|
|
Puppe, B. (1996). [Social dominance and rank relationships in domestic pigs: a critical review]. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 109(11-12), 457–464.
Abstract: Viewing dominance as an attribute of repeated agonistic interactions between two individuals, the present paper reviews theoretical approaches towards concepts of dominance, methods of measurement, and basic principles and problems connected with social dominance in domestic pigs. Domestic pigs are able to establish social organization structures during all stages of their ontogeny. According to definition, dominance relationships occur when a consistent asymmetry of the result of dyadic agonistic interactions can be assessed. This must not necessarily be connected immediately with a better availability of resources, or a high stability of existing dominance relationships, or a functional definition of dominance. When sociometric characteristics are calculated, it seems to be appropriate to use them for different levels of a biological system (individual, individual pair, group). Investigations of social behaviour and dominance in farm animals should take into account that mechanisms of social behaviour in confined environments are often carried out in parts only. Connections of the dominance concept with other concepts of behavioural regulation should be theoretically considered and further investigated by experimental studies.
|
|
|
|
Cancedda, M. (1990). [Social and behavioral organization of horses on the Giara (Sardinia): distribution and aggregation]. Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper, 66(11), 1089–1096.
Abstract: In this paper some considerations on the environment of the 42 Kmq of the volcanic-basaltic Giara tableland are discussed. Conditioning by the environment and its effect on the distribution of a population of 712 horses is illustrated in view of their social and behavioural organization.
|
|
|
|
Vollmerhaus, B., Roos, H., Gerhards, H., & Knospe, C. (2003). [Phylogeny, form and function of canine teeth in the horse]. Anat Histol Embryol, 32(4), 212–217.
Abstract: The canine teeth of the horse developed phylogenically from the simple, pointed, short-rooted tooth form of the leaf eating, in pairs living, Eocene horse Hyracotherium and served up to the Oligocene as a means of defense (self preservation). In the Miocene the living conditions of the Merychippus changed and they took to eating grass and adopted as a new behavior the life in a herd. The canine teeth possibly played an important role in fights for social ranking; they changed from a crown form to knife-like shape. In the Pliohippus the canine tooth usually remained in male horses and since the Pliocene, it contributed to the fights between stallions, to ensure that the offspring only came from the strongest animals (preservation of the species). Form and construction of the canine tooth are described and discussed in detail under the above mentioned phylogenic and ethologic aspects.
|
|
|
|
Brennan, J., & Anderson, J. (1988). Varying responses to feeding competition in a group of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Primates, 29(3), 353–360.
Abstract: The behaviour of members of a group of rhesus monkeys was observed in experimentally created, competitive feeding situations. Socially dominant members of the group tended to start eating before lower-ranking subjects, and generally ate more. Dominants sometimes used aggression to control access to food, but overall, intermediate-ranking monkeys were involved in most agonistic episodes. Non-dominant subjects improved their feeding performance when food was presented in three piles rather than one pile, often by snatching food and consuming it away from the pile. These general patterns were less evident when realistic snake models were placed on some of the food piles. Feeding was disrupted by the presence of snakes, but notably, subordinates risked feeding in these conditions. Piles containing preferred foods and snakes were eaten from, but a low-preference food (carrot) under snakes went untouched by all subjects. The results suggest that group-members evaluate potential risks and benefits of competing for a restricted resource, and that dominance status, while an important factor, is only one element in the equation.
|
|
|
|
Chaudhuri, M., & Ginsberg, J. R. (1990). Urinary androgen concentrations and social status in two species of free ranging zebra (Equus burchelli and E. grevyi). J Reprod Fert, 88, 127–133.
Abstract: In both species of zebra, breeding males had higher urinary androgen concentrations (ng androgens/mg Cr) than did non-breeding bachelor males (30.0 +/- 5.0 (N = 9) versus 11.4 +/- 2.8, (N = 7) in the plains zebra; 19.0 +/- 2.2 (N = 17) versus 10.7 +/- 1.2 (N = 14) in the Grevy's zebra). In the more stable family structure of the plains zebra (single male non-territorial groups) variations in androgen concentrations could not be ascribed to any measured variable. In the Grevy's zebra, androgen values were significantly lower in samples taken from territorial (breeding) males which had temporarily abandoned their territories (N = 4) and the urinary androgen concentration for a male on his territory was negatively correlated with the time since females last visited the territory.
|
|
|
|
Noë, R., de Waal, F. B., & van Hooff, J. A. (1980). Types of dominance in a chimpanzee colony. Folia Primatol (Basel), 34(1-2), 90–110.
