|
|
Sterck, E., Watts, D., & van Schaik, C. (1997). The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 41(5), 291–309.
Abstract: Considerable interspeci®c variation in female social relationships occurs in gregarious primates, particularly with regard to agonism and cooperation between females and to the quality of female relationships with males. This variation exists alongside variation in female philopatry and dispersal. Socioecological theories have tried to explain variation in female-female social relationships from an evolutionary perspective focused on ecological factors, notably predation and food distribution. According to the current ``ecological model'', predation risk forces females of most diurnal primate species to live in groups; the strength of the contest component of competition for resources within and between groups then largely determines social relationships between females. Social elationships among gregarious females are here characterized as DispersalEgalitarian, Resident-Nepotistic, Resident-Nepotistic-Tolerant, or Resident-Egalitarian. This ecological model has successfully explained i€erences in the occurrence of formal submission signals, decided dominance relation ships, coalitions and female philopatry. Group size and female rank generally a€ect female reproduction success as the model predicts, and studies of closely related species in di€erent ecological circumstances underscore the importance of the model. Some cases, however, can only be explained when we extend the model to incorporate the e€ects of infanticide risk and habitat saturation. We review evidence in support of the ecological model and test the power of alternative models that invoke between-group competition, forced female philopatry, demographic female recruitment, male interventions into female aggression, and male harassment.
Not one of these models can replace the ecological model, which already encompasses the between-group competition. Currently the best model, which explains
several phenomena that the ecological model does not, is a ``socioecological model'' based on the combined importance of ecological factors, habitat saturation and infanticide avoidance. We note some points of similarity and divergence with other mammalian taxa; these remain to be explored in detail.
|
|
|
|
Owren, M. J., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1997). The acoustic features of vowel-like grunt calls in chacma baboons (Papio cyncephalus ursinus): implications for production processes and functions. J Acoust Soc Am, 101(5 Pt 1), 2951–2963.
Abstract: The acoustic features of 216 baboon grunts were investigated through analysis of field-recorded calls produced by identified females in known contexts. Analyses addressed two distinct questions: whether the acoustic features of these tonal sounds could be characterized using a source-filter approach and whether the acoustic features of grunts varied by individual caller and social context. Converging evidence indicated that grunts were produced through a combination of periodic laryngeal vibration and a stable vocal tract filter. Their acoustic properties closely resembled those of prototypical human vowel sounds. In general, variation in the acoustic features of the grunts was more strongly related to caller identity than to the social contexts of calling. However, two acoustic parameters, second formant frequency and overall spectral tilt, did vary consistently depending on whether the caller was interacting with an infant or participating in a group move. Nonetheless, in accordance with the general view that identity cueing is a compelling function in animal communication, it can be concluded that much of the observed variability in grunt acoustics is likely to be related to this aspect of signaling. Further, cues related to vocal tract filtering appear particularly likely to play an important role in identifying individual calling animals.
|
|
|
|
Williams, N. (1997). Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition (Vol. 275).
|
|
|
|
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A Neural Substrate of Prediction and Reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593–1599.
Abstract: The capacity to predict future events permits a creature to detect, model, and manipulate the causal structure of its interactions with its environment. Behavioral experiments suggest that learning is driven by changes in the expectations about future salient events such as rewards and punishments. Physiological work has recently complemented these studies by identifying dopaminergic neurons in the primate whose fluctuating output apparently signals changes or errors in the predictions of future salient and rewarding events. Taken together, these findings can be understood through quantitative theories of adaptive optimizing control.
|
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (1997). Schizophrenia clues from monkeys (Vol. 277).
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Ecol., 8(6), 583–587.
Abstract: In the literature on dominance hierarchies, “winner” and “loser” effects usually are denned as an increased probability of winning at time T, bated on victories at time T-l, T-2, etc, and an increased probability of losing at time T, based on losing at T-1, T-2, etc., respectively. Despite some early theoretical work on winner and loser effects, these factors and how they affect the structure of dominance hierarchies have not been examined in detail. I developed a computer simulation to examine winner and loser effects when such effects are independent of one another (as well as when they interact) and when combatants assess each other's resource-holding power. When winner effects alone were important, a hierarchy in which all individuals held an unambiguous rank was found. When only loser effects were important, a dear alpha individual always emerged, but the rank of others in the group was often unclear because of the scarcity of aggressive interactions. Increasing winner effects for a given value of the loser effect increase the number of individuals with unambiguous positions in a hierarchy and the converse is true for increasing the value of the loser effect for a given winner effect Although winner and loser effects have been documented in a number of species, no study has documented both winner and loser effects (using some controlled, pairwise testing system) and the detailed nature of behavioral interactions when individuals are in groups. I hope the results of this model will spur such studies in the future.
|
|
|
|
Bateson, M., & Kacelnik, A. (1997). Starlings' preferences for predictable and unpredictable delays to food. Anim. Behav., 53(6), 1129–1142.
Abstract: Risk-sensitive foraging theory is based on the premise that unpredictable runs of good or bad luck can cause a variable food source to differ in fitness value from a fixed food source yielding the same average rate of gain but no unpredictability. Thus, risk-sensitive predictions are dependent on the food intake from variable sources being not only variable but also unpredictable or `risky' in outcome. This study tested whether unpredictability is a component of the value that foraging starlings,Sturnus vulgarisattribute to food sources that are variable in the delay to obtain food. Two groups of birds chose between a fixed and a variable delay option; the variable option was unpredictable in the risky group and predictable in the risk-free group in the overall rate of intake it yielded. In both groups the fixed option was adjusted by titration to quantify the magnitude of preference for predictable and unpredictable variance. On negative energy budgets both groups were significantly risk-prone, with the risky group being significantly more risk-prone than the risk-free group. Switching the birds to positive budgets by doubling the size of each food reward had no significant effect on preference, and similar trends to those found with negative budgets were observed. These results are not readily explained by risk-sensitive foraging theory, but may be explained by the algorithm used by the birds to attribute value to average expected rewards.
|
|
