|
|
Jennings, D. J. (2014). Limited evidence that visual lateralization is associated with fitness in rutting male fallow deer. Anim. Behav., 92, 85–91.
Abstract: Under certain models of animal competition, individuals are expected to gather information about opponent quality in order to determine whether they should fight or withdraw. However, the ability to process complex information differs between individuals and across brain hemispheres: a feature of vertebrate cognition known as lateralization that is not anticipated by contest models. I investigated the relationship between aggressive behaviour and mating success during the fallow deer, Dama dama, rut and a measure of lateralization derived from eye preference during parallel walking. Results show that there was no relationship between the tendency to escalate to fighting or predictability in the tendency to engage in fighting and lateralization. Conversely, there was a quadratic relationship between third-party intervention behaviour and lateralization: the greater the tendency to intervene in ongoing fights the lower the degree of lateralization. However, individuals that showed lateralization for right-eye use were least likely to be targeted by the intervening male; thus lateralization is beneficial in this context because targeted males are highly likely to lose this subsequent encounter. The relationship between lateralization and mating success was also nonlinear: males that showed little evidence for an eye bias during lateral displays had the greatest mating success. Taken together, individuals that showed lateralization benefited from avoiding being targeted after third-party intervention; conversely, individuals that showed little evidence for lateralization actively intervened during ongoing fights and had higher mating success. These results suggest that, although lateralization does appear to confer a fitness advantage on individuals, this is not as extensive as anticipated.
|
|
|
|
Jennings, D. J., Carlin, C. M., & Gammell, M. P. (2009). A winner effect supports third-party intervention behaviour during fallow deer, Dama dama, fights. Anim. Behav., 77(2), 343–348.
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.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., Schneider, G., Flauger, B., & Heinze, J. (2015). Context-dependent third-party intervention in agonistic encounters of male Przewalski horses. Behav. Process., 121, 54–62.
Abstract: Abstract One mechanism to resolve conflict among group members is third party intervention, for which several functions, such as kin protection, alliance formation, and the promotion of group cohesion have been proposed. Still, empirical research on the function of intervention behaviour is rare. We studied 40 cases of intervention behaviour in a field study on 13 semi-wild bachelor horses (Equus ferus przewalskii) in (a) standard social situations, and (b) when new horses joined the group (i.e. introductions). Only interventions in agonistic encounters were analysed. Eight of 13 animals directed intervention behaviour toward threatening animal in agonistic encounters of group members. One stallion was particularly active. The stallions did not intervene to support former group mates or kin and interventions were not reciprocated. In introduction situations and in standard social situations, the interveners supported animals which were lower in rank, but targeted, threatening animals of comparable social rank. After introductions, stallions received more affiliative behaviour from animals they supported and thus appeared to intervene for alliance formation. In standard social situations, interveners did not receive more affiliative behaviour from animals they supported and may primarily have intervened to promote group cohesion and to reduce social disruption within the group.
|
|
|
|
Schneider, G., & Krueger, K. (2012). Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others. Anim. Behav., 83(2), 377–387.
Abstract: Third-party interventions are defined as the interruption of dyadic interactions by third animals through direct physical contact, interposing or threats. Previous studies focused on the analysis of interventions against agonistic encounters. However, there have been no evaluations of interventions against affiliative behaviours, particularly in relation to the intervening animal�s social relationships and its social and spatial position. Horses, Equus caballus, are an interesting model species, as interventions against affiliative interactions occur more frequently than against agonistic interactions. In this study, 64 feral horses displayed 67 interventions in affiliative interactions and eight interventions in agonistic interactions within the observation period. We analysed the interventions in affiliative encounters, and found that it was mainly higher-ranking females that intervened in the affiliative interactions of group mates in the stable horse harems. The intervening animals took an active part in affiliative and agonistic encounters within the group, but did not occupy particular social roles or spatial positions. They intervened in affiliative interactions in which group mates with which they had social bonds interacted with other members of the group. They targeted the nonbonded animal and approached the one with which they were socially bonded. We suggest some species use third-party interventions in affiliative interactions to prevent competition for preferred social interaction partners from escalating into more costly agonistic encounters.
|
|
|
|
Ward, C., Trisko, R., & Smuts, B. B. (2009). Third-party interventions in dyadic play between littermates of domestic dogs, Canis lupus familiaris. Anim. Behav., 78(5), 1153–1160.
Abstract: Interventions occur when animals interfere in competitive interactions between two or more individuals. Interveners can alter the nature of the ongoing interaction by targeting one party (attacking, biting) and supporting the other. Three theories have been proposed to account for intervention behaviour: kin selection, reciprocity and direct benefits. The kin selection hypothesis predicts that interveners will selectively support relatives over nonrelatives; the reciprocity hypothesis predicts that when intervener [`]A' supports individual [`]B', later [`]B' will intervene and support [`]A'; and the direct benefits hypothesis predicts that target/support patterns should serve the immediate interests of the intervener. We tested the reciprocity and direct benefits hypotheses by exploring third-party interventions in play fighting among littermates of domestic dogs. Interveners in dyadic play did not preferentially target or support preferred playmates of the intervener. Interveners targeted the dog in the losing role at the time of the intervention, and they did not show reciprocity in support. Taken together, these last two findings suggest that littermates benefit directly and use interventions opportunistically to practise offence behaviours directed at littermates already behaving subordinately. Opportunities to practise targeting in a playful setting may help structure dominance relationships among littermates. Additionally, the tendency for puppies to do what the other is doing (target the dog in the losing role) may pave the way for synchronizing cooperative behaviours during group hunting and territorial defence. The types of behaviours used to intervene changed over development, but the outcome following an intervention remained stable.
|
|
