Does the social network structure of wild animal populations differ from that of animals in captivity?

The social behaviour of wild animals living in groups leads to social networks with structures that produce group-level effects and position individuals within them with differential consequences for an individual's fitness. Social dynamics in captivity can differ greatly from those in wild conspecifics given the different constraints on social organization in wild populations, e.g. group size, predation pressure, distribution of resources (food, mates), which are all regulated by human carers in captive populations. The social networks of animals in zoos is expected to differ from those of free-living conspecifics. While many studies have described the social networks of a wide diversity of wild and captive animals, none has directly compared the networks of multiple groups of a single species both in the wild and in captivity. Meerkats, Suricata suricatta, are an excellent species to compare the social networks of wild and captive groups. We replicated the methods of Madden et al. (2009, 2011), who studied eight groups in the wild, in fifteen captive groups. We tested how network structures and individual positions in grooming, foraging competition and dominance networks differed between wild and captive groups. Groups of wild and captive meerkats differed in various aspects of their social network structure. Differences in the network may be due to individuals occupying different network positions and the difference in the number and strength of their connections to other individuals. This distinct way of interacting and associating could be a result of group specific attributes, such as group size, and/or the attributes of the donor and recipient, including sex, status or age. Critically, the differences may be explained by the dissimilar living environment that each encounters.