Abstract: Abstract In recent years, behavioral ecologists have embraced social network analysis (SNA) in order to explore the structure of animal societies and the functional consequences of that structure. We provide a conceptual introduction to the field that focuses on historical developments, as well as on novel insights generated by recent work. First, we discuss major advances in the analysis of nonhuman societies, culminating in the use of SNA by behavioral ecologists. Next, we discuss how network-based approaches have enhanced our understanding of social structure and behavior over the past decade, focusing on: (1) information transmission, (2) collective behaviors, (3) animal personality, and (4) cooperation. These behaviors and phenomena possess several features—e.g., indirect effects, emergent properties—that network analysis is well equipped to handle. Finally, we highlight recent developments in SNA that are allowing behavioral ecologists to address increasingly sophisticated questions regarding the structure and function of animal sociality.

Abstract: Summary A wonderfully lucid framework for the ways to understand animal behaviour is that represented by the four [`]whys' proposed by Tinbergen (1963). For much of the past three decades, however, these four avenues have been pursued more or less in parallel. Functional questions, for example, have been addressed by behavioural ecologists, mechanistic questions by psychologists and ethologists, ontogenetic questions by developmental biologists and neuroscientists and phylogenetic questions by evolutionary biologists. More recently, the value of integration between these differing views has become apparent. In this brief review, we concentrate especially on current attempts to integrate mechanistic and functional approaches. Most of our understanding of learning and memory in animals comes from the psychological literature, which tends to use only rats or pigeons, and more occasionally primates, as subjects. The underlying psychological assumption is of general processes that are similar across species and contexts rather than a range of specific abilities. However, this does not seem to be entirely true as several learned behaviours have been described that are specific to particular species or contexts. The first conspicuous exception to the generalist assumption was the demonstration of long delay taste aversion learning in rats (Garcia et al., 1955), in which it was shown that a stimulus need not be temporally contiguous with a response for the animal to make an association between food and illness. Subsequently, a number of other examples, such as imprinting and song learning in birds (e.g., Bolhuis and Honey, 1998; Catchpole and Slater, 1995; Horn, 1998), have been thoroughly researched. Even in these cases, however, it has been typical for only a few species to be studied (domestic chicks provide the [`]model' imprinting species and canaries and zebra finches the song learning [`]models'). As a result, a great deal is understood about the neural underpinnings and development of the behaviour, but substantially less is understood about interspecific variation and whether variation in behaviour is correlated with variation in neural processing (see review by Tramontin and Brenowitz, 2000 but see ten Cate and Vos, 1999).

Abstract: The long-held belief that human dominance and equine submission are key to successful training and that the horse must be taught to [`]respect' the trainer infers that force is often used during training. Many horses respond by trialling unwelcome evasions, resistances and flight responses, which readily become established. When unable to cope with problem behaviours, some handlers in the past might have been encouraged to use harsh methods or devices while others may have called in a so-called [`]good horseman' or [`]horse whisperer' to remediate the horse. Frequently, the approaches such practitioners offer could not be applied by the horse's owner or trainer because of their lack of understanding or inability to apply the techniques. Often it seemed that these [`]horse-people' had magical ways with horses (e.g., they only had to whisper to them) that achieved impressive results although they had little motivation to divulge their techniques. As we begin to appreciate how to communicate with horses sensitively and consistently, misunderstandings and misinterpretations by horse and trainer should become less common. Recent studies have begun to reveal what comprises the simplest, most humane and most effective mechanisms in horse training and these advances are being matched by greater sharing of knowledge among practitioners. Indeed, various practitioners of what is referred to here as [`]natural horsemanship' now use techniques similar to the [`]whisperers' of old, but they are more open about their methods. Reputable horse trainers using natural horsemanship approaches are talented observers of horse behaviour and respond consistently and swiftly to the horse's subtle cues during training. For example, in the roundpen these trainers apply an aversive stimulus to prompt a flight response and then, when the horse slows down, moves toward them, or offers space-reducing affiliative signals, the trainer immediately modifies his/her agonistic signals, thus negatively reinforcing the desired response. Learning theory and equine ethology, the fundamentals of the emerging discipline of equitation science, can be used to explain almost all the behaviour modification that goes on in these contexts and in conventional horsemanship. By measuring and evaluating what works and what does not, equitation science has the potential to have a unifying effect on traditional practices and developing branches of equitation.

Abstract: Newborn rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus, discriminate between different categories of adult conspecifics on the basis of their abdominal odour cues. Whether these cues can support the development of filial preferences has not been adequately tested. Using a two-choice paradigm, we assessed the ability of 3-8-day-old pups to orient selectively to the mother versus an unfamiliar female, either spontaneously or after odour conditioning. In experiment 1, nonconditioned pups roamed indifferently over the mother and an unfamiliar female. In experiment 2, pups conditioned to a neutral odorant while nursing or with the mammary pheromone became attracted by the odorant. In experiment 3, pups that had learned the odorant while nursing oriented for longer to any female carrying it, but the unscented mother and a scented unfamiliar female were equally attractive. Finally, in experiment 4, pups that had learned the odorant paired with the mammary pheromone showed a preference for their scented mother, but not systematically for a scented unfamiliar female; furthermore, they were equally attracted by the unscented mother and a scented unfamiliar female. In sum, pups did not spontaneously evince an olfactory preference for the mother when opposed to an unfamiliar female, although they seemed able to detect individual maternal odours. In fact, they appeared to react to both species-specific cues and individual cues that they had learned, and their responses depended on their degree of familiarity with the cues and on the context. The mammary pheromone by itself might act as both a releasing and a reinforcing signal in these early socially oriented behaviours.

Abstract: Our understanding of how, why, and the circumstances under which animals use social information has been facilitated by three principal areas of research, social learning, public information use and social eavesdropping. With few exceptions, these related concepts have remained remarkably distinct within the literature, with little discussion or integration among them. Are these distinctions warranted? We tackle the issue by exploring similarities and differences between the concepts with respect to how animals gather and use social information, the type of information gathered, how information is packaged, and the relative payoffs to individuals involved. We contend that none of the currently dominant paradigms, social learning, public information use, or social eavesdropping, provide a unifying theme for studying social information use. Instead, we favour the central characteristic of the three concepts, social information use, as the overarching umbrella, and advocate a broader conceptual framework for understanding more comprehensively how animals behave with their social environments. Our intention is not to revolutionize the fields of social learning, public information use or social eavesdropping, but rather to stimulate discussion among researchers investigating the abilities of animals to extract information from the social environment.