|
Pikhala, L. (1930). Allgemeine Richtlinien für das athletische Training. In C. Krümel (Ed.), Athletik. Ein Handbuch der lebenswichtigen Leibesübungen (pp. 185–198). München: Lehmann.
|
|
Noë, R. (1992). Alliance formation among male hamadryas baboons: shopping for profitable partners. In A. H. Harcourt, & F. B. M. deWaal (Eds.), Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals (pp. 284–321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
Feh, C. (1999). Alliances and reproductive success in Camargue stallions. Anim. Behav., 57(3), 705–713.
Abstract: A study of a herd of Camargue horsesEquus caballus, showed that while the majority of high-ranking stallions held single-male harems, some sons of low-ranking mares, being low ranking themselves, formed alliances that could last a lifetime. The two stallions were each other's closest associate and preferential grooming partner. Alliances were based on coalitions in which either both partners confronted an intruder synchronously or the dominant of the pair tended the female(s) while the subordinate simultaneously displayed towards the rival. Alliance partners were of similar age but were not more closely related to each other than to other stallions in the herd. Long-term paternity data revealed that subordinates sired close to a quarter of the foals born into the alliance group, and significantly more foals than low-ranking stallions in the herd adopting a `sneak'-mating strategy. The dominant appeared to benefit from the presence of his subordinate partner. Fights occurred all year round, and the subordinate stallion of each alliance pair fought outside competitors more than twice as often as the dominant. Forming short-term alliances before defending mares on their own may enhance long-term reproductive success for both partners. Other benefits to both partners include higher survivorship of their foals and increased access to proven reproductive mares. These results suggest that the relationship between alliance partners is based on mutualism, but several conditions for reciprocity seem to be fulfilled: the benefit to the dominant (assistance in fights), and the benefit to the subordinate (access to reproduction), are both costly to the other partner and delayed in time.
|
|
Feh, C. (2001). Alliances between stallions are more than just multimale groups: reply to Linklater & Cameron (2000). Anim. Behav., 61, F27–F30.
|
Weatherly, J. N., Arthur, E. I. L., & Tischart, L. M. (2003). Altering “motivational” variables alters induction produced by upcoming food-pellet reinforcement. Anim. Cogn., 6(1), 17–26.
Abstract: Previous research has demonstrated that rats will increase their rates of lever pressing for sucrose rewards in the first half of an experimental session when food pellets, rather than the same sucrose, continually serve as the reward in the second half of the session. This effect has been coined induction, and the present study investigated whether it could be altered by altering “motivational” variables. Experiment 1 manipulated subjects' motivation by altering, across conditions, their level of food deprivation. Predictably, the size of induction varied directly with level of deprivation. Experiments 2 and 3 manipulated subjects' motivation by feeding them food pellets and sucrose, respectively, prior to their responding in the experimental session. These pre-session feedings decreased the size of the observed induction in both experiments. The results from the present study indicate that the size of induction is correlated with subjects' motivation to respond for the available reinforcers. They are also consistent with the idea that operant processes underlie the effect. The notion that induction might encompass the concept of “anticipation” is also discussed.
|
Philipsson, J., Arnason, T., & Bergsten, K. (1990). Alternative selection strategies for performance of the Swedish warmblood horse. Livestock Production Science, 24(3), 273–285.
Abstract: The Swedish riding horse population includes about 6000 broodmares and 150 breeding stallions. The overall breeding goal is to produce riding horses competitive in several disciplines, i.e. dressage as well as showjumping and eventing. The effectiveness of this multi-purpose objective was studied in alternative strategies for selecting stallions and mares as candidate dams for them. The alternative selection strategies for stallions included 1-stage (conformation), 2-stage (conformation and performance test) and 3-stage (conformation, performance test and competition results at advanced levels) selection schemes. The mare selection schemes included the corresponding 1- and 2-stage selection schemes. The results clearly showed the 2-stage selection procedure to be most efficient, especially for stallions. It is important that the intensity in selection after the performance test is kept high. Differences in defining the breeding objective are less important, provided the selection is based on a performance test including both dressage and jumping. According to the results, the development of the Swedish performance testing scheme, in which now only 30% of the tested stallions are selected for breeding, seems justified. In mare selection schemes, performance tests also seem to be justified, especially if jumping ability is to be improved. Differences between field and station tests are only minor and since the volume of testing can be much higher in the field this would allow a much stronger selection and should thus be preferred.
|
Connor, R. C. (1995). Altruism among non-relatives: alternatives to the 'Prisoner's Dilemma'. Trends Ecol Evol, 10(2), 84–86.
Abstract: Triver's model of reciprocal altruism, and its descendants based on the Prisoner's Dilemma model, have dominated thinking about cooperation and altruism between non-relatives. However, there are three alternative models of altruism directed to non-relatives. These models, which are not based on the Prisoner's Dilemma, may explain a variety of phenomena, from allogrooming among impala to helping by non-relatives in cooperatively breeding birds and mammals.
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 1. Species and individual variation in fawn distress calls. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 897–905.
Abstract: Mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus, females actively defend fawns against predators, including nonoffspring conspecific fawns and heterospecific white-tailed deer, O. virginianus, fawns. We hypothesized that the defence of nonoffspring fawns was due to a recognition error. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn with imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing only a few distress calls. We examined fawn distress calls to determine whether calls made by the two species and by different individuals within each species were acoustically distinctive. The mean and maximum fundamental frequencies of mule deer fawns were nearly double those of white-tailed deer fawns, with no overlap, enabling us to classify 100% of calls to the correct species using a single trait. A large proportion of calls was also assigned to the correct individual using a multivariate analysis (66% and 70% of mule deer and white-tailed deer fawns, respectively, chance = 6% and 10%); however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in the probability of correct classification. We observed fawns approach conspecific females in an attempt to nurse; females probed most offspring fawns with their noses before accepting them, and always probed nonoffspring fawns before rejecting them, suggesting that close contact and olfactory information were needed to unequivocally distinguish nonoffspring from offspring fawns. Taken together, these results suggest that acoustic variation alone would probably be sufficient to permit rapid and reliable species discrimination, but it may not be sufficient for mothers to unequivocally distinguish their own fawn from conspecific fawns.
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., Wilson, W. F., DeYoung, R. W., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 2. Why mule deer help nonoffspring fawns. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 907–916.
Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.
|
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 1301–1303.
Abstract: Human beings routinely help others to achieve their goals, even when the helper receives no immediate benefit and the person helped is a stranger. Such altruistic behaviors (toward non-kin) are extremely rare evolutionarily, with some theorists even proposing that they are uniquely human. Here we show that human children as young as 18 months of age (prelinguistic or just-linguistic) quite readily help others to achieve their goals in a variety of different situations. This requires both an understanding of others' goals and an altruistic motivation to help. In addition, we demonstrate similar though less robust skills and motivations in three young chimpanzees.
|
