Rands, S. A., Cowlishaw, G., Pettifor, R. A., Rowcliffe, J. M., & Johnstone, R. A. (2008). The emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs when the qualities of individuals differ. BMC Evol Biol, 8, 51.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Foraging in groups offers animals a number of advantages, such as increasing their likelihood of finding food or detecting and avoiding predators. In order for a group to remain together, there has to be some degree of coordination of behaviour and movement between its members (which may in some cases be initiated by a decision-making leader, and in other cases may emerge as an underlying property of the group). For example, behavioural synchronisation is a phenomenon where animals within a group initiate and then continue to conduct identical behaviours, and has been characterised for a wide range of species. We examine how a pair of animals should behave using a state-dependent approach, and ask what conditions are likely to lead to behavioural synchronisation occurring, and whether one of the individuals is more likely to act as a leader. RESULTS: The model we describe considers how the energetic gain, metabolic requirements and predation risks faced by the individuals affect measures of their energetic state and behaviour (such as the degree of behavioural synchronisation seen within the pair, and the value to an individual of knowing the energetic state of its colleague). We explore how predictable changes in these measures are in response to changes in physiological requirements and predation risk. We also consider how these measures should change when the members of the pair are not identical in their metabolic requirements or their susceptibility to predation. We find that many of the changes seen in these measures are complex, especially when asymmetries exist between the members of the pair. CONCLUSION: Analyses are presented that demonstrate that, although these general patterns are robust, care needs to be taken when considering the effects of individual differences, as the relationship between individual differences and the resulting qualitative changes in behaviour may be complex. We discuss how these results are related to experimental observations, and how the model and its predictions could be extended.
|
|
King, A. J., Douglas, C. M. S., Huchard, E., Isaac, N. J. B., & Cowlishaw, G. (2008). Dominance and affiliation mediate despotism in a social primate. Curr Biol, 18(23), 1833–1838.
Abstract: Group-living animals routinely have to reach a consensus decision and choose between mutually exclusive actions in order to coordinate their activities and benefit from sociality. Theoretical models predict “democratic” rather than “despotic” decisions to be widespread in social vertebrates, because they result in lower “consensus costs”-the costs of an individual foregoing its optimal action to comply with the decision-for the group as a whole. Yet, quantification of consensus costs is entirely lacking, and empirical observations provide strong support for the occurrence of both democratic and despotic decisions in nature. We conducted a foraging experiment on a wild social primate (chacma baboons, Papio ursinus) in order to gain new insights into despotic group decision making. The results show that group foraging decisions were consistently led by the individual who acquired the greatest benefits from those decisions, namely the dominant male. Subordinate group members followed the leader despite considerable consensus costs. Follower behavior was mediated by social ties to the leader, and where these ties were weaker, group fission was more likely to occur. Our findings highlight the importance of leader incentives and social relationships in group decision-making processes and the emergence of despotism.
|
|
Wolff, A., & Hausberger, M. (1994). Behaviour of foals before weaning may have some genetic basis. Ethology, 96(1), 1–10.
Abstract: In this preliminary study on foal behaviour, 13 French saddlebred foals (2-3 mo old) and their dams were observed on pasture. The most important findings are the interindividual quantitative differences in foal behaviour patterns as well as in the amount of mainly foal-initiated time spent at given distances from their mares. Interindividual differences seem in part due to a sire effect
|
|
Rogers, L. J. (2000). Evolution of hemispheric specialization: advantages and disadvantages. Brain Lang, 73(2), 236–253.
Abstract: Lateralization of the brain appeared early in evolution and many of its features appear to have been retained, possibly even in humans. We now have a considerable amount of information on the different forms of lateralization in a number of species, and the commonalities of these are discussed, but there has been relatively little investigation of the advantages of being lateralized. This article reports new findings on the differences between lateralized and nonlateralized chicks. The lateralized chicks were exposed to light for 24 h on day 19 of incubation, a treatment known to lead to lateralization of a number of visually guided responses, and the nonlateralized chicks were incubated in the dark. When they were feeding, the lateralized chicks were found to detect a stimulus resembling a raptor with shorter latency than nonlateralized chicks. This difference was not a nonspecific effect caused by the light-exposed chicks being more distressed by the stimulus. Instead, it appears to be a genuine advantage conferred by having a lateralized brain. It is suggested that having a lateralized brain allows dual attention to the tasks of feeding (right eye and left hemisphere) and vigilance for predators (left eye and right hemisphere). Nonlateralized chicks appear to perform these dual tasks less efficiently than lateralized ones. Reference is made to other species in discussing these results.
|
|
Barette, C., & Vandal, D. (1986). Social rank, dominance, antler size, and access to food in snow-bound wild woodland caribou. Behaviour, 97(1-2), 118–146.
Abstract: We spent two winters studying the social behaviour of wild woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) at a time when their main food (ground lichens; Cladina sp.) is available only at snow craters dug by the animals. The competition for access to such craters was severe, the animals constantly trying to take over the craters of others. During a two-month period when a group maintained a constant size (20) and composition (all age-sex classes represented), we could rank the animals in a rather linear dominance hierarchy (Landau's index = 0.87). Rank was correlated with access to resources, percent of time spent active, and percent of time feeding in craters. It was also correlated with age and antler size. However, rank is not an attribute of individuals, but of a relationship between individuals. As such it is only an intervening variable between physical attributes and access to resources, a variable whose value has meaning only within a given group. Among the three attributes studied (age, sex, antler size), the latter was by far the best predictor of the occurrence and outcome of interactions. Between two individuals within any of the three age-sex classes studied (adult and yearling males and adult females), the one with larger antlers initiated significantly more often, escalated its aggression (to the point of hitting the target) less often, and enjoyed a higher success rate in obtaining resources. When their antlers were larger than those of an adult male target (i.e. males that had shed their antlers), adult females won almost all their interactions with adult males even though they escalated only one fourth of them. This clarifies the long-standing speculation that female caribou have antlers and shed them later than males, in order to overcome their sexual handicap in competition for food in the winter. We conclude that the link between rank and dominance of an individual on one hand, and some of its attributes on the other (e.g. sex, age, weight, antler size) is fundamentally realized by the animal itself through its active preference for targets it is likely to beat, i.e. targets with smaller antlers.
|
|