| Records |
| Author |
Godin, J.-G.J.; Herdman, E.J.E.; Dugatkin, L.A. |
| Title |
Social influences on female mate choice in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata: generalized and repeatable trait-copying behaviour |
Type |
Journal Article |
Year  |
2005 |
Publication |
Animal Behaviour. |
Abbreviated Journal |
Anim. Behav. |
| Volume |
69 |
Issue |
4 |
Pages |
999-1005 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
In vertebrates, the mating preferences of individual females can be flexible and the probability of a female mating with a particular male can be significantly increased by her having previously observed another conspecific female affiliate and mate with that same male. In theory, such mate-choice-copying behaviour has potentially important consequences for both the genetic and social (`cultural') transmission of female mating preferences. For copying to result in the `cultural inheritance' of mating preferences, individual females must not only copy the mate choice decisions of other females but they also should tend to repeat this type of behaviour (i.e. make similar mating decisions) subsequently and to generalize their socially induced preference for a particular male to other males that share his distinctive characteristics. Here, we show experimentally that individual female guppies, Poecilia reticulata, not only copy the observed mating preferences of other females for particular males, but that the preference now assumed via copying is subsequently repeated and generalized to other males of a similar colour phenotype. These results provide empirical evidence for social enhancement of female preference for particular phenotypic traits of chosen males rather than for the particular males possessing those traits, and thus have important implications for our understanding of the role of social learning in the evolution of female mating preferences and of male epigamic traits. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
490 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Dugatkin, L.A.; Bekoff, M. |
| Title |
Play and the evolution of fairness: a game theory model |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2003 |
Publication |
Behavioural Processes |
Abbreviated Journal |
Behav. Process. |
| Volume |
60 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
209-214 |
| Keywords |
Play; Fairness; Game theory |
| Abstract |
Bekoff [J. Consci. Stud. 8 (2001) 81] argued that mammalian social play is a useful behavioral phenotype on which to concentrate in order to learn more about the evolution of fairness. Here, we build a game theoretical model designed to formalize some of the ideas laid out by Bekoff, and to examine whether `fair' strategies can in fact be evolutionarily stable. The models we present examine fairness at two different developmental stages during an individual's ontogeny, and hence we create four strategies--fair at time 1/fair at time 2, not fair at time 1/not fair at time 2, fair at time 1/not fair at time 2, not fair at time 1/fair at time 2. Our results suggest that when considering species where fairness can be expressed during two different developmental stages, acting fairly should be more common than never acting fairly. In addition, when no one strategy was evolutionarily stable, we found that all four strategies we model can coexist at evolutionary equilibrium. Even in the absence of an overwhelming database from which to test our model, the general predictions we make have significant implications for the evolution of fairness. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
488 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Dugatkin, L.A.; Perlin, M.; Atlas, R. |
| Title |
The Evolution of Group-beneficial Traits in the Absence of Between-group Selection |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2003 |
Publication |
Journal of Theoretical Biology |
Abbreviated Journal |
J. Theor. Biol. |
| Volume |
220 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
67-74 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
One specific prediction emerging from trait-group models of natural selection is that when individuals possess traits that benefit other group members, natural selection will favor “cheating” (i.e. not possessing the group-beneficial trait) within groups. Cheating is selected within groups because it allows individuals to avoid bearing the relative costs typically associated with group-beneficial traits, but to still reap the benefits associated with the acts of other group members. Selection between groups favors traits that benefit other group members. The relative strength of within- and between-group selection then determines the equilibrium frequency of those who produce group-beneficial traits and those that do not. Here we demonstrate that individual-level selection, that is selection within groups can also produce an intermediate frequency of such group-beneficial traits by frequency-dependent selection. The models we develop are general in nature, but were inspired by the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The theory developed here is distinct from prior work that relies on reciprocity or kinship per'se to achieve cooperation and altruism among group members. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
491 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Dugatkin, L.A.; Earley, R.L. |
| Title |
Group fusion: the impact of winner, loser, and bystander effects on hierarchy formation in large groups |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2003 |
Publication |
Behavioral Ecology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Behav. Ecol. |
| Volume |
14 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
367-373 |
| Keywords |
|
| 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. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
10.1093/beheco/14.3.367 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
519 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Earley, R.L.; Tinsley, M.; Dugatkin, L.A. |
| Title |
To see or not to see: does previewing a future opponent affect the contest behavior of green swordtail males (Xiphophorus helleri)? |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2003 |
Publication |
Naturwissenschaften |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
90 |
Issue |
5 |
Pages |
226-230 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Animals assess the fighting ability of conspecifics either by engaging in aggressive interactions or observing contests between others. However, whether individuals assess physical prowess outside the context of aggressive interactions remains unknown. We examined whether male green swordtails (Xiphophorus helleri) extract information about the fighting ability of solitary individuals via observation and whether acquiring such information elicits behavioral modifications. Contests preceded by mutual visual assessment were significantly shorter than fights where only one or neither of the two individuals was informed in advance. Focal animals initiated aggressive behavior more often against larger opponents only after previewing their adversary, indicating that swordtails can extract information about relative body size from watching solitary conspecifics. When a fighting disadvantage is perceived, observers adopt tactics that increase their probability of winning the contest. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
2180 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Earley, R.L.; Dugatkin, L.A. |
| Title |
Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2002 |
Publication |
Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society |
Abbreviated Journal |
Proc Biol Sci |
| Volume |
269 |
Issue |
1494 |
Pages |
943-952 |
| Keywords |
*Aggression; Animals; *Behavior, Animal; *Cyprinodontiformes; Female; Male |
| Abstract |
