|
|
Keiper, R. R. (1986). Social structure. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract, 2(3), 465–484.
Abstract: Socially feral horses live in stable social groups characterized by one adult male, a number of adult females, and their offspring up to 2 years of age. Extra males either live by themselves or with other males in bachelor groups. The bands occupy nondefended home ranges that often overlap. Many abnormal behaviors seen in domestic horses occur because some aspect of their normal social behavior cannot be carried out in captivity.
|
|
|
|
Craig, J. V. (1986). Measuring social behavior: social dominance. J. Anim Sci., 62(4), 1120–1129.
Abstract: Social dominance develops more slowly when young animals are kept in intact peer groups where they need not compete for resources. Learned generalizations may cause smaller and weaker animals to accept subordinate status readily when confronted with strangers that would be formidable opponents. Sexual hormones and sensitivity to them can influence the onset of aggression and status attained. After dominance orders are established, they tend to be stable in female groups but are less so in male groups. Psychological influences can affect dominance relationships when strangers meet and social alliances within groups may affect relative status of individuals. Whether status associated with agonistic behavior is correlated with control of space and scarce resources needs to be determined for each species and each kind of resource. When such correlations exists, competitive tests and agonistic behavior associated with gaining access to scarce resources can be useful to the observer in learning about dominance relationships rapidly. Examples are given to illustrate how estimates of social dominance can be readily attained and some strengths and weaknesses of the various methods.
|
|
|
|
Beaver, B. V. (1981). Problems & values associated with dominance. Vet Med Small Anim Clin, 76(8), 1129–1131.
|
|
|
|
Collery, L. (1974). Observations of equine animals under farm and feral conditions. Equine Vet J, 6(4), 170–173.
|
|
|
|
Kiley, M. (1972). The vocalizations of ungulates, their causation and function. Z. Tierpsychol., 31(2), 171–222.
|
|
|
|
Manser, M. B., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2002). Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency (Vol. 6).
|
|
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1984). The acoustic features of vervet monkey grunts. J Acoust Soc Am, 75(5), 1623–1628.
Abstract: East African vervet monkeys give short (125 ms), harsh-sounding grunts to each other in a variety of social situations: when approaching a dominant or subordinate member of their group, when moving into a new area of their range, or upon seeing another group. Although all these vocalizations sound similar to humans, field playback experiments have shown that the monkeys distinguish at least four different calls. Acoustic analysis reveals that grunts have an aperiodic F0, at roughly 240 Hz. Most grunts exhibit a spectral peak close to this irregular F0. Grunts may also contain a second, rising or falling frequency peak, between 550 and 900 Hz. The location and changes in these two frequency peaks are the cues most likely to be used by vervets when distinguishing different grunt types.
|
|
|
|
Whiten, A., & McGrew, W. C. (2001). Is this the first portrayal of tool use by a chimp? (Vol. 409).
|
|
|
|
Dyer, F. C. (2002). Animal behaviour: when it pays to waggle (Vol. 419).
|
|
|
|
Backhaus D,. (1959). Experimentelle Untersuchungen ber die Sehschärfe und das Farbsehen einiger Huftiere. Z. Tierpsychol., 16, 445–467.
|
|
