|
|
de Vries, H., Stevens, J. M. G., & Vervaecke, H. (2006). Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies. Anim. Behav., 71(3), 585–592.
Abstract: In the analysis of social dominance in groups of animals, linearity has been used by many researchers as the main structural characteristic of a dominance hierarchy. In this paper we propose, alongside linearity, a quantitative measure for another property of a dominance hierarchy, namely its steepness. Steepness of a hierarchy is defined here as the absolute slope of the straight line fitted to the normalized David's scores (calculated on the basis of a dyadic dominance index corrected for chance) plotted against the subjects' ranks. This correction for chance is an improvement of an earlier proposal by de Vries (appendix 2 in de Vries, Animal Behaviour, 1998, 55, 827-843). In addition, we present a randomization procedure for determining the statistical significance of a hierarchy's steepness, which can be used to test the observed steepness against the steepness expected under the null hypothesis of random win chances for all pairs of individuals. Whereas linearity depends on the number of established binary dominance relationships and the degree of transitivity in these relationships, steepness measures the degree to which individuals differ from each other in winning dominance encounters. Linearity and steepness are complementary measures to characterize a dominance hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
Poisbleau, M., Jenouvrier, S., & Fritz, H. (2006). Assessing the reliability of dominance scores for assigning individual ranks in a hierarchy. Anim. Behav., 72(4), 835–842.
Abstract: The dominance score (number of wins divided by the total number of interactions) is the most widely used procedure in field studies to rank individuals. Its reliability depends on the number of interactions on which it is calculated. However, most authors use it without any estimate of the associated error. We describe the precision associated with a dominance score estimate as a function of the number of interactions on which it is based, and hence provide a tool to plan field protocols and effort. The precision error decreases according to a power function with increasing number of interactions, but with more precision for extreme scores for any given number of interactions. We discuss the fact that the minimum number of interactions should be based on the precision associated with the 50% score, the least precise of all scores. We also emphasize the trade-off between recording effort and precision of the estimator, and give an example of our choice of 26 interactions for fieldwork on ducks and geese. When comparing individual ranks based on dominance scores with ranks given by the dominance matrix, we found a good correlation, with more mismatches around the middle of the hierarchy. This was consistent with the precision calculated with our model. We conclude that dominance score is a reliable tool, but conclusions must take into account the number of interactions on which the calculations are done. We also discuss the importance of initial assumptions and sources of bias in field studies.
|
|
|
|
Nicol, C. J. (2006). How animals learn from each other. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 100(1-2), 58–63.
Abstract: This paper explores ways by which animals may learn from one another, using examples drawn mostly from the chicken, an animal for which social learning is likely to be less dangerous than individual learning. In early life, the behaviour of the hen is important in encouraging chicks to peck at edible items. Maternal display not only attracts chicks to profitable food items, but also redirects their attention away from harmful or non-profitable items. Older chicks can enhance their foraging success by observing the behaviour of conspecifics within their own social group. Hens have been trained to perform a novel behaviour (key-pecking for food) by observation of a trained demonstrator bird. Moreover, observers learnt most from watching dominant demonstrators. Thus the ability to learn from others is not `fixed', but depends on the context and the social identity of both the observer and the demonstrator.
|
|
|
|
Nudds, M., & Hurley, S. (2006). Rational Animals?.
Abstract: To what extent can animal behaviour be described as rational? What does it even mean to describe behaviour as rational? This book focuses on one of the major debates in science today – how closely does mental processing in animals resemble mental processing in humans. It addresses the question of whether and to what extent non-human animals are rational, that is, whether any animal behaviour can be regarded as the result of a rational thought processes. It does this with attention to three key questions, which recur throughout the book and which have both empirical and philosophical aspects: What kinds of behavioural tasks can animals successfully perform? What if any mental processes must be postulated to explain their performance at these tasks? What properties must processes have to count as rational? The book is distinctive in pursuing these questions not only in relation to our closest relatives, the primates, whose intelligence usually gets the most attention, but also in relation to birds and dolphins, where striking results are also being obtained. Some chapters focus on a particular species. They describe some of the extraordinary and complex behaviour of these species – using tools in novel ways to solve foraging problems, for example, or behaving in novel ways to solve complex social problems – and ask whether such behaviour should be explained in rational or merely mechanistic terms. Other chapters address more theoretical issues and ask, for example, what it means for behaviour to be rational, and whether rationality can be understood in the absence of language. The book includes many of the world's leading figures doing empirical work on rationality in primates, dolphins, and birds, as well as distinguished philosophers of mind and science. The book includes an editors' introduction which summarises the philosophical and empirical work presented, and draws together the issues discussed by the contributors.
