|
Neumann, C., Duboscq, J., Dubuc, C., Ginting, A., Irwan, A. M., Agil, M., et al. (2011). Assessing dominance hierarchies: validation and advantages of progressive evaluation with Elo-rating. Animal Behaviour, 82(4), 911–921.
|
Keil, N. M., Sambraus, H.H. (1998). “Intervenors” in agonistic interactions amongst domesticated goats. Z. Säugetierk., 63(5), 266–272.
Abstract: Social behaviour was observed in individually marked goats in two herds. The goats from one herd (n = 98) were horned, those of the other herd (n = 83) were polled. By recording agonistic interactions within the herds, a dominance index was determined for each animal. In both herds, intervention took place. Intervention is defined as one animal pushing in between two fighters, and thus ending the fight. More cases of intervention took place per individual animal amongst the horned goats than amongst the polled ones. Goats which intervened in fights on several occasions usually had a high dominance index. Members of the herd which were observed intervening only once had an average dominance index in both herds of almost 0.5. In some cases, goats very low in the rank order intervened a fight. Only rarely did the intervenors have a lower dominance index than the two fighters. In 103 cases, the direct dominance relationship between a fighting animal and the intervenor was known. In 95 cases (92.2%), the intervenor was dominant to the herd member in this fight and in just eight cases (7.8%), it was subordinate. It could not be determined what advantage the intervenor gained from its activity. It is possible that, at least in certain cases, a particularly relationship existed between the intervenor and one of the fighters.
|
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.
|
Creel, S. (2001). Social dominance and stress hormones. Trends. Ecol. Evol, 16(9), 491–497.
Abstract: In most cooperatively breeding birds and mammals, reproductive rates are lower for social subordinates than for dominants, and it is common for reproduction in subordinates to be completely suppressed. Early research conducted in captivity showed that losing fights can increase glucocorticoid (GC) secretion, a general response to stress. Because GCs can suppress reproduction, it has been widely argued that chronic stress might underlie reproductive suppression of social subordinates in cooperative breeders. Contradicting this hypothesis, recent studies of cooperative breeders in the wild show that dominant individuals have elevated GCs more often than do subordinates. The findings that elevated GCs can be a consequence of subordination or a cost of dominance complicate the conventional view of social stress, with broad ramifications for the evolution of dominance and reproductive suppression.
|
