Abstract: Dominance hierarchies are widely described in nature. Commonly, an individual's ordinal rank is used as a measure of its position in the hierarchy, and, therefore its priority of access to resources. This use of ordinal ranks has several related drawbacks: (1) it is difficult to assess the magnitude or the significance of the difference in degree of dominance between two individuals; (2) it is difficult to evaluate the significance of differences between dominance matrices based on different behaviours or on the same behaviour at different times, and (3) it is difficult to use parametric statistical techniques to relate dominance rank to other quantities of interest. In this paper we describe a method for assigning cardinal dominance indices that does not suffer from these drawbacks. This technique is based on the Bradley-Terry model from the method of paired comparisons. We show how this model can be reinterpreted in terms of dominance interactions. and we describe a simple iterative technique for computing cardinal ranks. We then describe how to evaluate (1) whether the rank differences between individuals are significant, and (2) whether differences in the cardinal hierarchies based on different behaviours or the same behaviour at different times are significant. We then show how to generalize the method to deal with behaviours that sometimes have ambiguous outcomes, or behaviours for which the rank difference between a pair of individuals affects the rate of interaction between them.

Abstract: No abstract

Abstract: Male ungulates engage in intense competition for access to females during the breeding season. Although fights are generally dyadic level encounters, they are on occasion disrupted by the intervention of third-party males. We investigated these third-party interventions using predictions derived from Dugatkin's model (Dugatkin 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 433-437) of intervention behaviour. The model argues that when an individual successfully defeats an opponent there is an increase in the probability of winning a subsequent contest: a winner effect. Third-party intervention behaviour is predicted to occur as it serves to prevent either member of a competing dyad from successfully defeating his opponent, achieving a winner effect and subsequently becoming a threat to the intervener. Consistent with model predictions, our results show that intervening males held significantly higher rank than males that did not intervene and were also more likely to be dominant to both of the competing males. Intervening males did not selectively target competitors based on rank, nor did they target males based on overall dyadic rates of aggression between the intervener and competing males. Furthermore, interveners were more likely to have won their interaction immediately prior to intervention and were also likely to win their interaction subsequent to intervention when compared with contest success of the two competing males. Our results are consistent with predictions that support a winner effect for intervention behaviour in fallow deer fights.

Abstract: We used comparative data to test functional hypotheses for 17 antipredator behaviour patterns in artiodactyls. We examined the literature for hypotheses about auditory and visual signals, defensive behaviour and group-related antipredator behaviour in this taxon and derived a series of predictions for each hypothesis. Next, we documented occurrences of these behaviour patterns and morphological, ecological and behavioural variables for 200 species and coded them in binary format. We then pitted presence of an antipredator behaviour against presence of an independent variable for cervids, bovids and all artiodactyls together using nonparametric tests. Finally, we reanalysed the data using Maddison's (1990, Evolution, 44, 539-557) concentrated-changes tests and a consensus molecular and taxonomic phylogeny. We found evidence that snorting is both a warning signal to conspecifics and a pursuit-deterrent signal, lack of evidence that whistling alerts conspecifics and indications that foot stamping is a visual signal to warn group members. Evidence suggested that tail flagging was a signal to both conspecifics and predators, that bounding, leaping and stotting were used both as a signal and to clear obstacles and that prancing functioned similarly to foot stamping. Analyses of tail flicking, zigzagging and tacking were equivocal. We confirmed that inspection occurs in large groups, freezing enhances crypticity, and species seeking refuge in cliffs tend to be small. Entering water and attacks on predators had few correlates. Finally, group living, a putative antipredator adaptation, was associated with large body size and species living in open habitats, confirming Jarman's (1974, Behaviour, 48, 215-267) classic hypothesis. Bunching and group attack apparently deter predators. Despite limitations, comparative and systematic analyses can bolster adaptive hypotheses and raise new functional explanations for antipredator behaviour patterns in general.

Abstract: Abstract. Considerable evidence across many taxa demonstrates that prior social experience affects the outcome of subsequent aggressive interactions. Although the 'loser effect', in which an individual losing one encounter is likely to lose the next, is relatively well understood, studies of the 'winner effect', in which winning one encounter increases the probability of winning the next, have produced mixed results. Earlier studies differ concerning whether a winner effect exists, and if it does, how long it lasts. The variation in results, however, may arise from different inter-contest intervals and procedures for selecting contestants employed across previous studies. These methodological differences are addressed through a series of experiments using randomly selected winners and three different inter-contest intervals in the pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus. The results indicate that a winner effect does in fact exist in pumpkinseed sunfish, but that it only lasts between 15 and 60 min. Based on these results, predictions about the behavioural dynamics of hierarchy formation are discussed, and it is suggested that it may be impossible, in principle, to predict the outcome of dominance interactions between some individuals before they are actually assembled to form a group. Finally, the possible mechanisms underlying the winner effect are explored.