| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> |
|
Vahl, W. K., Lok, T., van der Meer, J., Piersma, T., & Weissing, F. J. (2005). Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones. Behav. Ecol., 16(5), 834–844.
Abstract: In studying the success of foraging animals, studies of interference competition have put emphasis on effects of competitor density, whereas studies of resource defense have focused on the effects of the spatial distribution of food within patches. Very few studies have looked at both factors simultaneously, that is, determined whether the effects of competitor density on foraging success depend on the spatial distribution of food. We studied the behavior and the foraging success of ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres) using an experiment in which we varied both the presence of a competitor and the food distribution. Because turnstones may differ strongly in their relative dominance status, we also experimentally varied the foragers' relative dominance status. We found that the presence of a competitor only reduced the foraging success of subordinate birds foraging at the clumped food distribution. At this condition, dominant and subordinate birds differed markedly in their foraging success. Contrary to our expectations, we did not observe more agonistic behavior at the clumped food distribution. This indicates that the amount of agonistic behavior observed may be a bad indicator of interference effects. These findings have specific implications for models of interference competition. Most notably they show that the effects of competitor density on agonistic behavior and foraging success may well depend on the spatial distribution of food and the foragers' relative dominance status. Additionally, our results suggest that social dominance will not be fully understood without considering long-term processes such as the formation and maintenance of social dominance hierarchies.
|
|
Krama, T. [1], & Krams, I. [2]. (2005). Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav. Ecol., 16, 37–40.
Abstract: Mobbing signals advertise the location of a stalking predator to all prey in an area and recruit them into the inspection aggregation. Such behavior usually causes the predator to move to another area. However, mobbing calls could be eavesdropped by other predators. Because the predation cost of mobbing calls is poorly known, we investigated whether the vocalizations of the mobbing pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca, a small hole nesting passerine, increase the risk of nest predation. We used mobbing calls of pied flycatchers to examine if they could lure predators such as the marten, Martes martes. This predator usually hunts by night and may locate its mobbing prey while resting nearby during the day. Within each of 56 experimental plots, from the top of one nest-box we played back mobbing sounds of pied flycatchers, whereas blank tapes were played from the top of another nest-box. The trials with mobbing calls were carried out before sunset. We put pieces of recently abandoned nests of pied flycatchers and a quail, Coturnix coturnix, egg into each of the nest-boxes. Nest-boxes with playbacks of mobbing calls were depredated by martens significantly more than were nest-boxes with blank tapes. The results of the present study indicate that repeated conspicuous mobbing calls may carry a significant cost for birds during the breeding season.
|
|
Naguib, M., Amrhein, V., & Kunc, H. P. (2004). Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav. Ecol., 15(6), 1011–1015.
Abstract: Animal communication often occurs in communication networks in which multiple signalers and receivers are within signaling range of each other. In such networks, individuals can obtain information on the quality and motivation of territorial neighbors by eavesdropping on their signaling interactions. In songbirds, extracting information from interactions involving neighbors is thought to be an important factor in the evolution of strategies of territory defense. In a playback experiment with radio-tagged nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos we here demonstrate that territorial males use their familiar neighbors' performance in a vocal interaction with an unfamiliar intruder as a standard for their own response. Males were attracted by a vocal interaction between their neighbor and a simulated stranger and intruded into the neighbor's territory. The more intensely the neighbor had interacted with playback, the earlier the intrusions were made, indicating that males eavesdropped on the vocal contest involving a neighbor. However, males never intruded when we had simulated by a second playback that the intruder had retreated and sang outside the neighbor's territory. These results suggest that territorial males use their neighbors' singing behavior as an early warning system when territorial integrity is threatened. Simultaneous responses by neighboring males towards unfamiliar rivals are likely to be beneficial to the individuals in maintaining territorial integrity.
|
|
Dingemanse, N. J., & de Goede, P. (2004). The relation between dominance and exploratory behavior is context-dependent in wild great tits. Behav. Ecol., 15(6), 1023–1030.
Abstract: Individual differences in personality affect behavior in novel or challenging situations. Personality traits may be subject to selection because they affect the ability to dominate others. We investigated whether dominance rank at feeding tables in winter correlated with a heritable personality trait (as measured by exploratory behavior in a novel environment) in a natural population of great tits, Parus major. We provided clumped resources at feeding tables and calculated linear dominance hierarchies on the basis of observations between dyads of color-ringed individuals, and we used an experimental procedure to measure individual exploratory behavior of these birds. We show that fast-exploring territorial males had higher dominance ranks than did slow-exploring territorial males in two out of three samples, and that dominance related negatively to the distance between the site of observation and the territory. In contrast, fast-exploring nonterritorial juveniles had lower dominance ranks than did slow-exploring nonterritorial juveniles, implying that the relation between dominance and personality is context-dependent in the wild. We discuss how these patterns in dominance can explain earlier reported effects of avian personality on natal dispersal and fitness.
|
|
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. beheco, 15(6), 1044–1045.
