A killer whale social network is vulnerable to targeted removals
Open accessAbstract
Individuals play various roles in maintaining social integrity of mammalian populations. However, many models developed for managing wildlife resources assume that all individuals are equal. Killer whales are social animals that rely on relationships within and among family groups for survival. In the northeastern Pacific, fish-eating, 'resident' killer whale populations are composed of matrilines from which offspring do not disperse. We analysed the influence of various individuals' age, sex and matrilineal affiliation on their position in a social network. Here, we show that some matrilines appeared to play more central roles than others in the network. Furthermore, juvenile whales, especially females, appeared to play a central role in maintaining network cohesion. These two key findings were supported subsequently by simulating removal of different individuals. The network was robust to random removals; however, simulations that mimicked historic live-captures from the northeastern Pacific were likely to break the network graph into isolated groups. This finding raises concern regarding targeted takes, such as live-capture or drive fisheries, of matrilineal cetaceans.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our results support previous studies on other species that showed that the interaction network was sensitive to the removal of central individuals.
“Our results support previous studies on other species that showed that the interaction network was sensitive to the removal of central individuals (killer whales: Williams & Lusseau, 2006; ground squirrels: Manno, 2008; chimpanzees: Kanngiesser et al., 2011).”
From Characteristics of social relationships in a group of captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in the elephant village in Thailand (2022) · cites this paper as Williams & Lusseau, 2006
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 199
- Authors
- Williams, R., & Lusseau, D.
- Affiliations
- University of St Andrews (GB)
- Raincoast Conservation SocietyPearse Island, PO Box 193, Alert Bay BC V0N 1A0, Canada
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Rob
- Venue
- Biology Letters
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2006-06-29
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 497-500
- ISSN
- 1744-9561 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-957X
- PMC
- PMC1834010
- OpenAlex
- W2122372559
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Biology Letters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Keywords
- Orcinus orca, social networks, live capture, network centrality, network cohesion, cetacean conservation
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Behavior, Animal, Computer Simulation, Female, Male, Models, Biological, Social Behavior, Whale, Killer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review