Aggressive contests probably occur in networking environments where information about fighting ability is conveyed both to an opponent and to individuals peripheral to the fight itself, the bystanders. Our primary aim was to investigate the relative influences of eavesdropping and prior social experience on the dynamics of aggressive contests in Xiphophorus helleri. A bystander's ability to witness an encounter was manipulated using clear, one-way mirror, and opaque partitions. After watching (or not watching) the initial contest, the bystander encountered either the winner or loser of the bout. Treatment comparisons of bystander-winner or bystander-loser contest dynamics indicated the presence or absence of winner, loser, or eavesdropping effects. Winner and loser effects had negligible influences on bystander contest dynamics. Eavesdropping significantly reduced the bystander's propensity to initiate aggression, escalate, and win against seen winners regardless of whether the watched bout had escalated or not. Though eavesdropping had relatively little effect on bystander-loser contest dynamics, bystanders were less prone to initiate aggression and win against losers that had escalated in the witnessed bout. Thus, bystanders appear to preferentially retain and utilize information gained about potentially dangerous opponents (winners or persistent losers). Our data lend clear support for the importance of eavesdropping in visually based aggressive signalling systems. |
| Address |
Department of Biology, Life Science, Room 139, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA. rlearl01@athena.louisville.edu |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0962-8452 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:12028778 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
498 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Dugatkin, L.A. |
| Title |
Cooperation in animals: An evolutionary overview |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2002 |
Publication |
Biology and Philosophy |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
17 |
Issue |
4 |
Pages |
459-476 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Evolutionary biologists have grappled with the question of the emergenceand maintenance of cooperation since Darwin first listed animal cooperation asapotential problem for his theory of natural selection. Here I review four pathsthat have been delineated in the study of intra-specific cooperation amonganimals. These paths – kinship, reciprocity, byproduct mutualism andgroupselection – serve as a starting point for behavioral ecologistsinterestedstudying the initiation and maintenance of cooperation. After reviewing theempirical and theoretical underpinnings of these paths to cooperation, I touchupon some recent work that has attempted to examine (or reexamine) the role ofphylogeny, punishment and morality in the light of cooperative behavior. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
2179 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Dugatkin, L.A. |
| Title |
Animal cooperation among unrelated individuals |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2002 |
Publication |
Die Naturwissenschaften |
Abbreviated Journal |
Naturwissenschaften |
| Volume |
89 |
Issue |
12 |
Pages |
533-541 |
| Keywords |
Animals; Phylogeny; *Social Behavior; Species Specificity |
| Abstract |
The evolution of cooperation has long been a topic near and dear to the hearts of behavioral and evolutionary ecologists. Cooperative behaviors run the gamut from fairly simple to very complicated and there are a myriad of ways to study cooperation. Here I shall focus on three paths that have been delineated in the study of intraspecific cooperation among unrelated individuals: reciprocity, byproduct mutualism, and group selection. In each case, I attempt to delineate the theory underlying each of these paths and then provide examples from the empirical literature. In addition, I shall briefly touch upon some recent work that has attempted to examine (or re-examine) the role of cognition and phylogeny in the study of cooperative behavior. While empirical and theoretical work has made significant strides in the name of better understanding the evolution and maintenance of cooperative behavior in animals, much work remains for the future. “From the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is on about the same level as the gladiator's show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to fight; whereby the strongest, the swiftest and the cunningest live to fight another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumb down, as no quarter is given em leader the weakest and the stupidest went to the wall, while the toughest and the shrewdest, those who were best fitted to cope with their circumstances, but not the best in any other way, survived. Life was a continuous free fight, and em leader a war of each against all was the normal state of existence.” (Huxley 1888) |
| Address |
Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA. lee.dugatkin@louisville.edu |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0028-1042 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:12536274 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
2797 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Dugatkin, L.A. |
| Title |
Bystander effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2001 |
Publication |
Behavioral Ecology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Behav. Ecol. |
| Volume |
12 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
348-352 |
| Keywords |
|
| 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. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
10.1093/beheco/12.3.348 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
441 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Johnstone, R.A.; Dugatkin, L.A. |
| Title |
Coalition formation in animals and the nature of winner and loser effects |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2000 |
Publication |
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |
Abbreviated Journal |
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. |
| Volume |
267 |
Issue |
1438 |
Pages |
17-21 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Coalition formation has been documented in a diverse array of taxa, yet there has been little formal analysis of polyadic interactions such as coalitions. Here, we develop an optimality model which examines the role of winner and loser effects in shaping coalition formation. We demonstrate that the predicted patterns of alliances are strongly dependent on the way in which winner and loser effects change with contestant strength. When winner and loser effects decrease with the resource-holding power (RHP) of the combatants, coalitions will be favoured between the strongest members of a group, but not between the weakest. If, in contrast, winner and loser effects increase with RHP, exactly the opposite predictions emerge. All other things being equal, intervention is more likely to prove worthwhile when the beneficiary of the aid is weaker (and its opponent is stronger), because the beneficiary is then less likely to win without help. Consequently, intervention is more probable when the impact of victory on the subsequent performance of a combatant increases with that individual's strength because this selects for intervention in favour of weaker combatants. The published literature on hierarchy formation does not reveal how winner and loser effects actually change with contestant strength and we therefore hope that our model will spur others to collect such data; in this light we suggest an experiment which will help to elucidate the nature of winner and loser effects and their impact on coalition formation in animals. |
| Address |
* aggression * dominance * hierarchy * intervention * reciprocity |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
10.1098/rspb.2000.0960 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
5290 |
| Permanent link to this record |
