|
|
Huebener, E. (2006). The Horse's Movement Cycles while Lying Down, Rolling and Jumping Up. Tierärztl. Umschau, 7, 347.
Abstract: The horse's movement cycles while lying down, rolling and jumping up again as well as the necessary use of the horse's head and neck as a balancing rod will be explained with the help of photographic sequences. The reasons for lying down and rolling as well as the utilization of information on the connected motion sequences will be touched upon.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Broom, M. (2002). A unified model of dominance hierarchy formation and maintenance. J. Theor. Biol., 219(1), 63–72.
Abstract: In many different species it is common for animals to spend large portions of their lives in groups. Such groups need to divide available resources amongst the individuals they contain and this is often achieved by means of a dominance hierarchy. Sometimes hierarchies are stable over a long period of time and new individuals slot into pre-determined positions, but there are many situations where this is not so and a hierarchy is formed out of a group of individuals meeting for the first time. There are several different models both of the formation of such dominance hierarchies and of already existing hierarchies. These models often treat the two phases as entirely separate, whereas in reality, if there is a genuine formation phase to the hierarchy, behaviour in this phase will be governed by the rewards available, which in turn depends upon how the hierarchy operates once it has been formed. This paper describes a method of unifying models of these two distinct phases, assuming that the hierarchy formed is stable. In particular a framework is introduced which allows a variety of different models of each of the two parts to be used in conjunction with each other, thus enabling a wide range of situations to be modelled. Some examples are given to show how this works in practice.
|
|
|
|
VanDierendonck, M. C., de Vries, H., & Schilder, M. B. H. (1995). An Analysis of Dominance, Its Behavioural Parameters and Possible Determinants in a Herd of Icelandic orses in Captivity. Netherl. J. Zool., 45(3-4), 362–385.
Abstract: Th e applicability of the concept of dominance was investigated in a captive herd of  Icelandic
horses and  ponies of diff erent breeds. Eight out of  behaviours possibly related
to dominance occurred frequently enough to be investigated in detail. For these eight agonistic
behaviours the coverage, the unidirectionality in the exchange, and the degree of
transitivity (Landau`s linearity index) were calculated. Four off ensive behaviours, together
with avoidance, were suitable for further analysis with regard to dominance. Th e patterns
of asymmetries with which these behaviours were exchanged were suffi ciently similar as to
justify the application of the dominance concept and to construct a (nearly) linear dominance
hierarchy. Th e rank order of the castrated stallions was completely linear, the hierarchy
of the mares was almost completely linear. Th e results suggest that off ensive and defensive
aggressive behaviours should be treated separately and that the concept of dominance
is applicable. However, ritualized formal dominance signals between adult horses appear to
be (almost) absent. Th e rank positions of the individuals were correlated with age and residency
in the herd but not with height. Middle ranking horses tended to be more frequently
in the close vicinity of another horse than high ranking or low ranking horses. Over and
above this correlation at the individual level, it was found that pairs of horses close in rank
to each other were more often also spatially close to each other. Being in oestrus did not infl
uence the dominance relationships between mares. For castrated stallions the rank positions
were correlated with the age at which they were castrated. Th is suggests that in male
horses experience prior to neutering infl uences the behaviour afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (2001). Bystander effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Ecol., 12(3), 348–352.
Abstract: Prior modeling work has found that pure winner and loser effects (i.e., changing the estimation of your own fighting ability as a function of direct prior experience) can have important consequences for hierarchy formation. Here these models are extended to incorporate “bystander effects.” When bystander effects are in operation, observers (i.e., bystanders) of aggressive interactions change their assessment of the protagonists' fighting abilities (depending on who wins and who loses). Computer simulations demonstrate that when bystander winner effects alone are at play, groups have a clear omega (bottom-ranking individual), while the relative position of other group members remains difficult to determine. When only bystander loser effects are in operation, wins and losses are randomly distributed throughout a group (i.e., no discernible hierarchy). When pure and bystander winner effects are jointly in place, a linear hierarchy, in which all positions (i.e., {alpha} to {delta} when N = 4) are clearly defined, emerges. Joint pure and bystander loser effects produce the same result. In principle one could test the predictions from the models developed here in a straightforward comparative study. Hopefully, the results of this model will spur on such studies in the future.
|
|
|
|
Chase, I. D., Tovey, C., Spangler-Martin, D., & Manfredonia, M. (2002). Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 99(8), 5744–5749.
