1991
DOI: 10.1007/bf00164289
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Armed sibling rivalry among suckling piglets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
60
0
4

Year Published

1995
1995
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
3
60
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Less attention has been paid to the fact that maternal effects can enhance reproductive value at the brood level by providing an efficient mechanism for mothers to adjust brood size to current food conditions, because food availability is often unpredictable. Throughout the animal and plant kingdom, parents chronically overproduce young, engendering sibling rivalry when young share limited space and resources (e.g., parasitoid wasps [Pexton and Mayhew 2002], damselfly larvae [Anholt 1994]; cleistogamous grass [Cheplick 1992]; piglets [Fraser and Thompson 1991]; see also Mock and Parker 1997). Surplus young can provide extra reproductive value in years when resources are plentiful or can serve as replacement units when other progeny fail (Mock and Parker 1997).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Less attention has been paid to the fact that maternal effects can enhance reproductive value at the brood level by providing an efficient mechanism for mothers to adjust brood size to current food conditions, because food availability is often unpredictable. Throughout the animal and plant kingdom, parents chronically overproduce young, engendering sibling rivalry when young share limited space and resources (e.g., parasitoid wasps [Pexton and Mayhew 2002], damselfly larvae [Anholt 1994]; cleistogamous grass [Cheplick 1992]; piglets [Fraser and Thompson 1991]; see also Mock and Parker 1997). Surplus young can provide extra reproductive value in years when resources are plentiful or can serve as replacement units when other progeny fail (Mock and Parker 1997).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dominants that selfishly consume the largest share of food provided by parents can benefit from increased growth and survival, whereas subordinates may suffer reduced growth and survival [3,4]. Theoretically, siblings should avoid escalated conflicts by adhering to dominance conventions based on differences in resource-holding power, unless the benefits outweigh their costs [5,6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, they may obtain benefits from each other's presence such as a more favorable thermal environment (Alberts, 1978;Sokoloff & Blumberg, 2001) or enhanced sensorimotor stimulation (Alberts & Cramer, 1988). In the study of sibling interactions, considerable attention has been given to competition, particularly in birds (Drummond, 2001;Mock, Drummond, & Stinson, 1990;Mock & Parker, 1997), but also increasingly in mammals (Drummond, Vázquez, Sánchez-Colón, Martínez-Gómez & Hudson, 2000;Frank, Glickman, & Licht, 1991;Fraser & Thompson, 1991;Hartsock & Graves, 1976;Mock & Parker, 1997;in humans, Sulloway, 1996; but see Solomon & French, 1997, for evidence of sibling cooperation).…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%