|
|
Boy V, D. P. (1979). Time-budgets of Camargue horses, I. Development changes in the time-budgets of foals. Behaviour, 71, 187–202.
|
|
|
|
Duncan P,. (1979). Time-budgets of Camrgue horses; II. Time- budgets of adult horses and weaned sub-adults. Behaviour, 72, 26–49.
|
|
|
|
Kiley,. (1976). The tail movements of ungulates, canids and felids with particular reference to their causation and function as displays. Behaviour, 56, 69–115.
|
|
|
|
Schloeth R,. (1956). Zur Psychologie der Begegnung zwischen Tieren. Behaviour, 10, 1–80.
|
|
|
|
WARING GH et al,. The behaviour of horses. (pp. 330–369).
|
|
|
|
Boinski, S. (2005). Dispersal patterns among three species of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri oerstedii, S. boliviensis and S. sciureus): III. Cognition. Behaviour, 142, 679–699.
|
|
|
|
Wittemyer, G., & Getz, W. M. (2006). A likely ranking interpolation for resolving dominance orders in systems with unknown relationships. Behaviour, 143(7), 909–930.
Abstract: n many animal systems agonistic interactions may be rare or not overt, particularly where such interactions are costly or of high risk as is common for large mammals. We present a technique developed specifically for resolving an optimized dominance order of individuals in systems with transitive (i.e. linear) dominance relationships, but where not all relationships are known. Our method augments the widely used I&SI method (de Vries, 1998) with an interpolation function for resolving the relative ranks of individuals with unknown relationships. Our method offers several advantages over other dominance methods by enabling the incorporation of any proportion of unknown relationships, resolving a unique solution to any dominance matrix, and calculating cardinal dominance strengths for each individual. As such, this method enables novel insight into difficult to study behavioural systems.
|
|
|
|
Hemelrijk, C. K., Wantia, J., & Gygax, L. (2005). The construction of dominance order: comparing performance of five methods using an individual-based model. Behaviour, 142(8), 1043–1064.
Abstract: In studies of animal behaviour investigators correlate dominance with all kinds of behavioural
variables, such as reproductive success and foraging success. Many methods are used to
produce a dominance hierarchy from a matrix reflecting the frequency of winning dominance
interactions. These different methods produce different hierarchies. However, it is difficult to
decide which ranking method is best. In this paper, we offer a new procedure for this decision:
we use an individual-based model, called DomWorld, as a test-environment. We choose this
model, because it provides access to both the internal dominance values of artificial agents
(which reflects their fighting power) and the matrix of winning and losing among them and,
in addition, because its behavioural rules are biologically inspired and its group-level patterns
resemble those of real primates. We compare statistically the dominance hierarchy based on
the internal dominance values of the artificial agents with the dominance hierarchy produced
by ranking individuals by (a) their total frequency of winning, (b) their average dominance
index, (c) a refined dominance index, the David`s score, (d) the number of subordinates each
individual has and (e) a ranking method based on maximizing the linear order of the hierarchy.
Because dominance hierarchies may differ depending on group size, type of society, and the
interval of study, we compare these ranking methods for these conditions.We study complete
samples as well as samples randomly chosen to resemble the limitations of observing real
animals. It appears that two methods of medium complexity (the average dominance index
and David`s score) lead to hierarchical orders that come closest to the hierarchy based on
internal dominance values of the agents. We advocate usage of the average dominance index,
because of its computational simplicity.
|
|
|
|
Feh, C. (2005). Relationships and Communication in Socially Natural Horse Herds. In D. S. Mills, & S. M. McDonnell (Eds.), The domestic horse : the origins, development, and management of its behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005.
Abstract: Horses are quite unique. In most mammals, sexes segregate and maintain bonds only during the breeding season (Clutton-Brock, 1989). Some canids, a few rodents and primate species such as gorillas, hamadryas baboons and red howler monkeys are the exception, where the same males stay with the same females all year round and over many breeding seasons. Typically, both sexes disperse at puberty in these species. In horses, it was clearly shown that the causes for female dispersal were incest avoidance and not intra-specific competition (Monard, 1996). As a rule, this is confirmed for mammal species where tenure length by males exceeds the age at first reproduction in females (Clutton-Brock, 1989). When horses are allowed to choose their mating partner freely, the inbreeding coefficient of the offspring is lower than expected should they mate randomly (Duncan et al, 1984).
|
|
|
|
Digweed, S. M., Fedigan, L. M., & Rendall, D. (2005). Variable specificity in the anti-predator vocalizations and behaviour of the white-faced capuchin, Cebus capucinus. Behaviour, 142(8). Retrieved June 18, 2024, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853905774405344
Abstract: (Accepted: 23 June 2005)
Summary
Much research in animal communication is aimed at understanding the functional design
features of animal vocal signals. Our detailed analyses of the vocalizations and behavioural
responses elicited in white-faced capuchins by predators and other disturbances point to two
call variants that differ modestly in their acoustic structure and that are accompanied by
functionally distinct behavioural responses. The first variant is given exclusively to avian
predators and is almost invariably accompanied by the monkeys immediate descent from
the treetops where it is most vulnerable; therefore, we label this call variant the aerial
predator alarm?. The second variant, that differs only slightly but noticeably from the first,
is given to a wide range of snakes and mammals, including a range of species that represent
no predatory threat to the monkeys. This second call is also associated with more variable
responses from calling monkeys, from delayed retreat from the source of disturbance, to
active approach, inspection, and sometimes mobbing of the animal involved. We therefore
label this variant more generally as an “alerting call”. Although some other primate species
show a more diverse system of anti-predator calls, and the capuchins themselves may yet
be found to produce a greater variety of calls, a system of two call variants with varying
degrees of predator specificity and behavioural response is not uncommon among primates
and appears functionally appropriate for capuchins. The basic structure of the alerting call
allows conspecific listeners to localize the caller and the source of disturbance readily, thereby
allowing listeners to approach and assist in mobbing in cases where the disturbance warrants
it, or to avoid the area in cases where the disturbance is identified as a predatory threat.
Conversely, the aerial predator alarm is inherently less localizable and therefore conveys the
|
|
