Abstract: Group living can confer advantages to individuals, but it can also impose severe costs through resource competition. Kleptoparasitism is one example in which some individuals (joiners) can exploit the food discovered by other animals (finders). This type of social foraging has been modelled either as an information-sharing model or as a producer-scrounger game. An important variable in these models is the finder's advantage: the number of items obtained by the finder before the arrival of other individuals. In this study we describe how the spatial position and rank of individuals in a group of wild tufted capuchin monkeys affect their ability to discover and exploit new food sources. We also analyse the factors that affect the finder's share and the total amount of food obtained by the finder from a newly discovered resource. By placing platforms filled with bananas at novel locations in their home range, we show that animals in the leading edge of a foraging group have a higher probability of discovering new food sources than animals occupying other spatial positions. The alpha male and the alpha female, which tended to occupy central-forward positions, were able to monopolize newly discovered food sources and thus obtain a major share of them. The finder's share at the feeding platforms was smaller when there was more food on a platform, but increased with longer delays before the arrival of other individuals. The total amount of food obtained by the finder from the feeding platforms was larger when there was more food on the platform, when the finder was of higher social status, and when it took longer for other individuals to arrive. Animals can increase their finder's share and total amount consumed from a newly discovered resource by keeping large interindividual distances and by avoiding giving cues about the presence of food (such as food-associated vocalizations) to other animals.

Abstract: Drawing on the concepts and theory of dominance in adult vertebrates, this article categorizes the relationships of dominance between infant siblings, identifies the behavioral mechanisms that give rise to those relationships, and proposes a model to explain their evolution. Dominance relationships in avian broods can be classified according to the agonistic roles of dominants and subordinates as “aggression-submission,” “aggression-resistance, ” “aggression-aggression,” “aggression-avoidance,” “rotating dominance,” and “flock dominance.” These relationships differ mainly in the submissiveness/pugnacity of subordinates, which is pivotal, and in the specificity/generality of the learning processes that underlie them. As in the dominance hierarchies of adult vertebrates, agonistic roles are engendered and maintained by several mechanisms, including differential fighting ability, assessment, trained winning and losing (especially in altricial species), learned individual relationships (especially in precocial species), site-specific learning, and probably group-level effects. An evolutionary framework in which the species-typical dominance relationship is determined by feeding mode, confinement, cost of subordination, and capacity for individual recognition, can be extended to mammalian litters and account for the aggression-submission and aggression-resistance observed in distinct populations of spotted hyenas and the “site-specific dominance” (teat ownership) of some pigs, felids, and hyraxes. Little is known about agonism in the litters of other mammals or broods of poikilotherms, but some species of fish and crocodilians have the potential for dominance among broodmates. Copyright © 2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Changes in populations of several ungulate species in the Serengeti-Mara region of East Africa over the past 30 years suggest several hypotheses for their regulation and coexistence. Recent censuses in the 1980s have allowed us to test the hypotheses that: (1) there was competition between wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and Thomson's gazelle (Gazella thomsoni). This predicted that gazelle numbers should have declined in the 1980s when wildebeest were food limited. Census figures show no change in gazelle numbers between 1978 and 1986, a result contrary to the interspecific competition hypothesis; (2) wildebeest and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) populations were regulated by intraspecific competition for food. Since both populations reached food limitation in the 1970s, the hypothesis predicted that the populations should have been stable in the 1980s. The results confirm these predictions for wildebeest and the buffalo population in the Mara reserve. In the Serengeti the buffalo population declined 41% over the period 1976-1984. The decline was not evenly distributed over the park, some areas showing an 80-90% decline, others no change or an increase in numbers. The decline was associated with proximity to human habitation; (3) an outbreak of the viral disease, rinderpest, in 1982 may have been the cause of the drop in buffalo population. Blood serum samples to measure the prevalence of antibodies were collected from areas of decreasing, stable and increasing populations. If rinderpest was the cause of decrease there should be a negative relationship between the prevalence of rinderpest and the instantaneous rate of increase (r). The results showed no relationship. We conclude that rinderpest was not the major cause of the drop in buffalo numbers. Elephant (Loxodonta africana) numbers dropped 81% in Serengeti in the period 1977-1986. In the Mara there was little change. The evidence suggests that extensive poaching in northern and western Serengeti during 1979-1984 accounted for the drop in both elephant and buffalo numbers.