Topic
Agonistic behaviour
About: Agonistic behaviour is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2479 publications have been published within this topic receiving 79529 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: This paper found that rhesus monkeys on Cayo Santiago (Puerto Rico) give five acoustically distinct scream vocalizations during agonistic encounters, with each of the five acoustic types significantly associated with a particular class of opponent and level of physical aggression.
451 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, female baboons were studied over a 15-month period which included sexual cycling, pregnancy, and lactation, and it was found that high-ranking females were more attractive than others.
419 citations
TL;DR: While dominance ranks of the adult males showed no consistent correlation with involvement in the restrictive mating patterns, it was clear that the most dominant male did gain an advantage and was the only male able to monopolise oestrous females by showing possessive behaviour.
Abstract: 1.
The sexual behaviour of a chimpanzee community in the Gombe National Park, Tanzania, was studied intensively for 16 months. Additional information came from 15 years of demographic and behavioural data accumulated by Jane Goodall and members of the Gombe Stream Research Centre.
2.
The mating system of the Gombe chimpanzees is flexible and comprises three distinct mating patterns: (a) opportunistic, non-competitive mating, when an oestrous female may be mated by all the community males; (b) possessiveness, when a male forms a special short-term relationship with an oestrous female and may prevent lower-ranking males from copulating with her; and (c) consortships, when a male and a female leave the group and remain alone, actively avoiding other chimpanzees. While males took the initiative in possessive behaviour and consortships, females had to cooperate for a successful relationship to develop.
3.
Data from 14 conceptions indicated that the majority of females (9) became pregnant while participating in the restrictive mating patterns, possessiveness and consorting. It could be established definitely that seven of these females were consorting during the cycle in which they conceived. As 73% of the 1137 observed copulations occurred during opportunistic mating, 25% during possessiveness, and only 2% during consortships, there was no correlation between copulation frequency and reproductive success.
4.
Adult males showed differential frequencies of participation in the restrictive mating patterns. Male age, dominance rank, and the amount of agonistic behaviour directed to females showed no correlation with participation in the restrictive mating patterns. The following male characteristics did show significant, positive correlations with involvement in the restrictive mating patterns: (a) the amount of time spent in the same group as oestrous females, (b) the proportion of that time spent grooming oestrous females in groups, and (c) the frequency with which males shared food with females. While dominance ranks of the adult males showed no consistent correlation with involvement in the restrictive mating patterns, it was clear that the most dominant male did gain an advantage. He was the only male able to monopolise oestrous females by showing possessive behaviour.
5.
Consortships appeared to be the optimal reproductive strategy for males (with the exception of the most dominant) and females, as they gave males the highest probability of reproductive success, and allowed females to exercise choice. However, there appeared to be disadvantages associated with consort formation; the greatest of these was the increased risk of intercommunity encounters. While all individuals have the potential to practice each mating pattern, the strategy actually used at any moment will be determined by variables both within the individual, e.g. age, physical condition, dominance position; and by social factors in the group, e.g. general stability of male dominance relationships, presence of a strong alpha male, existence of special male-female relationships.
418 citations
TL;DR: Differences appear in the lack of playful fighting and weaning threats in mice, the dual “boxing” posture of rats, and the unique “tail rattling” in mice.
Abstract: This paper reviews the results of research on the agonistic behavior of wild and tame strains of house mice ( Mus musculus ) and the Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) and covers papers that have appeared since an earlier review (Scott and Fredericson, 1951)
Various methods for observing, measuring, and eliciting fighting are described and their appropriate uses discussed. Measures of latency and frequency are more satisfactory than arbitrary rating scales. Situations involving competition over food present complex motivational problems.
The basic agonistic behavior patterns (ethograms) of rats and mice are compared. Differences appear in the lack of playful fighting and weaning threats in mice, the dual “boxing” posture of rats, and the unique “tail rattling” in mice. Both species are alike in their inability to form complex dominance hierarchies in which fighting is reduced to threat and avoidance.
As a general theory, each species has evolved behavior patterns and physiological mechanisms of behavior which are adaptively related to its own social organization and population dynamics. Mice and rats have evolved along different lines both from each other and other species of mammals.
405 citations