Abstract: Allostasis, the concept of maintaining stability through change, has been proposed as a term and a model to replace the ambiguous term of stress, the concept of adequately or inadequately coping with threatening or unpredictable environmental stimuli. However, both the term allostasis and its underlying model have generated criticism. Here we propose the Reactive Scope Model, an alternate graphical model that builds on the strengths of allostasis and traditional concepts of stress yet addresses many of the criticisms. The basic model proposes divergent effects in four ranges for the concentrations or levels of various physiological mediators involved in responding to stress. (1) Predictive Homeostasis is the range encompassing circadian and seasonal variation — the concentrations/levels needed to respond to predictable environmental changes. (2) Reactive Homeostasis is the range of the mediator needed to respond to unpredictable or threatening environmental changes. Together, Predictive and Reactive Homeostasis comprise the normal reactive scope of the mediator for that individual. Concentrations/levels above the Reactive Homeostasis range is (3) Homeostatic Overload, and concentrations/levels below the Predictive Homeostasis range is (4) Homeostatic Failure. These two ranges represent concentrations/levels with pathological effects and are not compatible with long-term (Homeostatic Overload) or short-term (Homeostatic Failure) health. Wear and tear is the concept that there is a cost to maintaining physiological systems in the Reactive Homeostasis range, so that over time these systems gradually lose their ability to counteract threatening and unpredictable stimuli. Wear and tear can be modeled by a decrease in the threshold between Reactive Homeostasis and Homeostatic Overload, i.e. a decrease in reactive scope. This basic model can then be modified by altering the threshold between Reactive Homeostasis and Homeostatic Overload to help understand how an individual's response to environmental stressors can differ depending upon factors such as prior stressors, dominance status, and early life experience. We illustrate the benefits of the Reactive Scope Model and contrast it with the traditional model and with allostasis in the context of chronic malnutrition, changes in social status, and changes in stress responses due to early life experiences. The Reactive Scope Model, as an extension of allostasis, should be useful to both biomedical researchers studying laboratory animals and humans, as well as ecologists studying stress in free-living animals.

Abstract: Abstract  The study raises the question of whether guide dogs and pet dogs are expected to differ in response to cues of referential communication given by their owners; especially since guide dogs grow up among sighted humans, and while living with their blind owners, they still have interactions with several sighted people. Guide dogs and pet dogs were required to respond to point, point and gaze, gaze and control cues of referential communication given by their owners. Results indicate that the two groups of dogs do not differ from each other, revealing that the visual status of the owner is not a factor in the use of cues of referential communication. Both groups of dogs have higher frequencies of performance and faster latencies for the point and the point and gaze cues as compared to gaze cue only. However, responses to control cues are below chance performance for the guide dogs, whereas the pet dogs perform at chance. The below chance performance of the guide dogs may be explained by a tendency among them to go and stand by the owner. The study indicates that both groups of dogs respond similarly in normal daily dyadic interaction with their owners and the lower comprehension of the human gaze may be a less salient cue among dogs in comparison to the pointing gesture.

Abstract: The social brain hypothesis was proposed as an explanation for the fact that primates have unusually large brains for body size compared to all other vertebrates: Primates evolved large brains to manage their unusually complex social systems. Although this proposal has been generalized to all vertebrate taxa as an explanation for brain evolution, recent analyses suggest that the social brain hypothesis takes a very different form in other mammals and birds than it does in anthropoid primates. In primates, there is a quantitative relationship between brain size and social group size (group size is a monotonic function of brain size), presumably because the cognitive demands of sociality place a constraint on the number of individuals that can be maintained in a coherent group. In other mammals and birds, the relationship is a qualitative one: Large brains are associated with categorical differences in mating system, with species that have pairbonded mating systems having the largest brains. It seems that anthropoid primates may have generalized the bonding processes that characterize monogamous pairbonds to other non-reproductive relationships (?friendships?), thereby giving rise to the quantitative relationship between group size and brain size that we find in this taxon. This raises issues about why bonded relationships are cognitively so demanding (and, indeed, raises questions about what a bonded relationship actually is), and when and why primates undertook this change in social style.

Abstract: Interventions occur when animals interfere in competitive interactions between two or more individuals. Interveners can alter the nature of the ongoing interaction by targeting one party (attacking, biting) and supporting the other. Three theories have been proposed to account for intervention behaviour: kin selection, reciprocity and direct benefits. The kin selection hypothesis predicts that interveners will selectively support relatives over nonrelatives; the reciprocity hypothesis predicts that when intervener [`]A' supports individual [`]B', later [`]B' will intervene and support [`]A'; and the direct benefits hypothesis predicts that target/support patterns should serve the immediate interests of the intervener. We tested the reciprocity and direct benefits hypotheses by exploring third-party interventions in play fighting among littermates of domestic dogs. Interveners in dyadic play did not preferentially target or support preferred playmates of the intervener. Interveners targeted the dog in the losing role at the time of the intervention, and they did not show reciprocity in support. Taken together, these last two findings suggest that littermates benefit directly and use interventions opportunistically to practise offence behaviours directed at littermates already behaving subordinately. Opportunities to practise targeting in a playful setting may help structure dominance relationships among littermates. Additionally, the tendency for puppies to do what the other is doing (target the dog in the losing role) may pave the way for synchronizing cooperative behaviours during group hunting and territorial defence. The types of behaviours used to intervene changed over development, but the outcome following an intervention remained stable.