scholarly journals Testing the myth: tolerant dogs and aggressive wolves

2015 ◽  
Vol 282 (1807) ◽  
pp. 20150220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friederike Range ◽  
Caroline Ritter ◽  
Zsófia Virányi
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Emotional Reactivity ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Food Competition ◽  
Similar Extent ◽  
High Ranking

Cooperation is thought to be highly dependent on tolerance. For example, it has been suggested that dog–human cooperation has been enabled by selecting dogs for increased tolerance and reduced aggression during the course of domestication (‘emotional reactivity hypothesis’). However, based on observations of social interactions among members of captive packs, a few dog–wolf comparisons found contradictory results. In this study, we compared intraspecies aggression and tolerance of dogs and wolves raised and kept under identical conditions by investigating their agonistic behaviours and cofeeding during pair-wise food competition tests, a situation that has been directly linked to cooperation. We found that in wolves, dominant and subordinate members of the dyads monopolized the food and showed agonistic behaviours to a similar extent, whereas in dogs these behaviours were privileges of the high-ranking individuals. The fact that subordinate dogs rarely challenged their higher-ranking partners suggests a steeper dominance hierarchy in dogs than in wolves. Finally, wolves as well as dogs showed only rare and weak aggression towards each other. Therefore, we suggest that wolves are sufficiently tolerant to enable wolf–wolf cooperation, which in turn might have been the basis for the evolution of dog–human cooperation (canine cooperation hypothesis).

Dominance relations and agonistic behaviour of Tundra Swans (Cygnus columbianus columbianus) during fall and spring migration

2003 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 727-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon S Badzinski
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Agonistic Behaviour ◽  
Social Environments ◽  
Group Status ◽  
Cygnus Columbianus ◽  
Dominance Relations ◽  
Low Intensity ◽  
Simple Decision Rule

Social interactions and agonistic activities of Tundra Swans (Cygnus columbianus columbianus) were documented at Long Point, Ontario, to determine (i) dominance relations among social groups and (ii) the frequency and intensity of agonistic acts by swans. Families were involved in one-third as many interactions as were nonfamily groups. Nonfamily groups initiated interactions with other nonfamily groups more often than they did with family groups, but families initiated the same relative numbers of interactions with family and nonfamily groups. Further, families won nearly all conflicts with nonfamily groups, which suggests that they generally dominated nonfamily groups. Tundra Swans also showed a dominance hierarchy based largely on family or group size. To reduce conflict and energy expenditure, swans may use a simple "decision rule" during interactions: larger groups and initiators win. Two results supported this: (1) swans initiated interactions more often with smaller groups and (2) groups that initiated won interactions more often than did recipients. Swans used low-intensity agonistic acts more frequently than higher intensity ones when engaging members of other social groups, but intensity of aggression was independent of group status. Dominance based on the use of simple cues may be especially beneficial in unstable social environments at major staging areas.

Social interaction in males of the Amazon river prawn Macrobrachium amazonicum (Heller, 1862) (Decapoda, Palaemonidae)

Crustaceana ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-341
Author(s):  
Adriana N. A. F. Ibrahim ◽  
Ilan Karplus ◽  
Wagner C. Valenti
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Size Variation ◽  
Large Size ◽  
The Social ◽  
Complex Population ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Macrobrachium Amazonicum ◽  
Survival And Growth

Abstract The large size variation of Macrobrachium amazonicum reflects a complex population structure that consists of four morphotypes, called TC (Translucent Claw), CC (Cinnamon Claw), GC1 (Green Claw 1), and GC2 (Green Claw 2). The effect of the largest morphotype (GC2) claws on development and behaviour of the smallest male morphotype (TC) was analysed through manipulations of the large prawn’s second pair of claws. TC males were paired for 75 days in aquaria with (a) an intact GC2, (b) a GC2 with immobilized dactyls, and (c) a GC2 without chelipeds. Isolated TC males served as a control. The maintenance activities of TC males and social interactions with the GC2 morphotype were monitored. Survival and growth of TC males was lower in relation to the control when they were paired with intact GC2 males. Aggressive interactions were carried out almost exclusively by GC2 and strongly affected the behaviour of the small prawns. The absence of chelipeds and immobilization of dactyls in GC2 prawns reduced the negative effect on the development of TC males and agonistic behaviour. The social interactions between GC2 and TC prawns reflect a stable dominance hierarchy. The large claw of the GC2 morphotype plays a major role in the social interaction.

