Podos, J. (1964). Early perspectives on the evolution of behavior: Charles Otis Whitman and Oskar Heinroth. Ethol Ecol Evol, 6(4), 467–480.
|
Sakura O, & Matsuzawa T. (1991). Flexibility of wild chimpanzees nut-cracking behavior using stone hammers and anvils: an experimental analysis. Ethology, 87, 237.
|
Hampton, R. R. (2001). Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Ethology, 107, 1055–1056.
|
Rendall, D. (1999). Review of Machiavellian Intelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations. Ethology, 105(2), 178–182.
|
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1995). Why does culture increase human adaptability? Ethol. a. Sociob., 16(2), 125–143.
Abstract: It is often argued that culture is adaptive because it allows people to acquire useful information without costly learning. In a recent paper Rogers (1989) analyzed a simple mathematical model that showed that this argument is wrong. Here we show that Rogers' result is robust. As long as the only benefit of social learning is that imitators avoid learning costs, social learning does not increase average fitness. However, we also show that social learning can be adaptive if it makes individual learning more accurate or less costly.
|
Koops, M. A., & Abrahams, M. V. (1999). Assessing the Ideal Free Distribution: Do Guppies Use Aggression as Public Information about Patch Quality? Ethology, 105(9), 737–746.
Abstract: Aggression can be costly to foragers, yet some recent research suggests that foragers should use aggression as a cue to patch quality (the attractive aggression hypothesis). If aggression is predictive of patch quality, then the attractive aggression hypothesis predicts that the distribution of foragers should follow the distribution of aggression. If, instead, aggression is repulsive because it is costly, then the distribution of foragers should diverge from the distribution of aggression. We tested the attractive aggression hypothesis using female guppies, Poecilia reticulata, and found that the distribution of foragers followed the distribution of food, but was unaffected by the distribution of aggression. These data do not support the attractive aggression hypothesis, but instead suggest that the distribution of aggression is a consequence of the distribution of foragers, and that aggression is not used as public information about patch quality.
|
Kasuya, E. (1995). A randomization test for linearity of dominance hierarchies. J. Ethol., 13(1), 137–140.
|
Ceacero, F., Landete-Castillejos, T., Garcia, A. J., Estevez, J. A., & Gallego, L. (2007). Kinship Discrimination and Effects on Social Rank and Aggressiveness Levels in Iberian Red Deer Hinds. Ethology, 113(12), 1133–1140.
Abstract: Abstract Kin recognition is a widespread phenomenon that allows individuals to benefit by enhancing their inclusive fitness, and one of its most common forms is reducing aggressiveness towards relatives. We carried out an experiment with Iberian red deer hinds (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) in order to examine kin biases in dominance behaviour and its consequences on social rank. Three enclosed groups (n = 36, 23 and 21, respectively) were monitored during two lactation seasons and social rank hierarchies were assessed by analysing aggressive interactions matrices with Matman 1.1 software. Aggressive interactions between related hinds was significantly smaller than expected (chi2 = 5.02, df = 1, p = 0.025), not only between mother and daughter but also in second and third kinship degrees. Although rates of aggressiveness were similar to data published relating free-ranging C. e. scoticus, aggressive interactions with relatives were significantly smaller (chi2 = 39.0, df = 1, p < 0.001). This reduction of aggressiveness between related hinds was not the result of these hinds having a lower social rank: social rank was only related to age and weight, but not to kinship degree, calf sex or calving date. The decrease of aggressiveness towards first-, second- and third-degree relatives shows a complex kin recognition system in deer. Possible nepotistic roles in lactation include preventing milk thefts by non-kin and disturbing feeding of unrelated hinds.
|
Pannozzo, P. L., Phillips, K. A., Haas, M. E., & Mintz, E. M. (2007). Social Monitoring Reflects Dominance Relationships in a Small Captive Group of Brown Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus apella). Ethology, 113(9), 881–888.
Abstract: Abstract In several studies of social monitoring in primates, subordinate animals directed more visual attention toward dominant animals than vice versa. This behavior is thought to enable subordinate animals to avoid conflict. We sought to clarify whether visual attention behavior functions in this manner in a small captive group of brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. We tested the hypothesis that social monitoring is related to dominance status. Dominance status was determined based on the directionality of aggressive behavior, and visual attention was quantified by using focal animal sampling. Subordinate animals directed significantly more visual attention toward others than dominant animals. Subordinate animals also looked more frequently at the animals that attacked them and others the most. The results indicate that social monitoring behavior in this captive group was driven by conflict-avoidance.
|
Blumstein, D. T., Barrow, L., & Luterra, M. (2008). Olfactory Predator Discrimination in Yellow-Bellied Marmots. Ethology, 114(11), 1135–1143.
Abstract: The mechanism underlying olfactory predator identification may be relatively experience-independent, or it may rely on specific experience with predators. A mechanism by which prey might identify novel predators relies on the inevitable creation of sulfurous metabolites that are then excreted in the urine of carnivorous mammals. We tested whether free-living, yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris) and mid-sized herbivores that fall prey to a variety of carnivorous mammals could discriminate herbivore (elk-Cervus elephas) urine from predator (red fox-Vulpes vulpes, coyote-Canis latrans, mountain lion-Felis concolor, wolf-Canis lupus) urine, a novel herbivore (moose-Alces alces), and a distilled water control. We further asked how specific this assessment was by testing whether marmots responded differently to predators representing different levels of risk and to familiar vs. unfamiliar predators. We found that marmots responded more to urine from coyotes (a familiar predator on adults), mountain lions (a potentially unfamiliar predator that could kill adults) and wolves (a locally extinct predator that could kill adults) than to elk urine (a non-predator). Red fox (a predator that poses a risk only to recently emerged marmot pups) urine elicited a less substantial (but not significantly so) response than coyote urine. Marmots can identify predators, even novel ones, using olfactory cues, suggesting that experience with a specific predator is not required to identify potential threats.
|