emphasis is placed on the automatic measurement of identity, location, nearest neighbors and nearest neighbor distance for management purposes. It is concluded that social networks are important to the welfare of human-managed animal species and that welfare management based on automatic recordings will become available in the near future.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2014-03-17 PubMed ID: 26479886PubMed Central: PMC4494306DOI: 10.3390/ani4010093Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research article suggests that maintaining the social network groups of human-managed animals, similar to their natural environment, could potentially enhance their welfare. The study emphasizes that while Social Network Analysis (SNA) is readily employed for wild and zoo animals, its usage on farm animals needs exploration to improve their management and ensure welfare.

Importance of Studying Social Networks in Farmed Animals

  • Social Network Analysis (SNA) provides essential insights into the social behavior of animals on multiple levels – group, subgroup, and individual. This understanding can help improve the management and welfare of human-managed animals, particularly those on farms.
  • The research indicates a scarcity of data about the social networks of farmed animal species and their ancestors, underlining the need for more investigations in this area.

Current Focus and Limitations

  • The present study is primarily focused on cattle due to various practical constraints in large groups like poultry, where recording individual details can get expensive.
  • Moreover, the existence of definitive social networks among poultry is uncertain because of on-farm restrictions.

The Importance of Stable Social Networks in Farmed Animals

  • There is evidence to suggest that a stable social network could potentially impact an individual animal’s fitness, survival, and overall welfare.
  • The researchers used examples of horses, brown bears, laying hens, and veal calves to illustrate how small social networks are formed among farmed animals and highlight the importance of their study.

Role of Automatic Recordings in Welfare Management

  • The researchers emphasized the significance of automatically documenting elements like animal identity, location, nearest neighbors, and the distance between them for managing animal welfare.
  • The study concluded that these automatic recordings, in addition to being important for welfare management, could potentially become a common practice in the near future.

Implication for Animal Management

  • One of the key takeaways from this research is the potential benefits of maintaining natural social network groups among human-managed or farm animals.
  • This kind of management strategy could better mimic the animals’ original habitat, thereby enhancing their welfare by reducing stress and promoting more natural behavior.

Cite This Article

APA
Koene P, Ipema B. (2014). Social Networks and Welfare in Future Animal Management. Animals (Basel), 4(1), 93-118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4010093

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 4
Issue: 1
Pages: 93-118

Researcher Affiliations

Koene, Paul
  • Department of Animal Welfare, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands. paul.koene@wur.nl.
Ipema, Bert
  • Department of Farm Systems, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands. bert.ipema@wur.nl.

