Third-party intervention behaviour during fallow deer fights: the role of dominance, age, fighting and body size

Jennings, Dómhnall J.; Carlin, Caitrı́ona M.; Hayden, Thomas J.; Gammell, Martin P.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.007

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As yet, the most direct evidence for the benefits of rank-changing coalitions was provided in two studies of Assamese macaque and chimpanzee males, where coalitionary aggression increased a male's chances of ascending in rank, which in turn was associated with increased reproductive success Gilby et al, 2013). Similarly, fight intervention was associated with an increase in rank early in the rut and accounted for increased mating success in male fallow deer (Jennings et al, 2011).…”

Section: Improving Dominance Rankmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coalitions and alliances are ubiquitous in humans and many other mammals, being part of the fabric of complex social systems. Field biologists and ethologists have accumulated a vast amount of data on coalition and alliance formation, while theoretical biologists have developed modelling approaches. With the accumulation of empirical data and sophisticated theory, we are now potentially able to answer a host of questions about how coalitions emerge and are maintained in a population over time, and how the psychology of this type of cooperation evolved. Progress can only be achieved, however, by effectively bridging the communication gap that currently exists between Coalitions in theory and reality empiricists and theoreticians. In this paper, we aim to do so by asking three questions: (1) What are the primary questions addressed by theoreticians interested in coalition formation, and what are the main building blocks of their models? (2) Do empirical observations support the assumptions of current models, and if not, how can we improve this situation? (3) Has theoretical work led to a better understanding of coalition formation, and what are the most profitable lines of inquiry for the future? Our overarching goal is to promote the integration of theoretical and field biology by motivating empirical scientists to collect data on aspects of coalition formation that are currently poorly quantified and to encourage theoreticians to develop a comprehensive theory of coalition formation that is testable under real-world conditions.

show abstract

Section: Improving Dominance Rankmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Bissonnette

Perry

Barrett

et al. 2015

Behav

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(raven, jackdaw, rook, Jungle crow ( Corvus macrochynchos ); Pigeon ( Columba livia )[6, 179, 182, 186]BPGreylag goose[187]Keeping track and deducing unknown relationships (transitive inference)MARhesus macaque; Black lemur ( Eulemur macaco) , Common brown lemur ( E. fulvus ); House mouse[304–306]MPHorse[185]BAvarious Corvid specs. (Pinyon jay ( Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus ), Clark’s nutcracker ( Nucifraga columbiana ), Azure-winged magpie ( Cyanopica cyanus ), Western scrub jay ( Aphelocoma californica )); Pigeon[193, 307–309]BPChicken, Greylag goose[310–312]3 rd party recognitionMAPrimates – Review; Chimpanzee; Spotted hyena; Meerkat: domestic Dog ( Canis lupus familiaris )[140, 258, 259, 273, 313–315]MPFallow deer; Przewalski horse ( Equus ferus przewalskii )[316, 317]BAvarious Corvid specs. (raven, rook)[112, 278]BPGreylag goose[261, 318]Social learningMAMeerkat[59, 202, 319]MPAfrican elephant; Thornicoft’s giraffe ( Giraffa camelopardalis thornicrofti ); various Cetaceans – Review; Domestic pig[196–198, 320, 321]BAvarious species – Review; Pigeon; King penguin ( Aptenodytes patagonicus )[199–…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of the altricial – precocial spectrum for social complexity in mammals and birds – a review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various types of long-term stable relationships that individuals uphold, including cooperation and competition between group members, define social complexity in vertebrates. Numerous life history, physiological and cognitive traits have been shown to affect, or to be affected by, such social relationships. As such, differences in developmental modes, i.e. the ‘altricial-precocial’ spectrum, may play an important role in understanding the interspecific variation in occurrence of social interactions, but to what extent this is the case is unclear because the role of the developmental mode has not been studied directly in across-species studies of sociality. In other words, although there are studies on the effects of developmental mode on brain size, on the effects of brain size on cognition, and on the effects of cognition on social complexity, there are no studies directly investigating the link between developmental mode and social complexity. This is surprising because developmental differences play a significant role in the evolution of, for example, brain size, which is in turn considered an essential building block with respect to social complexity. Here, we compiled an overview of studies on various aspects of the complexity of social systems in altricial and precocial mammals and birds. Although systematic studies are scarce and do not allow for a quantitative comparison, we show that several forms of social relationships and cognitive abilities occur in species along the entire developmental spectrum. Based on the existing evidence it seems that differences in developmental modes play a minor role in whether or not individuals or species are able to meet the cognitive capabilities and requirements for maintaining complex social relationships. Given the scarcity of comparative studies and potential subtle differences, however, we suggest that future studies should consider developmental differences to determine whether our finding is general or whether some of the vast variation in social complexity across species can be explained by developmental mode. This would allow a more detailed assessment of the relative importance of developmental mode in the evolution of vertebrate social systems.

show abstract

“…For example, male fallow deer ( Dama dama ) with high coalition rates mated more often than expected for their rank (Jennings et al 2011). This was also observed for frequent supporters of the alpha male chimpanzee of the Kanyawara community in Kibale National Park, Uganda (Duffy et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitness benefits of coalitionary aggression in male chimpanzees

Gilby

Brent

Wroblewski

et al. 2012

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

242

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coalitionary aggression occurs when at least two individuals jointly direct aggression at one or more conspecific targets. Scientists have long argued that this common form of cooperation has positive fitness consequences. Nevertheless, despite evidence that social bond strength (which is thought to promote coalition formation) is correlated with fitness in primates, cetaceans, and ungulates, few studies have directly examined whether coalitionary aggression improves reproductive success. We tested the hypothesis that among free-ranging chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii), participation in coalitionary aggression increases reproductive output. Using 14 years of genetic and behavioral data from Gombe National Park, Tanzania, we found that coalitionary aggression increased a male’s chances of A) siring offspring, compared to other males of similar dominance rank, and B) ascending in rank, a correlate of future reproductive output. Because male chimpanzees form coalitions with many others within a complex network, we used social network analysis to identify the types of connections correlated with these fitness benefits. The beneficiaries of coalitionary aggression were males with the highest ‘betweenness’ – that is, those who tended to have coalition partners who themselves did not form coalitions with each other. This suggests that beyond simply recognizing third-party relationships, chimpanzees may use this knowledge to choose coalition partners. If so, this is a significant step forward in our knowledge of the adaptive value of social intelligence. Regardless of mechanism, however, this is the first evidence of genetic benefits of coalitionary aggression in this species, and therefore has important implications for understanding the evolution of cooperation.

show abstract

Third-party intervention behaviour during fallow deer fights: the role of dominance, age, fighting and body size

Cited by 27 publications

References 45 publications

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes

The importance of the altricial – precocial spectrum for social complexity in mammals and birds – a review

Fitness benefits of coalitionary aggression in male chimpanzees

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About