|
|
Vahl, W. K., Lok, T., van der Meer, J., Piersma, T., & Weissing, F. J. (2005). Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones. Behav. Ecol., 16(5), 834–844.
Abstract: In studying the success of foraging animals, studies of interference competition have put emphasis on effects of competitor density, whereas studies of resource defense have focused on the effects of the spatial distribution of food within patches. Very few studies have looked at both factors simultaneously, that is, determined whether the effects of competitor density on foraging success depend on the spatial distribution of food. We studied the behavior and the foraging success of ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres) using an experiment in which we varied both the presence of a competitor and the food distribution. Because turnstones may differ strongly in their relative dominance status, we also experimentally varied the foragers' relative dominance status. We found that the presence of a competitor only reduced the foraging success of subordinate birds foraging at the clumped food distribution. At this condition, dominant and subordinate birds differed markedly in their foraging success. Contrary to our expectations, we did not observe more agonistic behavior at the clumped food distribution. This indicates that the amount of agonistic behavior observed may be a bad indicator of interference effects. These findings have specific implications for models of interference competition. Most notably they show that the effects of competitor density on agonistic behavior and foraging success may well depend on the spatial distribution of food and the foragers' relative dominance status. Additionally, our results suggest that social dominance will not be fully understood without considering long-term processes such as the formation and maintenance of social dominance hierarchies.
|
|
|
|
Weissing, F. J. (2011). Animal behaviour: Born leaders. Nature, 474(7351), 288–289.
Abstract: Social animals face a dilemma. To reap the benefits of group living, they have to stay together. However, individuals differ in their preferences as to where to go and what to do next. If all individuals follow their own preferences, group coherence is undermined, resulting in an outcome that is unfavourable for everyone. Neglecting one's own preferences and following a leader is one way to resolve this coordination problem. But what attributes make an individual a 'leader'? A modelling study by Johnstone and Manica1 illuminates this question.
|
|
|
|
Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O., & Weissing, F. J. (2007). Wolf et al. reply. Nature, 450(7167), E5–E6.
|
|
|
|
Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O., & Weissing, F. J. (2007). Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature, 447(7144), 581–584.
Abstract: In recent years evidence has been accumulating that personalities are not only found in humans but also in a wide range of other animal species. Individuals differ consistently in their behavioural tendencies and the behaviour in one context is correlated with the behaviour in multiple other contexts. From an adaptive perspective, the evolution of animal personalities is still a mystery, because a more flexible structure of behaviour should provide a selective advantage. Accordingly, many researchers view personalities as resulting from constraints imposed by the architecture of behaviour (but see ref. 12). In contrast, we show here that animal personalities can be given an adaptive explanation. Our argument is based on the insight that the trade-off between current and future reproduction often results in polymorphic populations in which some individuals put more emphasis on future fitness returns than others. Life-history theory predicts that such differences in fitness expectations should result in systematic differences in risk-taking behaviour. Individuals with high future expectations (who have much to lose) should be more risk-averse than individuals with low expectations. This applies to all kinds of risky situations, so individuals should consistently differ in their behaviour. By means of an evolutionary model we demonstrate that this basic principle results in the evolution of animal personalities. It simultaneously explains the coexistence of behavioural types, the consistency of behaviour through time and the structure of behavioural correlations across contexts. Moreover, it explains the common finding that explorative behaviour and risk-related traits like boldness and aggressiveness are common characteristics of animal personalities.
|
|