The Behavior of the Male Antilope Cervicapra L., Its Development According To Age and Social Rank

Behaviour ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 76 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 62-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
François Feer ◽  
Gérard Dubost
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Qualitative Difference ◽  
The Other ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Large Individual ◽  
Courtship Display ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
In The Wild ◽  
Antilope Cervicapra

AbstractA population of Antilope cervicapra L. was studied from 1971 to 1976 in the park of Clères, north of Rouen (France). The animals range freely over an area of more than 6 ha, which seems similar to the habitat used by the species in the wild. The social behaviors of the ♂ ♂ blackbuck have been recorded and counted, according to the herd in which each animal lives, and his hierarchical rank. The population splits into a number of social units. Females and young are grouped into a herd that occupies the best grasslands. The strongest ♂ establishes a territory in this area, which he defends against other ♂ ♂ . The other adult or young ♂ ♂ form a bachelor herd that lives on a large grassland on the opposite end of the park. Certain times of day the highest ranking ♂ ♂ in the dominance hierarchy leave the bachelor herd and defend territories adjacent to the harem. The 9 9 sometimes pass through these territories. From time to time the hierarchy changes, and certain ♂ ♂ replace the territorial ♂ ♂ , which in turn rejoin the bachelor herd. Adjacent ♂ ♂ territories divide the 9 ♀ home range. Many threats and parallel displays take place on the borders between neighboring territories. The territorial limits are determined only by the ♂ with the smallest territory, regardless of the identity or strength of his neighbor. The number of territories grows regularly with the size of the harem. The blackbuck ♂ shows 6 different marking behaviors that mature as the animal grows. There is generally no qualitative difference in marking behavior between ♂ ♂ ; however the territorial ♂ performs a more complete urination-defecation sequence than the others and he only emits the barking. All ♂♂ have similar "Flehmen" display, but the α- ♂ shows it more often than other ♂ ♂, as do adults compared to young ♂ ♂ ; the urine of 9 9 releases "Flehmen" more often than that of ♂ ♂ . The courtship display is complex and requires maturation. Yearlings and two-year-old ♂ ♂ perform it indistinctly and direct it incompletely towards any conspecific. Adult ♂ ♂ perform the complete courtship display towards 9 9 , but there is much homosexual mounting. The α- ♂ directs sexual behaviors only towards 9 ♀. In A. cervicapra society, young ♂♂ with 9 -like appearance are often treated by adult ♂♂ as if they were 9 9 . The main type of play is play-sparring. There are 8 agonistic behaviors. In general these are directed towards animals of lower rank. The dominance display is a social agonistic display that develops progressively with age and is only complete in adults. It has the same form when directed towards either ♂ ♂ or 9 ♀. The main characteristic of the behavior of the blackbuck is the avoidance of physical contacts and the preponderance of visual gestures. There is no visible dominance hierarchy among harem 9 ♀ . The strongest ♂ lives with the 9 9 . All the other ♂ ♂ belonging to the bachelor troup are ordered in a linear hierarchy with occasional equal or triangular relationship. Sick or wounded ♂ ♂ may be temporarily outside of the hierarchy. The youngest ♂ ♂ are at the bottom of the hierarchy and only compete with adults at about 3 years of age, when they may also become territorial or harem ♂♂. The α- ♂ is not replaced by the strongest bachelor, but by a ♂ of middle rank. The β- ♂ never becomes α-♂, nor vice versa. Among bachelors there are two independent hierarchies: one leading to α status, and one to β, with no passage from one to the other. Individual ♂ ♂ belong to either one or the other category. Most harem ♂ ♂ are younger than other territorial ♂ ♂ . There is no difference in marking behavior between bachelors, but territorial ♂ ♂ are distinguished by more types of behavior, given more completely and more frequently. There are large individual differences in tendency to play, which is inversely related to the rank in the hierarchy: the α-♂ never plays. Each ♂ has 4 to 6 partners for play. Choice of partners depends directly on rank: high ranking ♂ ♂ (2-5) only play with much lower ranking individuals, thus exluding those in close competition in the hierarchy. Those in the lower half of the herd (6-11), in contrast, are unconstrained and play with partners of any rank. The agonistic behaviors are more often directed towards animals of lower but close rank. Among hornless or small-horned individuals ( 9 9 and young ♂ ♂) there are many encounters involving butting and sparring, but among older ♂ ♂ the more violent engagements involving physical contact are rare. There are large individual differences in agonistic behavior. In general the higher the rank, the more aggressive is the ♂. In contrast to play, each animal has aggressive encounters with all the others in the herd. There is non-random choice of partners, however: high ranking ♂♂ (2-6) most often threaten those of neighboring rank, while those at the bottom of the hierarchy (7 + below) most frequently engage with ♂♂ 5 ranks above them. We thus have a parallel system of aggression between the two halves of the hierarchy: ♂ 7 with ♂ 2, ♂ 8 with ♂ 3, etc... The sharp division of this herd into two halves according to partners for combat corresponds precisely with that seen in relation to play behavior. In the park of Clères, Antilope cervicapra shows a behavior and social organization identical to that of several African Bovidae of open spaces which have been studied in the wild.