References

This article includes 79 references
  1. Hale EB. Domestication and the evolution of behaviour.. 1962;pp. 21–53.
  2. Koene P. Behavioral ecology of captive species: using behavioral adaptations to assess and enhance welfare of nonhuman zoo animals.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2013;16(4):360-80.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2013.827917pubmed: 24079489google scholar: lookup
  3. Krause J, Lusseau D, James R. Animal social networks: An introduction.. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009;63:967–973.
    doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0747-0google scholar: lookup
  4. Wey T, Blumstein DT, Shen W, Jordan F. Social network analysis of animal behaviour: A promising tool for the study of sociality.. Anim. Behav. 2008;75:333–344.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.020google scholar: lookup
  5. Coleing A. The application of social network theory to animal behaviour.. Biosci. Horizons 2009;2:32–43.
    doi: 10.1093/biohorizons/hzp008google scholar: lookup
  6. Blonder B, Wey TW, Dornhaus A, James R, Sih A. Temporal dynamics and network analysis.. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2012;3:958–972.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00236.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  7. Croft DP, James R, Krause J. Exploring Animal Social Networks.. 2008.
  8. Krause J, James R, Croft DP. Personality in the context of social networks.. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2010 Dec 27;365(1560):4099-106.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0216pmc: PMC2992749pubmed: 21078661google scholar: lookup
  9. Krause J, Krause S, Arlinghaus R, Psorakis I, Roberts S, Rutz C. Reality mining of animal social systems.. Trends Ecol Evol 2013 Sep;28(9):541-51.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.002pubmed: 23856617google scholar: lookup
  10. Krause J, Wilson AD, Croft DP. New technology facilitates the study of social networks.. Trends Ecol Evol 2011 Jan;26(1):5-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.10.004pubmed: 21056509google scholar: lookup
  11. Haddadi H, King AJ, Wills AP, Fay D, Lowe J, Morton AJ, Hailes S, Wilson AM. Determining association networks in social animals: Choosing spatial-temporal criteria and sampling rates.. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2011;65:1659–1668.
    doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1193-3google scholar: lookup
  12. Makagon MM, McCowan B, Mench JA. How can social network analysis contribute to social behavior research in applied ethology?. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012 May 1;138(3-4).
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.003pmc: PMC3865988pubmed: 24357888google scholar: lookup
  13. Asher L, Collins LM, Ortiz-Pelaez A, Drewe JA, Nicol CJ, Pfeiffer DU. Recent advances in the analysis of behavioural organization and interpretation as indicators of animal welfare.. J R Soc Interface 2009 Dec 6;6(41):1103-19.
    doi: 10.1098/rsif.2009.0221pmc: PMC2817160pubmed: 19740922google scholar: lookup
  14. Jones HAC, Hansen LA, Noble C, Damsgard B, Broom DM, Pearce GP. Social network analysis of behavioural interactions influencing fin damage development in atlantic salmon (salmo salar) during feed-restriction.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;127:139–151.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.09.004google scholar: lookup
  15. McCowan B, Anderson K, Heagarty A, Cameron A. Utility of social network analysis for primate behavioral management and well-being.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;109:396–405.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.02.009google scholar: lookup
  16. Flack JC, Girvan M, de Waal FB, Krakauer DC. Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates.. Nature 2006 Jan 26;439(7075):426-9.
    doi: 10.1038/nature04326pubmed: 16437106google scholar: lookup
  17. Carter KD, Brand R, Carter JK, Shorrocks B, Goldizen AW. Social networks, long-term associations and age-related sociability of wild giraffes.. Anim. Behav. 2013;86:901–910.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.08.002google scholar: lookup
  18. Carter KD, Seddon JM, Frere CH, Carter JK, Goldizen AW. Fission-fusion dynamics in wild giraffes may be driven by kinship, spatial overlap and individual social preferences.. Anim. Behav. 2013;85:385–394.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.11.011google scholar: lookup
  19. Leader-Williams N, Smith RJ, Walpole MJ. Elephant hunting and conservation.. Science 2001 Sep 21;293(5538):2203-4.
    pubmed: 11569496doi: 10.1126/science.293.5538.2203bgoogle scholar: lookup
  20. Williams R, Lusseau D. A killer whale social network is vulnerable to targeted removals.. Biol Lett 2006 Dec 22;2(4):497-500.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0510pmc: PMC1834010pubmed: 17148272google scholar: lookup
  21. Abeyesinghe SM, Drewe JA, Asher L, Wathes CM, Collins LM. Do hens have friends?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;143:61–66.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.003google scholar: lookup
  22. Boissy A. Ethological research applied to farm animals: Reconciling animal welfare and production.. B Acad. Vet. France 2012;165:137–148.
  23. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare.. Physiol Behav 2007 Oct 22;92(3):375-97.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003pubmed: 17428510google scholar: lookup
  24. Rault JL. Friends with benefits: Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012;136:1–14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.002google scholar: lookup
  25. Morgan KN, Tromborg CT. Sources of stress in captivity.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007;102:262–302.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.032google scholar: lookup
  26. Murphy M. Social Stress in Domestic Animals.. 1990;Volume 53;pp. 295–307.
  27. Rault JL, Boissy A, Boivin X. Separation distress in artificially-reared lambs depends on human presence and the number of conspecifics.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011;132:42–50.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.02.011google scholar: lookup
  28. Koene P. Feeding and welfare in domestic animals: A darwinistic framework.. 2006;pp. 84–108.
  29. Mollema L, Koene P, de Jong MC. Quantification of the contact structure in a feral cattle population and its hypothetical effect on the transmission of bovine herpesvirus 1.. Prev Vet Med 2006 Dec 18;77(3-4):161-79.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.05.014pubmed: 16997403google scholar: lookup
  30. Koene P. Approach-Avoidance Conflict and Speed of Conflict Resolution.. 1988.
  31. Koene P, Vossen JMH. A catastrophe model of approach-avoidance conflict.. 1994;pp. 31–53.
  32. Koene P, Vossen JM. Strain differences in rats with respect to speed of conflict resolution.. Behav Genet 1991 Jan;21(1):21-33.
    doi: 10.1007/BF01067664pubmed: 2018461google scholar: lookup
  33. Devries H, Netto WJ, Hanegraaf PLH. Matman—A program for the analysis of sociometric matrices and behavioral transition matrices.. Behaviour 1993;125:157–175.
    doi: 10.1163/156853993X00218google scholar: lookup
  34. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis.. 2002.
  35. Borgatti SP. Netdraw Network Visualization.. 2002.
  36. Hanneman RAA, Riddle M. Introduction to social network methods.. 2005.
  37. Cairns SJ, Schwager SJ. A comparison of association indices.. Anim. Behav. 1987;35:1454–1469.
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80018-0google scholar: lookup
  38. Fagen RM, Mankovich NJ. 2-act transitions, partitioned contingency-tables, and the significant cells problem.. Anim. Behav. 1980;28:1017–1023.
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80090-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  39. Koschutzki D, Lehmann KA, Peeters L, Richter S, Tenfelde-Podehl D, Zlotowski O. Centrality indices.. Netw. Anal.Methodol. Found. 2005;3418:16–61.
  40. Koschutzki D, Lehmann KA, Tenfelde-Podehl D, Zlotowski O. Advanced centrality concepts.. Netw. Anal. Methodol. Found. 2005;3418:83–111.
  41. Feh C. The Domestic Horse: The Origins, Development and Management of Its Behaviour.. 2005;pp. 83–93.
  42. van Dierendonck MC, Sigurjonsdottir H, Colenbrander B, Thorhallsdottir AG. Differences in social behaviour between late pregnant, post-partum and barren mares in a herd of icelandic horses.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004;89:283–297.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.06.010google scholar: lookup
  43. Sundaresan SR, Fischhoff IR, Dushoff J, Rubenstein DI. Network metrics reveal differences in social organization between two fission-fusion species, Grevy's zebra and onager.. Oecologia 2007 Feb;151(1):140-9.
    doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0553-6pubmed: 16964497google scholar: lookup
  44. Lemasson A, Boutin A, Boivin S, Blois-Heulin C, Hausberger M. Horse (Equus caballus) whinnies: a source of social information.. Anim Cogn 2009 Sep;12(5):693-704.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0229-9pubmed: 19449192google scholar: lookup
  45. Tummers B. Datathief III.. 2006.
  46. Perry GLW. Sppack: Spatial point pattern analysis in excel using visual basic for applications (VBA). Environ. Modell. Softw. 2004;19:559–569.
    doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.07.004google scholar: lookup
  47. Koene P, Zandberg ECA. Social network stability and removals in horses.. 2014.
  48. Feh C, Demazieres J. Grooming at a preferred site reduces heart-rate in horses.. Anim. Behav. 1993;46:1191–1194.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1309google scholar: lookup
  49. Egbert AL, Stokes AW. The social behaviour of brown bears on an alaskan salmon stream.. Ursus 1974;3:41–56.
  50. Bryan HM, Darimont CT, Paquet PC, Wynne-Edwards KE, Smits JE. Stress and reproductive hormones in grizzly bears reflect nutritional benefits and social consequences of a salmon foraging niche.. PLoS One 2013;8(11):e80537.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080537pmc: PMC3842319pubmed: 24312230google scholar: lookup
  51. Grandia PA, Van Dijk J, Koene P. Stimulating natural behavior in captive bears.. Ursus 2001;12:199–202.
  52. Koene P, Ardesch J, Ludriks A, Urff E, Wenzelides L, Wittenberg V. Interspecific and intraspecific social interactions among brown bears and wolves in an enclosure.. Ursus 2002;13:85–93.
  53. Koene P. Adaptation of blind brown bears to a new environment and its residents: Stereotypy and play as welfare indicators.. Ursus 1998;10:379–386.
  54. Swenson JE, Haroldson MA. Observations of mixed-aged litters in brown bears.. Ursus 2008;19:73–79.
    doi: 10.2192/07SC017R.1google scholar: lookup
  55. Swenson JE, Franzen R, Segerstrom P, Sandegren F. On the age of self-sufficiency in scandinavian brown bears.. Acta Theriol. 1998;43:213–218.
  56. Collias NE, Collias EC, Hunsaker D, Minning L. Locality fixation, mobility and social organization within an unconfined population of red jungle fowl.. Anim Behav 1966 Oct;14(4):550-9.
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(66)80059-3pubmed: 6008475google scholar: lookup
  57. Javed S, Rahmani AR. Flocking and habitat use pattern of the red junglefowl gallus gallus in dudwa national park, india.. Trop. Ecol. 2000;41:11–16.
  58. Asher L, Collins LM, Pfeiffer DU, Nicol CJ. Flocking for food or flockmates?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;147:94–103.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.05.012google scholar: lookup
  59. Collins LM, Asher L, Pfeiffer DU, Browne WJ, Nicol CJ. Clustering and synchrony in laying hens: The effect of environmental resources on social dynamics.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011;129:43–53.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.10.007google scholar: lookup
  60. Febrer K, Jones TA, Donnelly CA, Dawkins MS. Forced to crowd or choosing to cluster? Spatial distribution indicates social attraction in broiler chickens.. Anim. Behav. 2006;72:1291–1300.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.03.019google scholar: lookup
  61. Bokkers EAM, de Boer IJM, Koene P. Space needs of broilers.. Anim. Welf. 2011;20:623–632.
  62. Lindqvist CES, Schutz KE, Jensen P. Red jungle fowl have more contrafreeloading than white leghorn layers: Effect of food deprivation and consequences for information gain.. Behaviour 2002;139:1195–1209.
    doi: 10.1163/15685390260437335google scholar: lookup
  63. Mollenhorst H, Kettenis DL, Koene P, Ursinus WW, Metz JHM. Behaviour-based simulation of facility demand of laying hens.. Biosyst. Eng. 2008;100:581–590.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.04.005google scholar: lookup
  64. Everett MG, Borgatti SP. The dual-projection approach for two-mode networks.. Soc. Netw. 2013;35:204–210.
  65. Borgatti SP, Everett MG. Network analysis of 2-mode data.. Soc. Netw. 1997;19:243–269.
    doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2google scholar: lookup
  66. Phillips C. Cattle Behaviour and Welfare.. 2008.
  67. Thomas TJ, Weary DM, Appleby MC. Newborn and 5-week-old calves vocalize in response to milk deprivation.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001;74:165–173.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00164-2google scholar: lookup
  68. Flower FC, Weary DM. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf: 2. Separation at 1 day and 2 weeks after birth.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2001 Jan 26;70(4):275-284.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00164-7pubmed: 11179551google scholar: lookup
  69. Weary DM, Chua B. Effects of early separation on the dairy cow and calf. 1. Separation at 6 h, 1 day and 4 days after birth.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2000 Oct 1;69(3):177-188.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00128-3pubmed: 10906402google scholar: lookup
  70. Bokkers EAM, Koene P. Activity, oral behaviour and slaughter data as welfare indicators in veal calves: A comparison of three housing systems.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001;75:1–15.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00175-7google scholar: lookup
  71. Raussi S, Niskanen S, Siivonen J, Hänninen L, Hepola H, Jauhiainen L, Veissier I. The formation of preferential relationships at early age in cattle.. Behav Processes 2010 Jul;84(3):726-31.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.05.005pubmed: 20457231google scholar: lookup
  72. Ipema AH, van de Ven T, Hogewerf PH. Validation and application of an indoor localization system for animals; Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming; Leuven, Belgium.. 10–12 September 2013; pp. 135–144.
  73. Neisen G, Wechsler B, Gygax L. Choice of scan-sampling intervals-an example with quantifying neighbours in dairy cows.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;116:134–140.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.006google scholar: lookup
  74. Opsahl T, Panzarasa P. Clustering in weighted networks.. Soc. Netw. 2009;31:155–163.
    doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.002google scholar: lookup
  75. Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J. Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths.. Soc. Netw. 2010;32:245–251.
    doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006google scholar: lookup
  76. Schepers F, Koene P, Beerda B. Welfare assessment in pet rabbits.. Anim. Welf. 2009;18:477–485.
  77. Reinhardt V, Houser WD, Eisele SG, Champoux M. Social enrichment of the environment with infants for singly caged adult rhesus-monkeys.. Zoo Biol. 1987;6:365–371.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.1430060410google scholar: lookup
  78. Stradi I, Spiezio C, Sala L. Infants in a colony of captive chimpanzees: Social enrichment?. Folia Primatol. 2011;82:281.
  79. Rutten CJ, Velthuis AGJ, Steeneveld W, Hogeveen H. Invited review: sensors to support health management on dairy farms.. J Dairy Sci 2013 Apr;96(4):1928-1952.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6107pubmed: 23462176google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 22 times.
  1. Pascual A, Kalcher-Sommersguter E, Riba D, Crailsheim D. Long-Term Assessment of Captive Chimpanzees: Influence of Social Group Composition, Seasonality and Biographic Background. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jan 26;13(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13030424pubmed: 36766313google scholar: lookup
  2. Vázquez-Diosdado JA, Occhiuto F, Carslake C, Kaler J. Familiarity, age, weaning and health status impact social proximity networks in dairy calves. Sci Rep 2023 Feb 8;13(1):2275.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-29309-1pubmed: 36754990google scholar: lookup
  3. Meckbach C, Elsholz S, Siede C, Traulsen I. An Information-Theoretic Approach to Detect the Associations of GPS-Tracked Heifers in Pasture. Sensors (Basel) 2021 Nov 15;21(22).
    doi: 10.3390/s21227585pubmed: 34833663google scholar: lookup
  4. Agha S, Fàbrega E, Quintanilla R, Sánchez JP. Social Network Analysis of Agonistic Behaviour and Its Association with Economically Important Traits in Pigs. Animals (Basel) 2020 Nov 16;10(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10112123pubmed: 33207588google scholar: lookup
  5. Xu H, Li S, Lee C, Ni W, Abbott D, Johnson M, Lea JM, Yuan J, Campbell DLM. Analysis of Cattle Social Transitional Behaviour: Attraction and Repulsion. Sensors (Basel) 2020 Sep 18;20(18).
    doi: 10.3390/s20185340pubmed: 32961892google scholar: lookup
  6. de Freslon I, Peralta JM, Strappini AC, Monti G. Understanding Allogrooming Through a Dynamic Social Network Approach: An Example in a Group of Dairy Cows. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:535.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00535pubmed: 32851054google scholar: lookup
  7. Crailsheim D, Stüger HP, Kalcher-Sommersguter E, Llorente M. Early life experience and alterations of group composition shape the social grooming networks of former pet and entertainment chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). PLoS One 2020;15(1):e0226947.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226947pubmed: 31940322google scholar: lookup
  8. Büttner K, Czycholl I, Mees K, Krieter J. Agonistic Interactions in Pigs-Comparison of Dominance Indices with Parameters Derived from Social Network Analysis in Three Age Groups. Animals (Basel) 2019 Nov 7;9(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9110929pubmed: 31703258google scholar: lookup
  9. Williams E, Carter A, Hall C, Bremner-Harrison S. Social Interactions in Zoo-Housed Elephants: Factors Affecting Social Relationships. Animals (Basel) 2019 Sep 29;9(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9100747pubmed: 31569551google scholar: lookup
  10. Büttner K, Czycholl I, Mees K, Krieter J. Social network analysis in pigs: impacts of significant dyads on general network and centrality parameters. Animal 2020 Feb;14(2):368-378.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731119001836pubmed: 31414655google scholar: lookup
  11. Sosa SO, Pelé M, Debergue É, Kuntz C, Keller B, Robic F, Siegwalt-Baudin F, Richer C, Ramos A, Sueur C. Impact of Group Management and Transfer on Individual Sociality in Highland Cattle (Bos taurus). Front Vet Sci 2019;6:183.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00183pubmed: 31245398google scholar: lookup
  12. Campbell DLM, Horton BJ, Hinch GN. Using Radio-Frequency Identification Technology to Measure Synchronised Ranging of Free-Range Laying Hens. Animals (Basel) 2018 Nov 16;8(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8110210pubmed: 30453521google scholar: lookup
  13. Foris B, Zebunke M, Langbein J, Melzer N. Evaluating the temporal and situational consistency of personality traits in adult dairy cattle. PLoS One 2018;13(10):e0204619.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204619pubmed: 30273367google scholar: lookup
  14. Funkhouser JA, Mayhew JA, Mulcahy JB. Social network and dominance hierarchy analyses at Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0191898.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191898pubmed: 29444112google scholar: lookup
  15. Li Y, Zhang H, Johnston LJ, Martin W. Understanding Tail-Biting in Pigs through Social Network Analysis. Animals (Basel) 2018 Jan 15;8(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8010013pubmed: 29342947google scholar: lookup
  16. Bolt SL, Boyland NK, Mlynski DT, James R, Croft DP. Pair Housing of Dairy Calves and Age at Pairing: Effects on Weaning Stress, Health, Production and Social Networks. PLoS One 2017;12(1):e0166926.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166926pubmed: 28052122google scholar: lookup
  17. Kleinhappel TK, John EA, Pike TW, Wilkinson A, Burman OH. Animal welfare: a social networks perspective. Sci Prog 2016;99(Pt 1):68-82.
    doi: 10.3184/003685016X14495640902331pubmed: 27120815google scholar: lookup
  18. Levé M, Sueur C, Petit O, Matsuzawa T, Hirata S. Social grooming network in captive chimpanzees: does the wild or captive origin of group members affect sociality?. Primates 2016 Jan;57(1):73-82.
    doi: 10.1007/s10329-015-0494-ypubmed: 26403665google scholar: lookup
  19. Büttner K, Scheffler K, Czycholl I, Krieter J. Social network analysis - centrality parameters and individual network positions of agonistic behavior in pigs over three different age levels. Springerplus 2015;4:185.
    doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-0963-1pubmed: 25932371google scholar: lookup
  20. Agha S, Psota E, Turner SP, Lewis CRG, Steibel JP, Doeschl-Wilson A. Revealing the Hidden Social Structure of Pigs with AI-Assisted Automated Monitoring Data and Social Network Analysis. Animals (Basel) 2025 Mar 30;15(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15070996pubmed: 40218389google scholar: lookup
  21. St Charles KM, VanderWaal KL, Anderson JE, Johnston LJ, Li YZ. Evaluating social network metrics as indicators of tail injury caused by tail biting in growing-finishing pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus). Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1441813.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1441813pubmed: 39397809google scholar: lookup
  22. Díaz S, Sánchez S, Fidalgo A. Social Network Changes in Cotton-Top Tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) after the Birth of New Infants. Animals (Basel) 2023 May 25;13(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13111758pubmed: 37889666google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.