Abstract: This study examines to what extent the concept of dominance can be used to describe the social structure of a group of semi-free-living chimpanzees. 15 behavioural variables, based on agonistic, competitive and affinitive behaviour patterns, have been compared with respect to the interindividual directions in which they occurred. In this analysis use was made of indices that reflect the position an individual occupies in the relationship structure. These indices were calculated per individual for all variables and subjected to factor analysis and cluster analysis. As a result, 13 of the variables could be grouped in three categories which have been labelled: (1) agonistic dominance; (2) bluff dominance, and (3) competitive dominance. Whereas the top positions in the hierarchies based on the first two closely related types of dominance were occupied by the adult males, the hierarchy based on the third type was headed by several adult females.
|
|
|
|
Kiley, M. (1972). The vocalizations of ungulates, their causation and function. Z. Tierpsychol., 31(2), 171–222.
|
|
|
|
de Waal, F. B., & Luttrell, L. M. (1986). The similarity principle underlying social bonding among female rhesus monkeys. Folia Primatol (Basel), 46(4), 215–234.
Abstract: Twenty adult female rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were observed over a three-year period. They lived in a mixed captive group with kinship relations known for three generations. The study's aim was to test Seyfarth's [J. theor. Biol. 65: 671-698, 1977] model of rank-related grooming and to investigate two other possible determinants of social bonding, i.e. relative age and the group's stratification into two social classes. Data on affiliation, coalitions, and social competition were collected by means of both focal observation and instantaneous time sampling. Whereas certain elements of the existing model were confirmed, its explanatory principles were not. Social competition did not result in more contact among close-ranking females (the opposite effect was found), and the relation between affiliative behavior and coalitions was more complex than predicted. Based on multivariate analyses and a comparison of theoretical models, we propose a simpler, more encompassing principle underlying interfemale attraction. According to this 'similarity principle', rhesus females establish bonds with females whom they most resemble. The similarity may concern genetical and social background, age, hierarchical position and social class. Effects of these four factors were independently demonstrated. The most successful model assumed that similarity factors influence female bonding in a cumulative fashion.
|
|
|
|
Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., & Silk, J. B. (1995). The responses of female baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) to anomalous social interactions: evidence for causal reasoning? J Comp Psychol, 109(2), 134–141.
Abstract: Baboons' (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) understanding of cause-effect relations in the context of social interactions was examined through use of a playback experiment. Under natural conditions, dominant female baboons often grunt to more subordinate mothers when interacting with their infants. Mothers occasionally respond to these grunts by uttering submissive fear barks. Subjects were played causally inconsistent call sequences in which a lower ranking female apparently grunted to a higher ranking female, and the higher ranking female apparently responded with fear barks. As a control, subjects heard a sequence made causally consistent by the inclusion of grunts from a 3rd female that was dominant to both of the others. Subjects responded significantly more strongly to the causally inconsistent sequences, suggesting that they recognized the factors that cause 1 individual to give submissive vocalizations to another.
|
|
|
|
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). The representation of social relations by monkeys. Cognition, 37(1-2), 167–196.
Abstract: Monkeys recognize the social relations that exist among others in their group. They know who associates with whom, for example, and other animals' relative dominance ranks. In addition, monkeys appear to compare types of social relations and make same/different judgments about them. In captivity, longtailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) trained to recognize the relation between one adult female and her offspring can identify the same relation among other mother-offspring pairs, and distinguish this relation from bonds between individuals who are related in a different way. In the wild, if a vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops) has seen a fight between a member of its own family and a member of Family X, this increases the likelihood that it will act aggressively toward another member of Family X. Vervets act as if they recognize some similarity between their own close associates and the close associates of others. To make such comparisons the monkeys must have some way of representing the properties of social relationships. We discuss the adaptive value of such representations, the information they contain, their structure, and their limitations.
|
|