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Earley, R. L. (2003). Group fusion: the impact of winner, loser, and bystander effects on hierarchy formation in large groups. Behav. Ecol., 14(3), 367–373.
Abstract: We present the results of a series of computer simulations that examined the impact of winner, loser, and bystander effects on hierarchy formation in fused groups. These effects and their implications for hierarchy structure and aggressive interactions were first examined in small four-member groups. Subsequent to this, the two small groups were fused into a single larger group. Further interactions took place in this fused group, generating a new hierarchy. Our models demonstrate clearly that winner, loser, and bystander effects strongly influence both the structure and types of interactions that emerge from the fusion of smaller groups. Four conditions produced results in which the same general patterns were uncovered in pre- and postfusion groups: (1) winner effects alone, (2) bystander loser effects alone, (3) winner and bystander winner effects operating simultaneously, and (4) all four effects in play simultaneously. Outside this parameter space, hierarchy structure and the nature of aggressive interactions differed in pre- and postfusion groups. When only loser effects were in play, one of the two clear alphas from the prefused groups dropped in rank in the eight-member fused group. When bystander winner effects were in play, it was difficult to rank any of the eight individuals in the fused group, and players interacted almost exclusively with those that were not in their original four-member group. When loser and bystander loser effects operated simultaneously, two top-ranking individuals emerged in the fused groups, but the relative rank of the other players was difficult to assign.
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (2001). Bystander effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Ecol., 12(3), 348–352.
Abstract: Prior modeling work has found that pure winner and loser effects (i.e., changing the estimation of your own fighting ability as a function of direct prior experience) can have important consequences for hierarchy formation. Here these models are extended to incorporate “bystander effects.” When bystander effects are in operation, observers (i.e., bystanders) of aggressive interactions change their assessment of the protagonists' fighting abilities (depending on who wins and who loses). Computer simulations demonstrate that when bystander winner effects alone are at play, groups have a clear omega (bottom-ranking individual), while the relative position of other group members remains difficult to determine. When only bystander loser effects are in operation, wins and losses are randomly distributed throughout a group (i.e., no discernible hierarchy). When pure and bystander winner effects are jointly in place, a linear hierarchy, in which all positions (i.e., {alpha} to {delta} when N = 4) are clearly defined, emerges. Joint pure and bystander loser effects produce the same result. In principle one could test the predictions from the models developed here in a straightforward comparative study. Hopefully, the results of this model will spur on such studies in the future.
|
|
Anderson, C., & Franks, N. R. (2001). Teams in animal societies. Behav. Ecol., 12(5), 534–540.
Abstract: We review the existence of teams in animal societies. Teams have previously been dismissed in all but a tiny minority of insect societies. “Team” is a term not generally used in studies of vertebrates. We propose a new rigorous definition of a team that may be applied to both vertebrate and invertebrate societies. We reconsider what it means to work as a team or group and suggest that there are many more teams in insect societies than previously thought. A team task requires different subtasks to be performed concurrently for successful completion. There is a division of labor within a team. Contrary to previous reviews of teams in social insects, we do not constrain teams to consist of members of different castes and argue that team members may be interchangeable. Consequently, we suggest that a team is simply the set of individuals that performs a team task. We contrast teams with groups and suggest that a group task requires the simultaneous performance and cooperation of two or more individuals for successful completion. In a group, there is no division of labor--each individual performs the same task. We also contrast vertebrate and invertebrate teams and find that vertebrate teams tend to be associated with hunting and are based on individual recognition. Invertebrate teams occur in societies characterized by a great deal of redundancy, and we predict that teams in insect societies are more likely to be found in large polymorphic (“complex”) societies than in small monomorphic (“simple”) societies.
|
|
Doutrelant, C., McGregor, P. K., & Oliveira, R. F. (2001). The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav. Ecol., 12, 283–286.
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Ecol., 8(6), 583–587.
Abstract: In the literature on dominance hierarchies, “winner” and “loser” effects usually are denned as an increased probability of winning at time T, bated on victories at time T-l, T-2, etc, and an increased probability of losing at time T, based on losing at T-1, T-2, etc., respectively. Despite some early theoretical work on winner and loser effects, these factors and how they affect the structure of dominance hierarchies have not been examined in detail. I developed a computer simulation to examine winner and loser effects when such effects are independent of one another (as well as when they interact) and when combatants assess each other's resource-holding power. When winner effects alone were important, a hierarchy in which all individuals held an unambiguous rank was found. When only loser effects were important, a dear alpha individual always emerged, but the rank of others in the group was often unclear because of the scarcity of aggressive interactions. Increasing winner effects for a given value of the loser effect increase the number of individuals with unambiguous positions in a hierarchy and the converse is true for increasing the value of the loser effect for a given winner effect Although winner and loser effects have been documented in a number of species, no study has documented both winner and loser effects (using some controlled, pairwise testing system) and the detailed nature of behavioral interactions when individuals are in groups. I hope the results of this model will spur such studies in the future.
|