Pectoral fin contact as a mechanism for social bonding among dolphins

Dudzinski, Kathleen M.; Ribic, Christine A.

doi:10.12966/abc.03.02.2017

Cited by 30 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(106 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Testing a number of possible hypotheses, Dudzinski and her colleagues concluded that pectoral fin contact was used to mediate existing relationships in both natural and managed care settings for bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops spp. and Atlantic spotted dolphins, Stenella frontalis (Dudzinski et al, 2012;Dudzinski et al, 2010;Dudzinski & Ribic, 2017). These conclusions supported earlier observations of contact between wild Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (T. aduncus, Sakai, Hishii, Takeda, & Kohshima, 2006a) and contact by captive dolphins following aggressive bouts (Tamaki, Morisaka, & Taki, 2006) in which subsequent pectoral fin contact appeared to function as a reconciliation tool, much like grooming in primates (Hemelrijk, & Ek, 1991).…”

supporting

confidence: 80%

“…Using these variables, she compared several populations, finding only a few differences between different wild populations and no differences between wild and captive dolphin groups in the way any two dolphin dyads share pectoral fin contact (Dudzinski, Danager-Garcia, & Gregg, 2013;Dudzinski et al, 2010;Dudzinski et al, 2009). The latest research has indicated that pectoral fin contact appears to be used to establish and then maintain specific relationships between dolphins occurring most frequently between unrelated animals (Dudzinski & Ribic, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodological Considerations for Comparison of Cross-species Use of Tactile Contact

Dudzinski¹,

Heather²,

Botero³

2019

IJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-species comparisons are benefited by compatible datasets; conclusions related to phylogenetic comparisons, questions on convergent and divergent evolution, or homologs versus analogs can only be made when the behaviors being measured are comparable. A direct comparison of the social function of physical contact across two disparate taxa is possible only if data collection and analyses methodologies are analogous. We identify and discuss the parameters, assumptions and measurement schemes applicable to multiple taxa and species that facilitate cross-species comparisons. To illustrate our proposed guidelines for evaluating the role played by tactile contact in social behavior across disparate taxa, this paper presents data on mother-offspring relationships in the two species studied by the authors: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) and dolphins (bottlenose and spotted, Tursiops truncatus and Stenella frontalis, respectively). Cross-species comparative studies allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the similarities and differences with respect to how animals traverse the relationships that form their social groups and societies.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 80%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Considerations for Comparison of Cross-species Use of Tactile Contact

Dudzinski¹,

Heather²,

Botero³

2019

IJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, dusky dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus obscurus) leap out of the water while traveling, presumably for its efficiency (Deutsch, Pearson, & Würsig, ; Pearson, ). In other dolphin species (e.g., Tursiops spp., Stenella frontalis ), pectoral fin contact in both wild and managed populations has been documented systematically as a special type of contact that functions in both bond formation and reconciliation (Tamaki, Morisaka, & Taki, ; Dudzinski & Ribic, ). Many odontocetes display mouthing, which can consist of severe (aggressive) or gentle (affiliative) contact in which the skin may (e.g., deep rake marks vs. surface only rake marks) or may not be damaged and is directed to a particular body area of the receiving animal by the initiating individual (Figure , Dudzinski, ; Herman & Tavolga, ; Holobinko & Waring, ; Shane, Wells, & Wϋrsig, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary observations of an unusual mouth interaction between beluga calves (Delphinapterus leucas)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many animals, including odontocetes, exhibit interactions involving mouths (e.g., mouthing, nuzzling, biting), a limited number of animals display mouth‐to‐mouth social interactions that involve mutual coordination and collaboration. The purpose of this paper is to describe briefly a spontaneous and unexpected mouth‐to‐mouth social interaction between beluga calves in human care during their first year of life. Forty‐seven independent events were identified after event sampling from more than 345 hr of observations of four mother‐calf pairs and their companions. Unique aspects of this behavior included early emergence presumably without the benefit of a model and a preference for similar aged partners. Adult belugas did not display this social interaction. Based on its early emergence, the presence of similar‐aged partner preferences, and affiliative cooperative contexts, this unusual mouth‐to‐mouth social interaction may play a significant role in beluga social and physical development. To evaluate this possibility, additional research is needed in which the complete topography, possible functions, and potential outcomes associated with this rare but conspicuous behavior exhibited by beluga calves are assessed.

show abstract

“…Three types of affiliative behaviors (rubbing, contact swimming, and synchronized swimming) were observed in bystander affiliations. These behaviors have also been reported in non post-conflict situation, and these affiliations may function in the formation of social bond [34][35][36] . In addition, each affiliative behavior may show different functions depending on the situation or sex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Functions of post-conflict bystander affiliations toward aggressors and victims in bottlenose dolphins

Yamamoto

Ishibashi²,

Kashiwagi

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-conflict affiliations initiated by bystanders (bystander affiliation) toward aggressors or victims have been suggested to represent the function of conflict management in some social living species. However, the function of bystander affiliations toward aggressors and victims has not been examined in marine mammals. In the present study, we investigated the function of bystander affiliations to aggressors and victims in bottlenose dolphins: self-protection, the substitute of reconciliation, social facilitation and tension relief of opponents. These bystander affiliations did not reduce post-conflict attacks by former opponents against group members. Bystander affiliation to aggressors tended to be performed by a bystander who had an affiliative relationship with the aggressor but not with the victim. Bystander affiliation to victims also tended to be initiated by a bystander who had an affiliative relationship with the victim but not the aggressor and was close to former opponents at the end of aggressions. Affiliation among group members who stayed near former opponents during aggressions did not increase after aggressions compared to that under control conditions. Renewed aggressions between former opponents decreased after bystander affiliations in our previous study. Bystanders who showed social closeness to former opponents may initiate bystander affiliation toward their affiliative former opponents because they may feel emotion, such as anxiety and excitement, of former opponents. Bystander affiliation toward aggressors and victims may function as tension relief between former opponents. Bystanders of bottlenose dolphins, who may have a relaxed dominant style, might initiate post-conflict affiliation to affiliative individuals unaffected by the dominance relationships among them, unlike despotic species. Animals which live in social groups often experience aggression. Aggression involves various costs, such as damage to social relationships, increasing the stress, increasing risk of receiving attack, the use of time and energy and risk of injury. Strategies that reduce aggression costs, called conflict management, include post-conflict affiliation between former opponents and post-conflict affiliation initiated by bystanders toward former opponents 1. In several primates and non-primates, post-conflict affiliation is sometimes offered to former opponents by bystanders who do not participate in aggression 1. A key area of research is focused the function of post-conflict affiliation initiated by bystanders 2,3 , with several possible function being suggested for bystander affiliations in several animals. The first possible function is self-protection by bystanders. Bystanders are likely to be attacked by aggressors and victims after the original aggressions 4-6. The probability of receiving post-conflict attacks from former opponents decreased when bystander affiliation occurred 7-11. In contrast, self-protection from attack by a victim toward group members was not supported in Barbary macaques (Macaca ...

show abstract

Pectoral fin contact as a mechanism for social bonding among dolphins

Cited by 30 publications

References 68 publications

Methodological Considerations for Comparison of Cross-species Use of Tactile Contact

Methodological Considerations for Comparison of Cross-species Use of Tactile Contact

Preliminary observations of an unusual mouth interaction between beluga calves (Delphinapterus leucas)

Functions of post-conflict bystander affiliations toward aggressors and victims in bottlenose dolphins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About