|
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Barton, R.A.; Byrne, R.W.; Whiten, A. |
|
|
Title |
Ecology, feeding competition and social structure in baboons |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
1996 |
Publication |
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. |
|
|
Volume |
38 |
Issue |
5 |
Pages |
321-329 |
|
|
Keywords |
Key words Ecology – Competition – Group size – Baboons |
|
|
Abstract |
Predictions of the model of van Schaik (1989) of female-bonding in primates are tested by systematically comparing the ecology, level of within-group contest competition for food (WGC), and patterns of social behaviour found in two contrasting baboon populations. Significant differences were found in food distribution (percentage of the diet from clumped sources), feeding supplant rates and grooming patterns. In accord with the model, the tendencies of females to affiliate and form coalitions with one another, and to be philopatric, were strongest where ecological conditions promoted WGC. Group fission in the population with strong WGC was “horizontal” with respect to female dominance rank, and associated with female-female aggression during a period of elevated feeding competition. In contrast, where WGC was low, females' grooming was focused on adult males rather than other females. Recent evidence suggests that group fission here is initiated by males, tends to result in the formation of one-male groups, and is not related to feeding competition but to male-male competition for mates. An ecological model of baboon social structure is presented which incorporates the effects of female-female competition, male-male competition, and predation pressure. The model potentially accounts for wide variability in group size, group structure and social relationships within the genus Papio. Socio-ecological convergence between common baboons and hamadryas baboons, however, may be limited in some respects by phylogenetic inertia. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
807 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Anderson, C.; Franks, N.R. |
|
|
Title |
Teams in animal societies |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2001 |
Publication |
Behavioral Ecology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Behav. Ecol. |
|
|
Volume |
12 |
Issue |
5 |
Pages |
534-540 |
|
|
Keywords |
animal societies, cooperation, division of labor, groups, invertebrates, task types, teams, vertebrates |
|
|
Abstract |
We review the existence of teams in animal societies. Teams have previously been dismissed in all but a tiny minority of insect societies. “Team” is a term not generally used in studies of vertebrates. We propose a new rigorous definition of a team that may be applied to both vertebrate and invertebrate societies. We reconsider what it means to work as a team or group and suggest that there are many more teams in insect societies than previously thought. A team task requires different subtasks to be performed concurrently for successful completion. There is a division of labor within a team. Contrary to previous reviews of teams in social insects, we do not constrain teams to consist of members of different castes and argue that team members may be interchangeable. Consequently, we suggest that a team is simply the set of individuals that performs a team task. We contrast teams with groups and suggest that a group task requires the simultaneous performance and cooperation of two or more individuals for successful completion. In a group, there is no division of labor--each individual performs the same task. We also contrast vertebrate and invertebrate teams and find that vertebrate teams tend to be associated with hunting and are based on individual recognition. Invertebrate teams occur in societies characterized by a great deal of redundancy, and we predict that teams in insect societies are more likely to be found in large polymorphic (“complex”) societies than in small monomorphic (“simple”) societies. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
10.1093/beheco/12.5.534 |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
|
Serial |
2070 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Ajie, B.C.; Pintor, L.M.; Watters, J.; Kerby, J.L.; Hammond, J.I.; Sih, A. |
|
|
Title |
A framework for determining the fitness consequences of antipredator behavior |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2007 |
Publication |
Behavioral Ecology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Behav. Ecol. |
|
|
Volume |
18 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
267-270 |
|
|
Keywords |
|
|
|
Abstract |
Behavioral ecologists have long been interested in understanding the adaptive value of antipredator behavior (Sih 1987Go; Lima and Dill 1990Go; Lima 1998Go). A recent review by Lind and Cresswell (2005)Go, however, noted some important difficulties with quantifying the fitness consequences of antipredator behaviors. In essence, Lind and Cresswell suggest that most studies do not provide strong evidence on the adaptive value of antipredator behavior because they do not consider 1) trade-offs between antipredator and reproductive performance, 2) the abilities of organisms to avoid fitness losses associated with constraints on focal traits by employing behavioral alternatives (behavioral compensation), and 3) the effects of behavioral defenses at different stages of the predation sequence. The authors rightfully assert that an understanding of these issues can only be accomplished by measuring multiple traits and fitness components (i.e., survival and reproduction). Nevertheless, the question of how to integrate such data into |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
10.1093/beheco/arl064 |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
4087 |
|
Permanent link to this record |