Social Organization of Young Children's Groups: A Comparison of Two Models of Dominance Relations

1980 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 911-915 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G. Frankel ◽  
Tali Arbel
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Hierarchical Models ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Structural Characteristics ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Dominance Relations ◽  
Different Characteristics

The dominance hierarchy has provided a central construct for analyzing the organization of social interactions between young children. Hierarchies, though, constitute only one way of ordering dominance relations It is therefore possible that non-hierarchical orderings of dominance may suggest different characteristics of social organization. In the present study, dominance relations were evaluated with both hierarchical and non-hierarchical models. Across three groups of 2-yr.-olds, the hierarchical measure did not correlate with non-agonistic measures. The non-hierarchical measure of dominance relations, however, proved to be strongly correlated with the orderings for the non-agonistic behaviors. It was suggested that if dominance relations are used to evaluate social organization, the structural characteristics that may be attributed to a group of young children may depend upon the kind of measure that is used to analyze the dominance relations. Hierarchic and non-hierarchic measures of dominance relations may not imply identical properties of social organization.

Group Responses To Specially Skilled Individuals in a Macaca Fascicularis Group

Behaviour ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 107 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 241-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduard Stammbach
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Macaca Fascicularis ◽  
Social Position ◽  
Spatial Proximity ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
The Social ◽  
Lower Ranking ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Two Phases

The aim of this study was to investigate the capability of monkeys to assess special characteristics in conspecifics. In a first phase I ascertained that all members of a colony of longtailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) were able to attain food by manipulating a one lever apparatus, thus introducing the "tradition" of lever pulling. Then, experiments were carried out on subgroups of the colony where only one of the lower ranking subgroup members was trained to succeed in a more complex task where three levers had to be pulled in a correct sequence. Eight specialists were established in sequence. These specialists became food producers for themselves and for the other group members. Each trial of a specialist's series was carried out in two phases. In the first, the food phase, the food dispensing apparatus was active and responses of other subgroup members to the food producing specialist were observed. In the second, the social phase, the apparatus remained inactive and observations focused on social interactions of the subgroup. As expected, primarily high ranking subgroup members attempted to participate in the food rewards gained by the specialist. It is shown that high ranking animals began to hold back their initial chasing of the specialist from the food site in course of the trials and were soon tolerated to sit near the subordinate food producer. Furthermore, some of the non-specialists began to follow or even to pass the specialist when he was approaching the apparatus to manipulate the levers. These non-specialists thus indicated that they were able to anticipate later actions. In seven out of 55 specialist-non-specialist relationships all predicted changes in social interactions occurred. In the majority of the dyads in which a change in social affiliation was registered an increase of grooming or spatial proximity was positively correlated with the amount of benefit gained from the specialist. In the social phase of the trials the non-specialists gave more grooming to the food producers and maintained spatial proximity even in this second phase. To conclude: At least some of the group members became aware of the skills of the specialists and adapted their behaviour accordingly as if to maximize benefits from their skills. Previous studies had already suggested that monkeys know about social position, social relationships and kinship of group members. This study adds a new aspect of knowledge, namely knowledge on capabilities and skills of others. Differential knowledge allows monkeys to select partners optimally according to their skills and social position.

scholarly journals The influence of the steepness of dominance hierarchies on reciprocity and interchange in captive groups of bonobos (Pan paniscus)

Behaviour ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 142 (7) ◽  
pp. 941-960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han de Vries ◽  
Jeroen M.G. Stevens ◽  
Linda Van Elsacker ◽  
Hilde Vervaecke
Keyword(s):  
Side Effect ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Pan Paniscus ◽  
Food Sharing ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Dominance Hierarchies ◽  
Market Models ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Biological Market

AbstractBiological market models explain variability in reciprocity and interchange between groups. In groups with a shallow dominance gradient, grooming will be mostly exchanged for itself (i.e. exchange will occur). In groups with steep dominance hierarchies, interchange is expected: individuals will groom higher ranking individuals to get access to limited resources or commodities such as support in conflicts, and grooming will be traded for these commodities.We examine patterns of reciprocity in grooming and support, and of interchange of grooming for support or for tolerance in six captive groups of bonobos. We test whether differences between groups in patterns of reciprocity and interchange can be attributed to differences in a measure of steepness of dominance hierarchies, which is based on dyadic agonistic interactions.We found that grooming was reciprocal in some, but not all groups. Support was highly reciprocal, but this was a side effect of dominance in most groups. Interchange between grooming and support was observed in some groups. Corroborating earlier findings, this was a side effect of individuals preferring high ranking individuals as grooming and support partners, possibly because these high-ranking individuals provide more efficient support in conflicts. There was no evidence for interchange of grooming for tolerance.Variability in grooming reciprocity was explained by differences in steepness of dominance hierarchies, as predicted by the biological market models. In groups with a shallow dominance hierarchy, grooming was more reciprocal. This was not true for reciprocity in support. There was some evidence that individuals groomed dominants more frequently in groups with a steep dominance hierarchy. The variation in interchange relations between grooming and support did not depend on the steepness of dominance hierarchies. We suggest that grooming in itself is a valuable commodity in bonobos, especially under captive conditions, which can be exchanged reciprocally. Bonobos may interchange grooming for another value equivalent, with food sharing as a very likely candidate. This interchange effects seem more dependent on potential to monopolise food than on steepness of dominance hierarchies per se.

