|
|
Wich, S. A., & de Vries, H. (2006). Male monkeys remember which group members have given alarm calls. Proc Biol Sci, 273(1587), 735–740.
Abstract: Primates give alarm calls in response to the presence of predators. In some species, such as the Thomas langur (Presbytis thomasi), males only emit alarm calls if there is an audience. An unanswered question is whether the audience's behaviour influences how long the male will continue his alarm calling. We tested three hypotheses that might explain the alarm calling duration of male Thomas langurs: the fatigue, group size and group member behaviour hypotheses. Fatigue and group size did not influence male alarm calling duration. We found that males only ceased calling shortly after all individuals in his group had given at least one alarm call. This shows that males keep track of and thus remember which group members have called.
|
|
|
|
Stevens, J., Vervaecke, H., de Vries, H., & Van Elsacker, L. (2005). The influence of the steepness of dominance hierarchies on reciprocity and interchange in captive groups of bonobos (Pan paniscus). Behaviour, 142(7), 941–960.
Abstract: Biological market models explain variability in reciprocity and interchange between groups. In groups with a shallow dominance gradient, grooming will be mostly exchanged for itself (i.e. exchange will occur). In groups with steep dominance hierarchies, interchange is expected: individuals will groom higher ranking individuals to get access to limited resources or commodities such as support in conflicts, and grooming will be traded for these commodities. We examine patterns of reciprocity in grooming and support, and of interchange of grooming for support or for tolerance in six captive groups of bonobos. We test whether differences between groups in patterns of reciprocity and interchange can be attributed to differences in a measure of steepness of dominance hierarchies, which is based on dyadic agonistic interactions. We found that grooming was reciprocal in some, but not all groups. Support was highly reciprocal, but this was a side effect of dominance in most groups. Interchange between grooming and support was observed in some groups. Corroborating earlier findings, this was a side effect of individuals preferring high ranking individuals as grooming and support partners, possibly because these high-ranking individuals provide more efficient support in conflicts. There was no evidence for interchange of grooming for tolerance. Variability in grooming reciprocity was explained by differences in steepness of dominance hierarchies, as predicted by the biological market models. In groups with a shallow dominance hierarchy, grooming was more reciprocal. This was not true for reciprocity in support. There was some evidence that individuals groomed dominants more frequently in groups with a steep dominance hierarchy. The variation in interchange relations between grooming and support did not depend on the steepness of dominance hierarchies. We suggest that grooming in itself is a valuable commodity in bonobos, especially under captive conditions, which can be exchanged reciprocally. Bonobos may interchange grooming for another value equivalent, with food sharing as a very likely candidate. This interchange effects seem more dependent on potential to monopolise food than on steepness of dominance hierarchies per se.
|
|
|
|
Vervaecke, H., de Vries, H., & van Elsacker, L. (2000). The Pivotal Role Of Rank In Grooming And Support Behavior In A Captive Group Of Bonobos (Pan Paniscus). Behaviour, 137(11), 1463–1485.
Abstract: We investigated dyadic grooming relationships in a captive group of bonobos (Pan paniscus) and questioned what social function grooming fulfils in the 'market of services and favors'. Hereto we examined which of two theoretical models – grooming for support (Seyfarth, 1977, 1980) or grooming according to the similarity principle (de Waal & Luttrell, 1986) – best accounted for the observed grooming distribution. Similarity in traits did not correlate with increased grooming or close proximity among the individuals. Therefore, the similarity hypothesis was rejected. Seyfarth's model of rank-related grooming was largely confirmed. The animals distributed their grooming according to the rank of the receivers. We found an exchange between grooming and receipt of support. There was more grooming up than down the hierarchy. However, not all predictions about rank-related competition over grooming were confirmed. We found that dyadic grooming reciprocity indeed increased with decreasing rank distance. Yet, there was no increase of grooming within the dyad with decreasing rank distance and high ranking individuals were not competed over at the highest rates. The observed correlation between grooming and support received represents an important fit with Seyfarth's prediction, but does not allow for conclusions about underlying causal processes. Other causal explanations, besides the 'groom to receive support' hypothesis, that could explain a similar correlation are discussed.
|
|
|
|
VanDierendonck, M. C., de Vries, H., Schilder, M. B. H., Colenbrander, B., & Þorhallsdóttir, A. G. and S., H. (2009). Interventions in social behaviour in a herd of mares and geldings. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 116(1), 67–73.