Abstract: Linear hierarchies, the classical pecking-order structures, are formed readily in both nature and the laboratory in a great range of species including humans. However, the probability of getting linear structures by chance alone is quite low. In this paper we investigate the two hypotheses that are proposed most often to explain linear hierarchies: they are predetermined by differences in the attributes of animals, or they are produced by the dynamics of social interaction, i.e., they are self-organizing. We evaluate these hypotheses using cichlid fish as model animals, and although differences in attributes play a significant part, we find that social interaction is necessary for high proportions of groups with linear hierarchies. Our results suggest that dominance hierarchy formation is a much richer and more complex phenomenon than previously thought, and we explore the implications of these results for evolutionary biology, the social sciences, and the use of animal models in understanding human social organization.
|
|
|
|
Hemelrijk, C. K., & Wantia, J. (2005). Individual variation by self-organisation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 29(1), 125–136.
Abstract: In this paper, we show that differences in dominance and spatial centrality of individuals in a group may arise through self-organisation. Our instrument is a model, called DomWorld, that represents two traits that are often found in animals, namely grouping and competing. In this model individual differences grow under the following conditions: (1) when the intensity of aggression increases and grouping becomes denser, (2) when the degree of sexual dimorphism in fighting power increases. In this case the differences among females compared to males grow too, (3) when, upon encountering another individual, the tendency to attack is 'obligate' and not conditional, namely 'sensitive to risks'. Results resemble phenomena described for societies of primates, mice, birds and pigs.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Mesterton-Gibbons, M., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1995). Toward a theory of dominance hierarchies: effects of assessment, group size, and variation in fighting ability. Behav. Ecol., 6(4), 416–423.
Abstract: We introduce assessment to the analysis of dominance hierarchies by exploring the effect of an evolutionarily stable fighting rule when there is variation in resource holding potential (RHP) and RHP is not a perfectly reliable predictor of the outcome of a fight. With assessment, the probability of a linear hierarchy decreases with group size but can remain appreciable for groups of up to seven or eight individuals, whereas it decreases virtually to zero if there is no assessment. The probability of a hierarchy that correlates perfectly with RHP is low unless group size is small.
|
|
|
|
Wittemyer, G., & Getz, W. M. (2007). Hierarchical dominance structure and social organization in African elephants, Loxodonta africana. Anim. Behav., 73(4), 671–681.
Abstract: According to the socioecological framework, transitivity (or linearity) in dominance relationships is related to competition over critical resources. When a population is structured into groups, the intensity of between- versus within-group competition influences the form and function of its social organization. Few studies have compared the type and relative intensity of competition at these two levels. African elephants have well-structured social relations, providing an exemplary system for such a study. We report on dominance hierarchies among free-ranging elephants and evaluate the factors that drive their socioecological structure to lie in a region of the three-dimensional nepotism/despotism/tolerance space rarely observed among social species; namely, where non-nepotistic, transitive dominance hierarchies within groups emerge despite kin-based philopatry and infrequent agonistic interactions over widely distributed resources. We found significant transitivity in dominance hierarchies between groups. Dominance relations among the matriarchs of different social groups were primarily age based, rather than driven by physical or group size, and group matriarch rank influenced the dominance relationships among nonmatriarchal females in the population. Our results suggest that between-group dominance relationships induce tolerance among group members, which in combination with high group relatedness, reduces the benefits of nepotism. We postulate that cognitive abilities and high risk of injury in contests enhance winner and loser effects, facilitating the formation of transitive dominance relationships, despite widely distributed resources over which infrequent competition occurs. The interplay of cognitive abilities, winner and loser effects, resource distribution, and within- and between-group dominance relationships may produce behaviour in other strongly social mammals that differs from that predicted by a superficial application of current socioecological models.
|
|