scholarly journals Cortical dynamics underlying social behavior in dominance hierarchy and spatial navigation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Lara-Vasquez ◽  
Nelson Espinosa ◽  
Cristian Morales ◽  
Constanza Moran ◽  
Pablo Billeke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Context ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Collective Behavior ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Behavioral Performance ◽  
Social Ranking ◽  
Cortical Dynamics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Connectivity Patterns

AbstractRodents establish dominance hierarchy as a social ranking system in which one subject acts as dominant over all the other subordinate individuals. Dominance hierarchy regulates food access and mating opportunities, but little is known of its significance in collective behavior, for instance during navigation for foraging or migration. Here, we implemented a simplified goal-directed spatial navigation task in mice and found that the social context exerts significant influence on individual decision-making, even when efficient navigation rules leading to reward had been previously learned. Thus, decision-making and consequent task performance were strongly dependent on contingent social interactions arising during collective navigation, yet their influence on individual behavior was outlined by dominance hierarchy. Dominant animals did not behave as leaders during navigation; conversely, they were most sensitive to social context. Social ranking in turn was reflected in the neural activity and connectivity patterns of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, both in anesthetized and behaving mice. These results suggest that the interplay between contingent social interactions and dominance hierarchy can regulate behavioral performance, supported by the intrinsic matrix of coordinated activity in the hippocampal-prefrontal circuit.Significance StatementDecision-making is shaped by intrinsic features, such as memory-stored information, and external influences, such as social interactions, yet their interplay is not well understood. We studied decision-making during collective behavior and found that instead of prioritizing memory-based pertinent information, mice shifted their individual decisions according to contingent social interactions arising in the social context. Conversely, constitutive social interactions, such as dominance hierarchy, were relevant to outline the effect of the social environment on individual behavior. Our results suggest that intrinsic hippocampal-cortical activity and connectivity patterns define social interactions. Hence, intrinsic cortical dynamics underlie behavioral performance during social decision-making.

Structure and Causation of the Dominance Hierarchy in a Flock of Bar-Headed Geese (Anser Indicus)

Behaviour ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 96 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 28-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
JÜRG Lamprecht
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Social Classes ◽  
Structure Stability ◽  
Minor Importance ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Fledging Success ◽  
The Social ◽  
Anser Indicus ◽  
Social Units

AbstractIn a flock of tame, free-flying bar-headed geese (Anser indicus) the structure, stability and causes of the dominance hierarchy among different types of social units were studied. 1. In accordance with field results of other authors, families proved dominant over pairs, pairs over unpaired birds, and single males dominated single females. Single females with young ranked between families and pairs in this study, and lone breeding males whose females were incubating ranked between pairs and unpaired individuals. Contrary to some field studies, no rank differences were found between different-sized families. 2. The dominance value of pairs in winter correlated with subsequent fledging success, and there was some casual evidence that high-ranking males are more likely to obtain a mate. This would result in relating high rank to families, medium rank to pairs and low rank to unpaired birds. Yet as temporarily leaving the mate was promptly followed by a drop in rank and successful breeding by a rise in rank, the social context seems a major cause, and only to a minor extent a consequence of dominance rank. 3. Age correlated more strongly with a pair's rank in winter than weight, tarsus length and upper beak length. Rank in summer correlated highly with rank in the following winter. A positive feedback system age - dominance - fledging success-higher dominance-fledging success' is suggested which could account for the 'delayed breeding' common in geese and swans. 4. In pairs or families male age correlated more strongly than female age with winter dominance. Most opponents were displayed by the male alone, and only the male of a pair got involved in highest intensity aggression (wing-beat fighting). The widowed female of one high-ranking pair was low-ranking in subsequent years when paired with a young low-ranking male. The evidence suggests that the gander alone determines a family's or pair's rank. 5. There was no indication of a positive co-operative effect achieved by joint aggression. Comparison of frequencies of aggressive acts and postures between birds in different social contexts suggested that the presence of the mate and/or offspring increases fighting motivation, thus explaining the dependence of rank on the social context. 6. The stability of dyadic dominance relationships between social units was greater between than within social classes. The hierarchy of social classes can be explained by geese signalling their degree of fighting motivation to each other. Individual recognition of members of other social units seems of minor importance for the hierarchy even in this stable flock.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document