|
|
Kelly, C. D. (2006). Fighting for harems: assessment strategies during male-male contests in the sexually dimorphic Wellington tree weta. Anim. Behav., 72(3), 727–736.
Abstract: Females often aggregate at particular sites for feeding or shelter, thus giving adult males the opportunity to defend harems and increase male reproductive success. Rival males compete for control of harems via ritualized displays or direct combat using weaponry. Contests for harems or the resources required by females can be settled based on asymmetries in fighting ability or resource ownership. Males that accurately assess a rival's fighting ability prior to engaging in potentially costly combat should be favoured by selection. Game theory and optimality models provide three models to explain how individuals decide to persist in or flee from a fight. These models are the energetic war of attrition, the sequential assessment model and the cumulative assessment model. Using staged contests in the laboratory, I tested predictions of these models using the Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens, a sexually dimorphic insect native to New Zealand. Male H. crassidens use their enlarged mandibles as weapons in fights for access to adult females that reside in cavities in trees. My results supported a prediction common to each assessment model: contest duration was negatively correlated with the asymmetry in opponent's weapon size. The sequential assessment model of contest settlement was partially supported but the strongest support was for the cumulative assessment model. Predictions of the latter model were supported because: (1) fights are apparently settled based on own-size assessment; (2) fights occur in a single phase and escalate; and (3) contests involve physical combat and injury. I suggest that, in nocturnal species, cumulative assessment will generally be most applicable.
|
|
|
|
McGregor, A., Saggerson, A., Pearce, J., & Heyes, C. (2006). Blind imitation in pigeons, Columba livia. Anim. Behav., 72(2), 287–296.
Abstract: Pigeons that had been trained with a food reward both to peck at and to step on a horizontal plate were allowed to observe a conspecific demonstrator pecking at or stepping on the plate before a test in which the observers were not rewarded for either pecking or stepping. In experiment 1, the demonstrators were not rewarded while being observed. In spite of this, the observers provided evidence of imitation: those that had observed pecking made a greater proportion of pecking responses on test than observers of stepping. In experiment 2, each observer was exposed to a pecking or a stepping conspecific on two occasions. On one occasion, the demonstrator received a food reward for each demonstrated response (continuous reinforcement condition), and on the other the demonstrator's responses were rewarded only rarely (variable interval condition). The observers provided equally strong evidence of imitation in each of these conditions; on test, they made proportionally more of the observed response both when the demonstrators had been richly rewarded and when they had been rarely rewarded. These results show that pigeons engage in `blind' imitation, that is, their imitative behaviour is not always guided by observational learning about response outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Appleby, M. C. (1983). The probability of linearity in hierarchies. Anim. Behav., 31(2), 600–608.
Abstract: The common practice of ranking a group of animals in the closest possible order to a linear dominance hierarchy assumes that dominance among those animals is generally transitive. In fact, analysis of groups in which dominance relationships are random shows that this method has a surprisingly high probability of producing an apparently linear or near-linear hierarchy by chance. As such, the existence of transitive dominance should be tested before it is used in ranking. A suitable statistical test is described here. Chance may also contribute to the linear appearance of hierarchies based on other factors.
|
|
|
|
Boesch, C. (1991). Teaching among wild chimpanzees. Anim. Behav., 41(3), 530–532.
|
|
|
|
Janson, C. H. (1990). Ecological consequences of individual spatial choice in foraging groups of brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Anim. Behav., 40(5), 922–934.
Abstract: Individuals in a foraging group of brown capuchin monkeys choose different spatial positions relative to the rest of the group. An individual's choice of spatial positiion affects its foraging success and perceived predation risk (as measured by vigilance behaviour). The two most dominant group members preferred to forage where their expected forwaging success was greatest. Juveniles chose to forage where their perceived predation risk was least, not where they would achieve the highest foraging success. The positions used by non-dominant adults neither maximized foraging success nor minimized predation risk. It is likely that subordinate adults accept spatial positions with suboptimal ecological consequences to avoid the costs of frequent confrontations with the dominant members of the group over foraging sites in poreferred positions.
|
|
|
|
Janson, C. H. (1990). Social correlates of individual spatial choice in foraging groups of brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Anim. Behav., 40(5), 910–921.
Abstract: Individuals in a foraging group of wild bronwn capuchin monkeys choose different spatial positions relative to the rest of the group. Markov analysis of sequencess of individual spatial positions demonstrated significant differnces between individuals, which coul be categorized a posteriori into four homogenous subgroups. An individual's spatial position was related primarily to the amount of aggression it received from the group's dominant male, but also varied with its sex. Spatial choice varied with changes in an individual's social status, but did not vary consistently with seasonal differences in food availability. These results support the hypothesis that individuals compete for preferred spatial positions within a foraging group.
|
|
|
|
Hemelrijk, C. K. (1990). Models of, and tests for, reciprocity, unidirectionality and other social interaction patterns at a group level. Anim. Behav., 39(6), 1013–1029.
