|
Bergmann, H. H., Klaus, S., Muller, F., & Wiesner, J. (1975). [Individuality and type specificity in the songs of a population of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia bonasia L., Tetraoninae, Phasianidae)]. Behaviour, 55(1-2), 94–114.
|
|
Schloeth R,. (1956). Zur Psychologie der Begegnung zwischen Tieren. Behaviour, 10, 1–80.
|
|
Mrosovsky, N., & Shettleworth, S. J. (1968). Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in the water finding behaviour of sea turtles. Behaviour, 32(4), 211–257.
|
|
Burger, J., & Gochfeld. (1994). Vigilance in African mammals: differences among mothers, other females, and males. Behaviour, 131(3-4), 153–169.
|
Digweed, S. M., Fedigan, L. M., & Rendall, D. (2005). Variable specificity in the anti-predator vocalizations and behaviour of the white-faced capuchin, Cebus capucinus. Behaviour, 142(8). Retrieved June 18, 2024, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853905774405344
Abstract: (Accepted: 23 June 2005)
Summary
Much research in animal communication is aimed at understanding the functional design
features of animal vocal signals. Our detailed analyses of the vocalizations and behavioural
responses elicited in white-faced capuchins by predators and other disturbances point to two
call variants that differ modestly in their acoustic structure and that are accompanied by
functionally distinct behavioural responses. The first variant is given exclusively to avian
predators and is almost invariably accompanied by the monkeys immediate descent from
the treetops where it is most vulnerable; therefore, we label this call variant the aerial
predator alarm?. The second variant, that differs only slightly but noticeably from the first,
is given to a wide range of snakes and mammals, including a range of species that represent
no predatory threat to the monkeys. This second call is also associated with more variable
responses from calling monkeys, from delayed retreat from the source of disturbance, to
active approach, inspection, and sometimes mobbing of the animal involved. We therefore
label this variant more generally as an “alerting call”. Although some other primate species
show a more diverse system of anti-predator calls, and the capuchins themselves may yet
be found to produce a greater variety of calls, a system of two call variants with varying
degrees of predator specificity and behavioural response is not uncommon among primates
and appears functionally appropriate for capuchins. The basic structure of the alerting call
allows conspecific listeners to localize the caller and the source of disturbance readily, thereby
allowing listeners to approach and assist in mobbing in cases where the disturbance warrants
it, or to avoid the area in cases where the disturbance is identified as a predatory threat.
Conversely, the aerial predator alarm is inherently less localizable and therefore conveys the
|
Lamprecht, J. (1992). Variable Leadership in Bar-Headed Geese (Anser Indicus) : an Analysis of Pair and Family Departures. Behaviour, 122(1-2), 105–119.
Abstract: This paper reports quantitative leadership differences in semi-captive bar-headed geese (Anser indicus) at different times of the year, and in different types of groups. Leading is defined here as causing the departure or determining the direction of movement of the whole group. No permanent and exclusive leader of a pair or family group was found, rather relative leading frequencies of male, female and young showed a definite shifting pattern. Females led more often than their mates prior to breeding, and on nest pauses during the incubation period, but less often in summer, autumn and early winter. In families there was no difference between the frequencies of male and female leading. Family females led relatively more often than those of pairs without offspring. This difference was related to the presence, not the number, of young. Goslings led the family about as often as the parents during the rearing period in early summer, less often in autumn, winter and next spring. Such differences and changes are to be expected where competence in particular tasks and dependence on partners vary between group members, and where different situations require different abilities. For the geese, the results can be related to the different options of group members and to the different benefits they derive from leaving (or 'staying put') or following (or waiting for the others) in different situations.
|
Chase, I. D., Tovey, C., & Murch, P. (2003). Two's Company, Three's a Crowd: Differences in Dominance Relationships in Isolated Versus Socially Embedded Pairs of Fish. Behaviour, 140(10), 1193–1217.
Abstract: We performed experiments with cichlid fish to test whether several basic aspects of dominance were the same in isolated pairs as in pairs within a social group of three or four. We found that the social context, whether a pair was isolated or within a group, strongly affected the basic properties of dominance relationships. In particular, the stability of relationships over time, the replication of relationships in successive meetings, and the extent of the loser effect were all significantly less in socially embedded pairs than in isolated pairs. We found no significant winner effect in either isolated or socially embedded pairs. These findings call into question many current approaches to dominance that do not consider social context as an important factor in dominance behavior. These findings also cast serious doubt on the validity of empirical and theoretical approaches based on dyadic interactions. Among these approaches are game theoretic models for the evolution of aggressive behavior, experimental designs evaluating how asymmetries in attributes influence the outcome of dominance
|
|
Duncan P,. (1979). Time-budgets of Camrgue horses; II. Time- budgets of adult horses and weaned sub-adults. Behaviour, 72, 26–49.
|
|
Boy, V., & Duncan, P. (1979). Time-budgets of Camargue horses. I. Developmental changes in the time-budgets of foals. Behaviour, 71, 187–201.
|
|
Boy V, D. P. (1979). Time-budgets of Camargue horses, I. Development changes in the time-budgets of foals. Behaviour, 71, 187–202.
|
