Advertisement

Social foraging and dominance relationships: the effects of socially mediated interference

  • Sean A. Rands
  • Richard A. Pettifor
  • J. Marcus Rowcliffe
  • Guy Cowlishaw
Original Article

Abstract

In socially foraging animals, it is widely acknowledged that the position of an individual within the dominance hierarchy of the group has a large effect upon its foraging behaviour and energetic intake, where the intake of subordinates can be reduced through socially mediated interference. In this paper, we explore the effects of interference upon group dynamics and individual behaviour, using a spatially explicit individual-based model. Each individual follows a simple behavioural rule based upon its energetic reserves and the actions of its neighbours (where the rule is derived from game theory models). We show that dominant individuals should have larger energetic reserves than their subordinates, and the size of this difference increases when either food is scarce, the intensity of interference suffered by the subordinates increases, or the distance over which dominant individuals affect subordinates increases. Unlike previous models, the results presented in this paper about differences in reserves are not based upon prior assumptions of the effects of social hierarchy and energetic reserves upon predation risk, and emerge through nothing more than a reduction in energetic intake by the subordinates when dominants are present. Furthermore, we show that increasing interference intensity, food availability or the distance over which dominants have an effect also causes the difference in movement between ranks to increase (where subordinates move more than dominants), and the distance over which dominants have an effect changes the size of the groups that the different ranks are found in. These results are discussed in relation to previous studies of intra- and interspecific dominance hierarchies.

Keywords

State-dependent model Emergent properties Dominance hierarchies Social foraging Group behaviour 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Natural Environment Research Council research grant awarded to GC, RAP, JMR and Rufus Johnstone (University of Cambridge). GC is currently funded by a NERC Advanced Fellowship. SAR created the model in discussion with GC. SAR coded the simulations, conducted the statistical analysis, and was responsible for the initial draft of the manuscript. The authors thank Fredi Devas, Kavita Isvaran, Rufus Johnstone, Hanna Kokko, Ryan Earley and an anonymous referee for valuable discussion and comments.