|
|
|
|
Allen, C. (2006). Transitive inference in animals: Reasoning or conditioned associations? In S. Hurley, & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational Animals? (pp. 175–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abstract: It is widely accepted that many species of nonhuman animals appear to engage in transitive inference,
producing appropriate responses to novel pairings of non-adjacent members of an ordered series
without previous experience of these pairings. Some researchers have taken this capability as
providing direct evidence that these animals reason. Others resist such declarations, favouring instead
explanations in terms of associative conditioning. Associative accounts of transitive inference have
been refined in application to a simple 5-element learning task that is the main paradigm for
laboratory investigations of the phenomenon, but it remains unclear how well those accounts
generalise to more information-rich environments such as social hierarchies which may contain scores
of individuals, and where rapid learning is important. The case of transitive inference is an example of
a more general dispute between proponents of associative accounts and advocates of more cognitive
accounts of animal behaviour. Examination of the specific details of transitive inference suggests
some lessons for the wider debate.
|
|
|
|
Lehmann, K., Kallweit, E., & Ellendorff, F. (2006). Social hierarchy in exercised and untrained group-housed horses--A brief report. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 96(3-4), 343–347.
Abstract: Changes in social hierarchy were evaluated in a herd of 3-year-old Hanoverian geldings. One group (n = 5) was exposed to a training programme, the other (n = 5) remained untrained. After 6 months, the groups were reversed. Hierarchical positions were evaluated by field observations and/or paired-feeding tests at the beginning, the middle, the end of the first and at the end of the second training period. Both methods yielded identical results. Almost all horses changed position in only one direction: either up or down. Neither increase in aggression nor mutual injuries were recorded during the whole experiment. No statistically verified differences in dominance ranking occurred between trained and untrained groups, but apparent differences were consistent. Thus, if horses are kept in the same group for a longer period of time, exercise induced changes in hierarchy are probably of minor importance and are unlikely to increase the incidence of injuries. This may have implications for the promotion of group-housing for sport horses.
|
|
|
|
Hoshaw, B. A., Evans, J. C., Mueller, B., Valentino, R. J., & Lucki, I. (2006). Social competition in rats: Cell proliferation and behavior. Behav. Brain. Res., 175(2), 343–351.
Abstract: Behavioral and physiological changes were studied following prolonged exposure to social competition in pairs of non-food-deprived rats competing daily for a limited supply of graham cracker crumbs. Stable dominant-subordinate relationships developed in most pairs, as measured by feeding time, which were maintained over a 5-6-week study period. In other behavioral tests, subordinates demonstrated a decreased latency to immobility in the forced swim test compared with dominants, but no difference in locomotor activity. Subordinates had increased bladder size, decreased adrenal gland size, and a 35% reduction of hippocampus cell proliferation compared with the dominant member. Therefore, prolonged social competition, based on restricted access to palatable substances, produced hierarchies among individuals that were associated with differences in behavior, physiology and hippocampal cell proliferation.
|
|
|
|
Shi, J., & Dunbar, R. (2006). Feeding competition within a feral goat population on the Isle of Rum, NW Scotland. J. Ethol., 24(2), 117–124.
Abstract: This study investigated feeding competition within and between different age-sex classes of feral goats (Capra hircus) on the Isle of Rum (northwest Scotland) from August to November 2000 (inclusive). Although contests in a feeding context were common, most were relatively passive: little overt agonistic behaviour was observed between opponents and the distance between feeding animals involved did not change significantly after an interaction. Month (but not sex or habitat type) had a significant effect on feeding interaction rates, and the proportion of interactions involving more intense forms of conflict was highest in November when forage availability was beginning to decline. The results show that the initiator won most feeding encounters, with adult males being dominant over females. The ability to win conflicts increased with age for both males and females. However, it decreased sharply for adult males older than 5 years, which may, in part, explain the reduced overwinter survival of these individuals.
|
|
|
|
Knopff, K., & Pavelka, M. (2006). Feeding Competition and Group Size in Alouatta pigra. Int. J. Primatol., 27(4), 1059–1078.
Abstract: Researchers consider group size in primates to be determined by complex relationships among numerous ecological forces. Antipredator benefits and better resource defense are the primary pressures for large groups. Conversely, intragroup limited food availability, can result in greater intragroup feeding competition and individual energy expenditure in larger groups, creating energetic advantages for individuals in small groups and placing an upper limit group size. However, the extent to which food availability constrains group size remains unclear for many species, including black howlers (Alouatta pigra), which ubiquitously live in small social groups (≤10 individuals). We studied the relationship between group size and 2 key indices of feeding competition-day journey length and activity budgets in 3 groups of wild Alouatta pigra at a hurricane-damaged site in Belize, Central America. We controlled for differences in food availability between home ranges (food tree density) and compared both indicators of feeding competition directly with temporal variation in food availability for each group. Our results show no consistent association between resource availability, group size, and either index of competition, indicating that feeding competition does not limit group size at the site i.e., that larger groups can form without increased costs of feeding competition. The results support the search for other explanations, possibly social ones, for small group size in the primates, and we conclude with suggestions and evidence for such alternative explanations.
|
|
|
|
Pinkus, S., Smith, J., & Jolly, A. (2006). Feeding Competition Between Introduced Eulemur fulvus and Native Lemur catta During the Birth Season at Berenty Reserve, Southern Madagascar. In Ringtailed Lemur Biology (pp. 119–140).
|
|