Abstract: Research on reciprocity is impaired by confusing definitions and often wrongly used statistical tests. Here, two models of the mechanism on which reciprocity may be based are discussed and an initial step towards a new fremework for its analysis is presented. A distinction is made between reciprocity and interchange. In the case of reciprocity, for one kind of act the same kind is received in return. In interchange, however, two different kinds of acts are bartered. Three types of reciprocity/interchange in social actions among all pairs of group-members are distinguished ([`]qualitative', [`]relative' and [`]absolute') on the basis of the precision of the reciprocity/interchange. Permutation procedures for association between matrices (such as the Mantel Z and two other newly derived tests) are used as a statistical test for detecting reciprocity/interchange. A rough comparison of the power of the two new tests is included. The tests can be applied to all kinds of group-living animals and to all sorts of social behaviour. The distinction between the three types of reciprocity/interchange and the matching statistical methods are also useful for defining and detecting other patterns in social interactions, like unidirectionality and associations between different kinds of social behaviour. The influence on social interactions of variables like dominance rank, age and sex can be analysed in the three forms by testing correlations between invented matrices which represent the influence of these variables (the so-called hypothesis matrices) and social interaction matrices. These methods are extended for two categories of individuals, thus allowing the investigation of, for example, reciprocity between males and females. The methods are illustrated with examples of coalition formation and grooming behaviour among captive chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes.
|
|
|
|
Barnard, C. J., & Sibly, R. M. (1981). Producers and scroungers: A general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Anim. Behav., 29(2), 543–550.
Abstract: Many forms of interaction within and between species appear to be based on `scrounger' individuals or species exploiting a limited resource provided `producers'. A mathematical model is presented which shows whether or not scroungers are maintained in a group, depending on their frequency and the group size. Some of the predictions of the model were tested in captive flocks of house sparrows Passer domesticus L. Here the scroungers obtained most of their food (mealworms) by interaction and the producers found most of their food by actively foraging: the pay-off to each type was measured as mealworm capture rate. Neither type changed strategy opportunistically in response to instantaneous flock composition but, not surprisingly, scroungers fared better when one of more producers were present. However, scrougers did much worse than expected when greatly outnumbered by producers, perhaps because producers then found the available food very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Abeyesinghe, S. M., Nicol, C. J., Hartnell, S. J., & Wathes, C. M. (2005). Can domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus, show self-control? Anim. Behav., 70(1), 1–11.
Abstract: An important aspect of cognition is whether animals live exclusively in the present or can anticipate the future. Defined as self-control, the ability to choose a large, remote reinforcer over a small, proximate reinforcer available at the same frequency has been examined in a number of species, often proving difficult to demonstrate. We investigated self-control for food in domestic fowl using a standard two-key operant task and an equivalent two-choice return maze (TCRM) task. When hens chose between a 2-s delay to a 3-s feed access (impulsive) and a 6-s delay to a 7-s feed access (self-control), they appeared unable to discriminate in the TCRM but were impulsive in the operant task. We explored reasons for not choosing self-control in the operant task, first by examining the relation between feed access time and actual feed intake. A second operant experiment examined whether failure to show self-control could be attributed to an inability to combine the delay and access (quantity) reward information associated with choices to reach overall predictions of value. New hens chose between a 2-s delay to a 3-s feed access (impulsive) and either a 22-s delay to a 22-s feed access (standard self-control) or a 6-s delay to a 22-s feed access (jackpot self-control). While hens were impulsive in the standard condition, they showed significant and pronounced self-control in the jackpot condition, eliminating the possibility of an absolute cognitive constraint. Impulsive behaviour can instead be explained by temporal discounting: perceived depreciation of reward value as a function of the uncertainty associated with delay. Implications for welfare are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Caro, T. M., Graham, C. M., Stoner, C. J., & Vargas, J. K. (2004). Adaptive significance of antipredator behaviour in artiodactyls. Anim. Behav., 67(2), 205–228.
Abstract: We used comparative data to test functional hypotheses for 17 antipredator behaviour patterns in artiodactyls. We examined the literature for hypotheses about auditory and visual signals, defensive behaviour and group-related antipredator behaviour in this taxon and derived a series of predictions for each hypothesis. Next, we documented occurrences of these behaviour patterns and morphological, ecological and behavioural variables for 200 species and coded them in binary format. We then pitted presence of an antipredator behaviour against presence of an independent variable for cervids, bovids and all artiodactyls together using nonparametric tests. Finally, we reanalysed the data using Maddison's (1990, Evolution, 44, 539-557) concentrated-changes tests and a consensus molecular and taxonomic phylogeny. We found evidence that snorting is both a warning signal to conspecifics and a pursuit-deterrent signal, lack of evidence that whistling alerts conspecifics and indications that foot stamping is a visual signal to warn group members. Evidence suggested that tail flagging was a signal to both conspecifics and predators, that bounding, leaping and stotting were used both as a signal and to clear obstacles and that prancing functioned similarly to foot stamping. Analyses of tail flicking, zigzagging and tacking were equivocal. We confirmed that inspection occurs in large groups, freezing enhances crypticity, and species seeking refuge in cliffs tend to be small. Entering water and attacks on predators had few correlates. Finally, group living, a putative antipredator adaptation, was associated with large body size and species living in open habitats, confirming Jarman's (1974, Behaviour, 48, 215-267) classic hypothesis. Bunching and group attack apparently deter predators. Despite limitations, comparative and systematic analyses can bolster adaptive hypotheses and raise new functional explanations for antipredator behaviour patterns in general.
|
|