References

  1. Anderson MJ (2001) Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:626–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett GM, Shimizu K, Bardi M, Asaba S, Mori A (2002) Endocrine correlates of rank, reproduction, and female-directed aggression in male Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Horm Behav 42:85–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barta Z, Giraldeau L-A (1998) The effect of dominance hierarchy on the use of alternative foraging tactics: a phenotype-limited producing-scrounging game. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bercovitch FB, Ziegler TE (2002) Current topics in primate socioendocrinology. Annu Rev Anthropol 31:45-67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bicca-Marques JC, Garber PA (2003) Experimental field study of the relative costs and benefits to wild tamarins (Saguinus imperator and S. fuscicollis) of exploiting contestable food patches as single- and mixed-species troops. Am J Primatol 60:139–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Black JM, Owen M (1989) Agonistic behaviour in barnacle goose flocks: assessment, investment and reproductive success. Anim Behav 37:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black JM, Carbone C, Wells RL, Owen M (1992) Foraging dynamics in goose flocks—the cost of living on the edge. Anim Behav 44:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryant DM, Newton AV (1994) Metabolic costs of dominance in dippers, Cinclus cinclus. Anim Behav 48:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan KL (2000) Stress and the evolution of condition-dependent signals. Trends Ecol Evol 15:156–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Caraco T, Barkan C, Beacham JL, Brisbin L, Lima S, Mohan A, Newman JA, Webb W, Withiam ML (1989) Dominance and social foraging: a laboratory study. Anim Behav 38:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark CW, Ekman J (1995) Dominant and subordinate fattening strategies: a dynamic game. Oikos 72:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark CW, Mangel M (2000) Dynamic state variable models in ecology: methods and applications. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Conradt L (1998) Could asynchrony in activity between the sexes cause intersexual social segregation in ruminants? Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1359–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Couzin ID, Krause J (2003) Self-organization and collective behavior in vertebrates. Adv Study Behav 32:1–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuthill IC, Houston AI (1997) Managing time and energy. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 97–120Google Scholar
  18. Dall SRX, Houston AI, McNamara JM (2004) The behavioural ecology of personality: consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective. Ecol Lett 7:734–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Datta SB (1992) Effects of availability of allies on female dominance structure. In: Harcourt AH (ed) Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Dugatkin LA (2001) Bystander effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav Ecol 12:348–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dugatkin LA, Earley RL (2003) Group fusion: the impact of winner, loser, and bystander effects on hierarchy formation in large groups. Behav Ecol 14:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunbar RIM (1992) Time—a hidden constraint on the behavioural ecology of baboons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ekman J (1987) Exposure and time use in willow tit flocks: the cost of subordination. Anim Behav 35:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ekman J (2004) Mass-dependence in the predation risk of unequal competitors; some models. Oikos 105:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ens BJ, Goss-Custard JD (1984) Interference among oystercatchers, Haematopus ostralegus, feeding on mussels, Mytilus edulis, on the Exe Estuary. J Anim Ecol 53:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. Goss-Custard JD (1980) Competition for food and interference among waders. Ardea 68:31–52Google Scholar
  28. Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG, Clarke RT, Durell SEAV, Sutherland WJ (1995a) Deriving population parameters from individual variations in foraging behaviour. I. Empirical game theory distribution model of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus feeding on mussels Mytilus edulis. J Anim Ecol 64:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG, Clarke RT, West AD (1995b) Deriving population parameters from individual variations in foraging behaviour. II. Model tests and population parameters. J Anim Ecol 64:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hay JM, Evans PR, Ward RM, Hamer KC (2004) Poor nutritional status as a consequence of high dominance status in the coal tit Parus ater. Ibis 146:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hemelrijk CK (1999) An individual-orientated model of the emergence of despotic and egalitarian societies. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hemelrijk CK (2000) Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure. Anim Behav 59:1035–1048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hemelrijk CK (2002a) Self-organizing properties of primate social behavior: a hypothesis for intersexual rank overlap in chimpanzees and bonobos. Evol Anthropol 1:91–94 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hemelrijk CK (2002b) Understanding social behaviour with the help of complexity science. Ethology 108:655–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hogstad O (1987) It is expensive to be dominant. Auk 104:333–336Google Scholar
  37. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1999) Models of adaptive behaviour: an approach based on state. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Houston AI, McNamara JM, Hutchinson JMC (1993) General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 341:375–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ihobe H (1989) How social relationships influence a monkey’s choice of feeding sites in the troop of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata fuscata). Primates 30:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Isbell LA, Pruetz JD, Lewis M, Young TP (1999) Rank differences in ecological behavior: a comparative study of patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) and vervets (Cercopithecus aethiops). Int J Primatol 20:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Lundborg K, Brodin A (2003) The effect of dominance rank on fat deposition and food hoarding in the willow tit Parus montanus—an experimental test. Ibis 145:78–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin JE, Edwards SA (1994) Feeding behaviour of outdoor sows: the effects of diet quantity and type. Appl Anim Behav Sci 41:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Metcalfe NB, Taylor AC, Thorpe JE (1995) Metabolic rate, social status and life history strategies in Atlantic salmon. Anim Behav 49:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Millikan GC, Gaddis P, Pulliam HR (1985) Interspecific dominance and the foraging behaviour of juncos. Anim Behav 33:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muller MN, Wrangham RW (2004) Dominance, cortisol and stress in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murton RK, Isaacson AJ, Westwood NJ (1966) The relationships between wood-pigeons and the clover food supply and the mechanism of population control. J Appl Ecol 3:55–93Google Scholar
  48. Murton RK, Isaacson AJ, Westwood NJ (1971) The significance of gregarious feeding behaviour and adrenal stress in a population of wood-pigeons Columba palumbus. J Zool (Lond) 165:53–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nakano S (1995) Individual differences in resource use, growth and emigration under the influence of a dominance hierarchy in fluvial red-spotted masu salmon in a natural habitat. J Anim Ecol 64:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paz-y-Miño CG, Bond AB, Kamil AC, Balda RP (2004) Pinyon jays use transitive interference to predict social dominance. Nature 430:778–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Peake TM, McGregor PK (2004) Information and aggression in fish. Learn Behav 32:114–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Peake TM, Terry AMR, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2002) Do great tits assess rivals by combining direct experience with information gathered by eavesdropping? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1925–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pettifor RA, Caldow RWG, Rowcliffe JM, Goss-Custard JD, Black JM, Hodder KH, Houston AI, Lang A, Webb J (2000) Spatially explicit, individual-based, behavioural models of the annual cycle of two migratory goose populations. J Appl Ecol (Suppl 1)37:103–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Development Core Team (2004) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  55. Rands SA, Cowlishaw G, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Johnstone RA (2003) The spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in a foraging pair. Nature 423:432–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Rands SA, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G (2004) State-dependent foraging rules for social animals in selfish herds. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2613–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Røskaft E, Järvi T, Bakken M, Bech C, Reinertsen RE (1986) The relationship between social status and resting metabolic rate in great tits (Parus major) and pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca). Anim Behav 34:838–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rowcliffe JM, Pettifor RA, Carbone C (2004) Foraging inequalities in large groups: quantifying depletion experienced by individuals in goose flocks. J Anim Ecol 73:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruckstuhl KE (1998) Foraging behaviour and sexual segregation in bighorn sheep. Anim Behav 56:99–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Ruckstuhl KE, Neuhaus P (2002) Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biol Rev 77:77–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Saito C (1996) Dominance and feeding success in female Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata: effects of food patch size and inter-patch distance. Anim Behav 51:967–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in white-throated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65:1820–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Senar JC, Polo V, Uribe F, Camerino M (2000) Status signalling, metabolic rate and body mass in the siskin: the cost of being a subordinate. Anim Behav 59:103–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  65. Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Clarke RT, Durell SEAV (1996) Shape of the interference function in a foraging vertebrate. J Anim Ecol 65:813–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG (1997) Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 66:692–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stillman RA, Caldow RW, Goss-Custard JD, Alexander MJ (2000) Individual variation in intake rate: the relative importance of foraging efficiency and dominance. J Anim Ecol 69:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stillman RA, Bautista LM, Alonso JC, Alonso JA (2002) Modelling state-dependent interference in common cranes. J Anim Ecol 71:874–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Gils JA, Piersma T (2004) Digestively constrained predators evade the cost of interference competition. J Anim Ecol 73:386–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Verhulst S, Hogstad O (1996) Social dominance and energy reserves in flocks of willow tits. J Avian Biol 27:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vézina F, Thomas DW (2000) Social status does not affect resting metabolic rate in wintering dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis). Physiol Biochem Zool 73:231–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Waite TA (1987) Dominance-specific vigilance in the tufted titmouse: effects of social context. Condor 89:932–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo [online: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/]. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston
  74. Witter MS, Cuthill IC (1993) The ecological costs of avian fat storage. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 340:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean A. Rands
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard A. Pettifor
    • 1
  • J. Marcus Rowcliffe
    • 1
  • Guy Cowlishaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyZoological Society of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations