Controlling for spatial preferences, the mixture model retrieved a total of 972 significant social clustering events (Y1 = 209; Y2 = 227; Y3 = 277; Y4 = 259). Calculating a weighted assortativity coefficient for each annual network revealed significant social assortment by spatial community membership ( r d w : Y1 = 0.204; Y2 = 0.129; Y3 = 0.176; Y4 = 0.130) when tested against a null model of 10 000 random networks (figure 1c). 074 (0.065), Y2: 0.129 (0.015), Y3: 0.177 (0.025), Y4: ?0.043 (0.042)). Mantel tests revealed that there was a strong correlation in the dyadic association strength between pairs for years 12 (n = 29, Mantel r = 0.74, CI = 0.13–0.30, p < 0.001), 23 (n = 35, Mantel r = 0.85, CI = 0.13–0.29, p < 0.001), 34 (n = 31, Mantel r = 0.78, CI = 0.13–0.27, p < 0.001) and finally for the duration of the study for years 14 (n = 22, Mantel r = 0.76, CI = 0.16–0.35, p < 0.001).
(b) Changes in classification dimensions
The number of tagged sharks increased throughout the morning, for both communities (blue and red), peaking about (GLMM R 2 = 0.18, 0.10; F = 244.9, 111.9, p < 0.001, community 2, community 4, respectively; figure 2a). The number of tagged sharks detected then decreased, reaching a minimum by – before starting to increase at – (figure 2a). Footage from camera tags deployed on two sharks showed that group size typically varied between two and 14 individuals, with group size increasing throughout the morning and peaking in the afternoon (figure 2c, electronic supplementary material, video S4). Close following behaviour, where individuals were approximately less than 1 m from a conspecific, was commonly observed (electronic supplementary material, S4). It is likely that detection grizzly range of receivers will be reduced at night due to increased noise on the reef, which may influence our ability to detect individuals. However, the more gradual increase in shark numbers throughout the early morning as well camera footage still suggests diel changes in group size are genuine.
Profile dos. Diel period forecasts alterations in group size into the a few premier organizations. (a) Amount of acoustically marked whales recognized within core receivers improve somewhat all the time for those during the a couple premier organizations (yellow and blue, contour step 1). (b) Physique bring regarding a pet-borne digital camera out-of a grey reef shark stepping into personal after the habits. (c,d) Camera mark derived minimal class proportions transform for hours having a couple of lady gray reef whales contained in this area 2. (Online version in the colour.)
(c) Individual-founded patterns
All of our very first IBMs indicated that somebody using only personal data in order to to obtain tips (loners) features much lower exercise than others having fun with societal and private suggestions (electronic supplementary matter, S5). Under the simulated problems out of creating rates off prey quality (productive reward) and you can area thickness, this new proportion from ‘loner’ anyone easily denied generally so you’re able to extinction, unless energetic benefits was extremely high (electronic second situation, S5). The 2nd series of habits (personal and you can personal details/specific CPFs, others wanderers) revealed that irrespective of target high quality, spot thickness or perhaps the doing proportion off wanderers to CPFs, in every modeling situations CPFs had far greater endurance times (profile 3, electronic supplementary question, S3 and you will S5). When simulations were work on that have quicker predictable spatial balance off victim patches, CPFs usually had longer survival minutes than simply wandering foragers regardless of area thickness otherwise quality (shape 3c–f). Yet not, the real difference when you look at the endurance go out is best on large area densities and you can quality (profile 3, electronic additional issue, S3 and you can S5).