|
|
Graham, M., & Letz, R. (1979). Within-species variation in the development of ultrasonic signaling of preweanling rats. Dev Psychobiol, 12(2), 129–136.
Abstract: The development of litter and individual differences in the rate of ultrasonic signaling of neonatal rats was studied. Systematic variations among litters and individuals emerged, without differential treatment. These differences were not correlated with variations in general development as indexed by body weight. Two experiments using a cross-fostering design showed that litter differences developed independently of variations in postnatal environment. These results indicate that the variations among litters in ultrasound rate have a prenatal, possibly genetic, etiology and may represent reliable indicants of response to environmental stress.
|
|
|
|
Huff, A. N. (1988). Winter Manegement. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 8(1), 81.
|
|
|
|
(1994). Winter horse care. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 14(2), 115–117.
|
|
|
|
Cameron, E. Z., & du Toit, J. T. (2007). Winning by a neck: tall giraffes avoid competing with shorter browsers. Am Nat, 169(1), 130–135.
Abstract: With their vertically elongated body form, giraffes generally feed above the level of other browsers within the savanna browsing guild, despite having access to foliage at lower levels. They ingest more leaf mass per bite when foraging high in the tree, perhaps because smaller, more selective browsers deplete shoots at lower levels or because trees differentially allocate resources to promote shoot growth in the upper canopy. We erected exclosures around individual Acacia nigrescens trees in the greater Kruger ecosystem, South Africa. After a complete growing season, we found no differences in leaf biomass per shoot across height zones in excluded trees but significant differences in control trees. We conclude that giraffes preferentially browse at high levels in the canopy to avoid competition with smaller browsers. Our findings are analogous with those from studies of grazing guilds and demonstrate that resource partitioning can be driven by competition when smaller foragers displace larger foragers from shared resources. This provides the first experimental support for the classic evolutionary hypothesis that vertical elongation of the giraffe body is an outcome of competition within the browsing ungulate guild.
|
|
|
|
Dreber, A., Rand, D. G., Fudenberg, D., & Nowak, M. A. (2008). Winners don/'t punish. Nature, 452(7185), 348–351.
Abstract: A key aspect of human behaviour is cooperation1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. We tend to help others even if costs are involved. We are more likely to help when the costs are small and the benefits for the other person significant. Cooperation leads to a tension between what is best for the individual and what is best for the group. A group does better if everyone cooperates, but each individual is tempted to defect. Recently there has been much interest in exploring the effect of costly punishment on human cooperation8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Costly punishment means paying a cost for another individual to incur a cost. It has been suggested that costly punishment promotes cooperation even in non-repeated games and without any possibility of reputation effects10. But most of our interactions are repeated and reputation is always at stake. Thus, if costly punishment is important in promoting cooperation, it must do so in a repeated setting. We have performed experiments in which, in each round of a repeated game, people choose between cooperation, defection and costly punishment. In control experiments, people could only cooperate or defect. Here we show that the option of costly punishment increases the amount of cooperation but not the average payoff of the group. Furthermore, there is a strong negative correlation between total payoff and use of costly punishment. Those people who gain the highest total payoff tend not to use costly punishment: winners don't punish. This suggests that costly punishment behaviour is maladaptive in cooperation games and might have evolved for other reasons.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Ecol., 8(6), 583–587.
Abstract: In the literature on dominance hierarchies, “winner” and “loser” effects usually are denned as an increased probability of winning at time T, bated on victories at time T-l, T-2, etc, and an increased probability of losing at time T, based on losing at T-1, T-2, etc., respectively. Despite some early theoretical work on winner and loser effects, these factors and how they affect the structure of dominance hierarchies have not been examined in detail. I developed a computer simulation to examine winner and loser effects when such effects are independent of one another (as well as when they interact) and when combatants assess each other's resource-holding power. When winner effects alone were important, a hierarchy in which all individuals held an unambiguous rank was found. When only loser effects were important, a dear alpha individual always emerged, but the rank of others in the group was often unclear because of the scarcity of aggressive interactions. Increasing winner effects for a given value of the loser effect increase the number of individuals with unambiguous positions in a hierarchy and the converse is true for increasing the value of the loser effect for a given winner effect Although winner and loser effects have been documented in a number of species, no study has documented both winner and loser effects (using some controlled, pairwise testing system) and the detailed nature of behavioral interactions when individuals are in groups. I hope the results of this model will spur such studies in the future.
|
|
|
|
Burke, D., Cieplucha, C., Cass, J., Russell, F., & Fry, G. (2002). Win-shift and win-stay learning in the short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus). Anim. Cogn., 5(2), 79–84.
Abstract: Numerous previous investigators have explained species differences in spatial memory performance in terms of differences in foraging ecology. In three experiments we attempted to extend these findings by examining the extent to which the spatial memory performance of echidnas (or “spiny anteaters”) can be understood in terms of the spatio-temporal distribution of their prey (ants and termites). This is a species and a foraging situation that have not been examined in this way before. Echidnas were better able to learn to avoid a previously rewarding location (to “win-shift”) than to learn to return to a previously rewarding location (to “win-stay”), at short retention intervals, but were unable to learn either of these strategies at retention intervals of 90 min. The short retention interval results support the ecological hypothesis, but the long retention interval results do not.
|
|
|
|
Giulotto, E. (2001). Will horse genetics create better champions? Trends Genet., 17, 166.
|
|
|
|
Urban Ek, B. L. (1968). Wildlife in an ethiopian valley. Oryx, 9, 342–353.
|
|
|
|
LANG EM, L. E. H. M. A. N. N. E. von. (1972). Wildesel in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Zool. Garten., 41, 157–167.
|
|
