2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11538-015-0070-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling Dominance Hierarchies Under Winner and Loser Effects

Abstract: This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Abstract Animals that live in groups commonly form themselves into dominance hierarchies which are used to allocate important resources such as access to mating opportunities and food. In this paper we develop a model of dominance hierarchy formation based upon the concept of winner and loser effects using a simulation-based model, and consider the linearity of our hierarchy using existing and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

5
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Given the assumption that better nourished individuals outperform more poorly nourished competitors in future contests, positive feedback amplifies initial small differences in NS into a hierarchy where a few individuals monopolize nutrients, thereby gaining considerable fitness benefits. Similar mechanisms have been observed in animal dominance hierarchies arising from various types of non-nutritionally related conflicts, and are called “winner effects” (Dugatkin, 1997 ; Franz et al, 2015 ; Kura et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Given the assumption that better nourished individuals outperform more poorly nourished competitors in future contests, positive feedback amplifies initial small differences in NS into a hierarchy where a few individuals monopolize nutrients, thereby gaining considerable fitness benefits. Similar mechanisms have been observed in animal dominance hierarchies arising from various types of non-nutritionally related conflicts, and are called “winner effects” (Dugatkin, 1997 ; Franz et al, 2015 ; Kura et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…This is of course reasonable if all individuals are identical, or an opponent has been previously encountered. Otherwise, an individual would have to gauge an opponent's ability from appearance or behaviour; this may at least imply that there should be some error involved in making the assessment of the ability of a stranger (Dugatkin, 1997;Dugatkin and Dugatkin, 2007;Kura et al, 2015). As shown in Figure 9, different S 2 not only yields different behaviour of the Scrounger, but also different behaviour of the Producer.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In detail, the area of overlap O xy between probability distributions f x and f y with one intersection point only is determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance K xy between the associated distribution functions F x and F y ( figure 1 a ). If z ⋆ denotes the value where K xy =sup z | F x ( z )− F y ( z )| is realized, then it holds [ 28 ] 1 1 1
Figure 1. Illustration of ( a ) the area of overlap O xy between probability distributions f x and f y , and ( b ) the probability P ( y | z ) that transmission mode y (as opposed to x ) acted in the population to generate value z .
…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%