|
Houpt, K. A., & Kusonose, R. (2000). Genetic of behaviour. In A. T. Bowling, & A. Ruvinsky (Eds.), Genetics of the Horse (pp. 281–306). Wallingford Oxfordshire: Cab Intl.
|
|
Houpt, K., & Kusunose, R. (2000). Genetics of behaviour. In A. Ruvinsky A. T. Bowling (Ed.), The Genetics of the Horse (pp. 281–306). New York: CABI Publishing.
|
|
Garber, P., & Boinski, S. (2000). Group Movement in Social Primates and Other Animals: Patterns, Processes, and Cognitive Implications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
|
Holekamp, K. E., Boydston, E.E, & Smale, L. (2000). Group Travel in Social Carnivores (S. Boinski, & P. A. Garber, Eds.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
|
|
Mohr, E., Witte, E., & Voss, B. (2000). Heart rate variability as stress indicator. Archiv fur Tierzucht, 43(3 Spec. Iss.), 171–176.
|
|
Ronald J. Schusterman, Colleen J. Reichmuth, & David Kastak. (2000). How Animals Classify Friends and Foes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 9, 1–6.
|
Sapolsky, R. M., Romero, L. M., & Munck, A. U. (2000). How Do Glucocorticoids Influence Stress Responses? Integrating Permissive, Suppressive, Stimulatory, and Preparative Actions. Endocr Rev, 21(1), 55–89.
Abstract: The secretion of glucocorticoids (GCs) is a classic endocrine response to stress. Despite that, it remains controversial as to what purpose GCs serve at such times. One view, stretching back to the time of Hans Selye, posits that GCs help mediate the ongoing or pending stress response, either via basal levels of GCs permitting other facets of the stress response to emerge efficaciously, and/or by stress levels of GCs actively stimulating the stress response. In contrast, a revisionist viewpoint posits that GCs suppress the stress response, preventing it from being pathologically overactivated. In this review, we consider recent findings regarding GC action and, based on them, generate criteria for determining whether a particular GC action permits, stimulates, or suppresses an ongoing stress-response or, as an additional category, is preparative for a subsequent stressor. We apply these GC actions to the realms of cardiovascular function, fluid volume and hemorrhage, immunity and inflammation, metabolism, neurobiology, and reproductive physiology. We find that GC actions fall into markedly different categories, depending on the physiological endpoint in question, with evidence for mediating effects in some cases, and suppressive or preparative in others. We then attempt to assimilate these heterogeneous GC actions into a physiological whole.
|
|
Byrne, R. W. (2000). How monkeys find their way: leadership, coordination, and cognitive maps of African baboons. In S. Boinski, & P. A. Garber (Eds.), On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups (pp. 491–518). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
|
|
Dyer, F. C. (2000). Individual cognition and group movement: insights from social insects. In P. Garber, & S. Boinski (Eds.), Group Movement in Social Primates and Other Animals: Patterns, Processes, and Cognitive Implications.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
Beauchamp, G. (2000). Individual Differences In Activity And Exploration Influence Leadership In Pairs Of Foraging Zebra Finches. Behaviour, 137, 301–314.
Abstract: This study investigated the role of dominance and level of activity and exploration on leadership in zebra finches (Taenopygia guttata) searching for food. In pairs of zebra finches fairly matched in size and that experienced the same level of food deprivation, the same bird consistently reached first one foraging patch over several trials. The same pattern of arrival to food occurred when resources were provided in two distant patches available concurrently, a situation that would potentially allow subordinates a greater access to resources. In further testing, the formation of new pairs with the same birds led to several changes in leadership, indicating that leadership is not an absolute feature. The member of a pair that proved to be the most active and exploratory during independent, solitary trials became the leader in nearly all pairs tested. The same pattern held true in newly rearranged pairs where individuals often experienced changes in dominance status. Dominance failed to be associated with leadership in all tests. The results suggest that in a relatively egalitarian species, level of activity and exploration may be a stronger predictor of leadership than dominance.
|