Abstract: Social dynamics and maintenance of social cohesion were studied by analysing social interventions in two groups of horses consisting of adult mares, their offspring, adult geldings and sub-adults. The animals were observed for a total of 1316 h. All relevant dyadic and triadic social interactions, including initial behaviour, possible intervention and outcome, were recorded. The main question was: do horses use interventions in affiliative interactions to safeguard their social network? Horses were significantly more likely to intervene in allogrooming or play interactions that involved a preferred partner. The stronger the preferred association in allogrooming, the higher the likelihood the intervener took over allogrooming with an initial dyad member. Interveners originating from two newly introduced groups (n = 3 and 5), intervened significantly more often when a member of their own group allogroomed with an unfamiliar horse. In play, no correlation with unfamiliarity was found. Overall, the intervening horses stopped more than half of the initial allogrooming interactions, and a third of all interactions. Therefore, social facilitation cannot sufficiently explain interference behaviour. This study shows that maintaining relationships with preferred partners is important to horses and has implications for equine husbandry and management.
|
|
|
|
de Vries, H., Stevens, J. M. G., & Vervaecke, H. (2006). Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies. Anim. Behav., 71(3), 585–592.
Abstract: In the analysis of social dominance in groups of animals, linearity has been used by many researchers as the main structural characteristic of a dominance hierarchy. In this paper we propose, alongside linearity, a quantitative measure for another property of a dominance hierarchy, namely its steepness. Steepness of a hierarchy is defined here as the absolute slope of the straight line fitted to the normalized David's scores (calculated on the basis of a dyadic dominance index corrected for chance) plotted against the subjects' ranks. This correction for chance is an improvement of an earlier proposal by de Vries (appendix 2 in de Vries, Animal Behaviour, 1998, 55, 827-843). In addition, we present a randomization procedure for determining the statistical significance of a hierarchy's steepness, which can be used to test the observed steepness against the steepness expected under the null hypothesis of random win chances for all pairs of individuals. Whereas linearity depends on the number of established binary dominance relationships and the degree of transitivity in these relationships, steepness measures the degree to which individuals differ from each other in winning dominance encounters. Linearity and steepness are complementary measures to characterize a dominance hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
Gammell, M. P., de Vries, H., Jennings, D. J., Carlin, C. M., & Hayden, T. J. (2003). David's score: a more appropriate dominance ranking method than Clutton-Brock et al.'s index. Anim. Behav., 66(3), 601–605.
|
|
|
|
Albers, P. C. H., & de Vries, H. (2001). Elo-rating as a tool in the sequential estimation of dominance strengths. Anim. Behav., 61(2), 489–495.
|
|
|
|
De Vries, H., & Appleby, M. C. (2000). Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy: a comparison of the I&SI and the BBS methods. Anim. Behav., 59(1), 239–245.
|
|
|
|
de VRIES, H. A. N. (1998). Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review. Anim. Behav., 55(4), 827–843.
Abstract: A procedure for ordering a set of individuals into a linear or near-linear dominance hierarchy is presented. Two criteria are used in a prioritized way in reorganizing the dominance matrix to find an order that is most consistent with a linear hierarchy: first, minimization of the numbers of inconsistencies and, second, minimization of the total strength of the inconsistencies. The linear ordering procedure, which involves an iterative algorithm based on a generalized swapping rule, is feasible for matrices of up to 80 individuals. The procedure can be applied to any dominance matrix, since it does not make any assumptions about the form of the probabilities of winning and losing. The only assumption is the existence of a linear or near-linear hierarchy which can be verified by means of a linearity test. A review of existing ranking methods is presented and these are compared with the proposed method.
|
|
|
|
de Vries, H. (1995). An improved test of linearity in dominance hierarchies containing unknown or tied relationships. Anim. Behav., 50(5), 1375–1389.
Abstract: Appleby (1983, Anim. Behav., 31, 600-608) described a statistical test, based on the work of Kendall (1962, Rank Correlation Methods), for the significance of linearity in dominance hierarchies. He suggested that unknown relationships should be assigned the value 1/2 and that subsequently the same test procedure can be used. In this paper it is shown that incorrect results are obtained by this method whenever there are unknown relationships. Values of the linearity index are systematically too low. P-values can be too high (underestimating the significance) or too low (overestimating), and seem to differ by not much more than a factor two (respectively a half) from the correct P-value. An improved method is developed for testing linearity in a set of dominance relationships containing unknown relationships. Furthermore, it is argued that, if one admits the possibility of tied dominance relationships, which should indeed be assigned the value 1/2, Landau's linearity index is to be preferred to Kendall's index. A randomization test is developed for assessing the significance of linearity or non-linearity in a set of dominance relationships containing unknown or tied relationships. The test statistic employed in this testing procedure is based on Landau's linearity index, but takes the unknown and tied relationships into account.
|
|
