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 category size

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 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 2. Diel period forecasts alterations in classification proportions within the a couple of biggest communities. (a) Amount of acoustically marked sharks imagined during the key receivers improve rather from day to night for those inside a couple of premier groups (purple and you will bluish, profile step 1). (b) Figure simply take of an animal-borne camera out of a gray reef shark gleeden free trial stepping into intimate following the conduct. (c,d) Cam tag derived minimal classification proportions changes throughout the day for a couple of lady gray reef sharks within this area 2. (Online version for the the color.)

(c) Individual-centered activities

Our very own very first IBMs indicated that some body only using personal information in order to to acquire information (loners) keeps reduced fitness than those using social and private advice (digital additional topic, S5). Not as much as every artificial situations out of performing percentages from victim top quality (energetic prize) and plot density, brand new ratio regarding ‘loner’ somebody easily refused typically so you can extinction, until energetic rewards had been high (electronic secondary topic, S5). The second series of designs (private and public info/particular CPFs, anybody else wanderers) indicated that no matter what prey high quality, spot thickness and/or creating ratio out-of wanderers to CPFs, in all modelling circumstances CPFs had much deeper success times (shape 3, digital secondary situation, S3 and you can S5). Whenever simulations was basically work at that have smaller foreseeable spatial balances regarding victim patches, CPFs constantly had prolonged survival moments than simply wandering foragers aside from patch occurrence or quality (figure 3c–f). But not, the difference when you look at the emergency go out is actually most readily useful at the large patch densities and you will high quality (contour step three, electronic additional issue, S3 and you may S5).