Extrinsic Effects and Models of Dominance Hierarchy Formation

2011 ◽  
pp. 203-213
Author(s):  
Matthew Druen ◽  
Lee Alan Dugatkin
2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 614-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Alan Dugatkin ◽  
Aaron David Dugatkin

We examined the impact of winner and loser effects on dominance hierarchy formation when individuals are capable of estimating their opponent's resource holding power (RHP). The accuracy of such estimates was a variable in our simulations, and we considered cases in which all individuals err within the same bounds, as well as cases in which some individuals consistently overestimate, while others consistently underestimate their opponent's fighting RHP. In all cases, we found a clearly defined linear hierarchy. In most simulations, the vast majority of interactions were ‘attack–retreats’, and the remainder of interactions were almost all ‘fights’. Error rates had no effect on the linearity of the hierarchy or the basic attack–retreat nature of interactions, and consistent over and underestimation did not affect the ultimate position of an individual in a hierarchy.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Tibbetts ◽  
Juanita Pardo-Sanchez ◽  
Chloe Weise

Animal groups are often organized hierarchically, with dominant individuals gaining priority access to resources and reproduction over subordinate individuals. Initial dominance hierarchy formation may be influenced by multiple interacting factors, including an animal's individual attributes, conventions and self-organizing social dynamics. After establishment, hierarchies are typically maintained over the long-term because individuals save time, energy and reduce the risk of injury by recognizing and abiding by established dominance relationships. A separate set of behaviours are used to maintain dominance relationships within groups, including behaviours that stabilize ranks (punishment, threats, behavioural asymmetry), as well as signals that provide information about dominance rank (individual identity signals, signals of dominance). In this review, we describe the behaviours used to establish and maintain dominance hierarchies across different taxa and types of societies. We also review opportunities for future research including: testing how self-organizing behavioural dynamics interact with other factors to mediate dominance hierarchy formation, measuring the long-term stability of social hierarchies and the factors that disrupt hierarchy stability, incorporating phenotypic plasticity into our understanding of the behavioural dynamics of hierarchies and considering how cognition coevolves with the behaviours used to establish and maintain hierarchies. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.


1999 ◽  
Vol 202 (24) ◽  
pp. 3497-3506 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.A. Issa ◽  
D.J. Adamson ◽  
D.H. Edwards

The formation of social dominance hierarchies was studied in groups of five juvenile crayfish, 1.3-1.8 cm in length. Animals were grouped together in a small, featureless aquarium after having lived in isolation for more than a month. The occurrence of each of four behavior patterns (‘attack’, ‘approach’, ‘retreat’ and ‘escape’) was recorded for each animal, together with the frequency of encounters and the frequency of wins and losses. The frequencies of wins and losses were used to calculate the relative dominance value of each animal in the group. High levels of fighting developed immediately upon grouping the animals, and a positive feedback relationship between attacking and winning enabled one animal in each group to emerge quickly as the superdominant. If that animal was the largest, it remained as the superdominant; otherwise, it was replaced as superdominant within the first few days by the largest animal. This form of dominance hierarchy, with one superdominant and four subordinates, persisted throughout the duration of the grouping. Fighting declined over the first hour and by 24 h had dropped to low levels. After the first day, approaches were used together with attacks, and retreats replaced escapes. Attack and approach were the behavior patterns displayed most frequently by animals with high dominance values, whereas retreat and escape were performed by animals of low dominance. All these trends continued to develop over the next 2 weeks as the number of agonistic encounters declined to a low level.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document