Showing papers on "Territoriality published in 1973"

Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus

Abstract: Section I Previous work has indicated that sage grouse Centrocercus wophasianus practice extreme polygyny (Simon 1940; Scott 1942; Patterson 1952; Lumsden 1968) The behavioural interactions that regulate this mating system have remained unclear, as the males' behaviour suggests both territoriality and dominance hierarchy Section II A basic difference between territorial and hierarchical social systems involves the extent to which the constituent individuals' relationships are polarized, rather than reciprocal In a dominance hierarchy the interactions between individuals are polarized; territorial individuals typically interact reciprocally Nevertheless, interactions among territorial individuals can incorporate two kinds of polarity: territorial dominance, as each individual dominates his neighbours inside his own territory but is subordinate to them in their territories; and polarized territoriality, when territorial individuals established in preferred areas prevent other territorial individuals from occupying these areas The indications of reciprocity and polarity in the interactions of male sage grouse are investigated in this paper to clarify the expression of territoriality and dominance hierarchy in their social organization Sections III to VI Sage grouse gather for mating at communal display grounds, or leks, at traditional sites on sagebrush prairie Although females arrive for mating primarily during 2 or 3 weeks in late March and April, males usually attend the leks regularly from February or March into May Every morning and evening and often all night the males occupy small territories (13 to 100 m2) defined by boundary zones in which neighbours meet for facing-past encounters and wing-fighting (behaviour patterns are described in Section IV) Within their territories males repeatedly perform an elaborate, stereotyped display, the strut I studied three leks with different numbers of attending males (154, 30 and 260), one lek each spring from 1967 to 1969 Time-lapse cinematography was used to record the males' positions and activities Females congregate in dense packs at certain sites on a lek, usually in the same places on successive mornings These sites, termed mating centres, also usually remain in the same locations in successive years Section VII Almost all copulations occurred at these mating centres, within the territories of one or two males, although as many as eighty other males occupied territories around each mating centre Consequently, each year fewer than 10 per cent of the males completed more than 75 per cent of all copulations Neighbours occasionally interrupt each other's copulations, but usually only those attempted near or within the boundary zone of facing-past encounters Therefore, a male's success in mating does not depend on direct prevention of copulations by other males Instead, a male becomes successful in mating by acquiring a territory at a mating centre Section VIII The behaviour of females arriving at a lek suggests how they might locate the mating centre The possible cues associated with a mating centre are evaluated for their specificity in identifying the position of the mating centre and for their availability to the females Although the behaviour of males near a mating centre differed in several respects from that of more peripheral males (for instance, the former strutted more persistently and engaged in much briefer and perhaps slightly more frequent facing-past encounters), these differences apparently depended mostly on the males' proximities to females, rather than on intrinsic differences among the individual males Most males 2 or more years old, whether near a mating centre or not, responded similarly to the presence of females within their territories Since a mating centre ordinarily has a traditional location within a lek, females might learn its position Only limited guidance could come from the generally smaller territories of males near a mating centre Section IX Reciprocal interactions among males included the limited scope of neighbours' intrusions into each other's territories and neighbours' encounters as equals in boundary zones between their territories Non-reciprocal, or polarized, relationships resulted from the attraction of males toward a mating centre Since their more peripheral neighbours tended to encroach beyond their boundary zones, towards the females gathered at a mating centre, the more central males usually initiated most of the encounters with their more peripheral neighbours The more central males also terminated most of their facing-past encounters, probably as a result of their tendencies to resume strutting nearer the females at the mating centre When a territorial male disappeared, the vacancy was allocated to a more peripheral neighbour, one farther from the mating centre than the original occupant, without a noticeably increased frequency or intensity of antagonism First-year males lag behind older males in the growth of their gonads (Eng 1963) Some yearlings eventually established territories around the edge of a lek about half-way through the mating period, but yearling males were never seen copulating Section X The combination of three processes can explain how a male acquires a territory at a mating centre: (a) the establishment of yearling males on territories around the periphery of a lek; (b) the centripetal movement of territorial males toward the mating centre as vacancies arise; and (c) the tendency for individual males to occupy positions in subsequent years at least as close to the mating centre as previously The present study has provided evidence for the first two processes Dalke et al (1963) obtained some evidence that males usually return to the same lek and often to the same position in successive years The hypothesis implies that a male's chances for success in mating would increase with increasing age Section XI To clarify the behavioural manifestations of territoriality in sage grouse, a distinction is made between the territorial resident's aggression gradient and his isolation gradient Male sage grouse occupy largely exclusive territories Their ability to dominate agonistic encounters declines steeply across a narrow boundary zone However, these isolation and aggression gradients are not congruent The shapes of both gradients depend on the interactions of the resident and his neighbours Increased external pressure, owing to the attraction of males toward a mating centre, in conjunction with reduced internal resistance, owing to the central males' briefer facing-past encounters, could explain the generally smaller sizes of territories near a mating centre The males' interactions, which include both reciprocal and polarized components, suggest polarized territoriality, a form of social organization that merges features from the classical paradigms of both territoriality and dominance hierarchies Polarized territoriality generates the radially differentiated social structure on a lek Section XII A review of lek behaviour among grouse reveals only quantitative differences among the five species for which information on social organization is available The lek behaviour of sage grouse represents the extreme development of this behaviour among grouse

Scent marking and territoriality in pronghorn (antilocapra americana) in yellowstone national park

Abstract: Des observations effectives entre septembre 70 et octobre 71 ont mis en evidence les principales caracUristiques du comportement social du Pronghorn : — les males otablissent des territoires qu'ils dafendent activement de mimars ä mi-avril ; — a la fin du rut les males deviennent plus tole*rants entre eux et tendent a se grouper ; — les jeunes males (äges de 1 an 1/2 a 3 ans 1/2) fonnent des groupes de celibataires qui sont organises suivant une hi£rarchie de type line*aire ; — un male peut quitter son territoire provisoirement pour aller marquer un territoire voisin. Le marquage s'effectue au moyen des se\"cr£tions des glandes de la macho ire, des laissees, de l'urine et par grattage du sol ; — un male territorial pourvu de femelles est tres occupe* a les maintenir eloignees des limites du territoire, hors de la vue des males rivaux. II consacre une grande partie de son temps et de son Energie a surveiller ses femelles ; pourtant, quand elles seront en oestrus, il risque d'etre chasso par des males venus de zones £loignoes.

Significance of sympatry to behavior and evolution of great plains meadowlarks.

Abstract: Cases of interspecific territoriality are uncommon among birds that hold multipurpose breeding territories where they feed, mate and nest. Various authors (e.g., Simmons, 1951; Johnson, 1963; Orians and Willson, 1964) have noted that interspecific territories are likely to be maintained as a result of interspecific competition. Orians and Willson (1964) specifically comment that divergence in feeding habits sufficient for overlapping territories may be impossible when either the structure of the vegetation is simple, or when species are adapted to exploit the same stratified food sources in complex vegetation, or when other species are already exploiting similar resources in a diversified habitat. Johnson (1963) has proposed a hypothetical scheme for the origin of interspecific territoriality which is based on the process of geographic speciation. He notes that whether or not interspecific territories are defended depends upon the releasers that stimulate territorial defense. Species having similar vocal and behavioral signals of territory possession would not necessarily be expected to diverge in these characters when establishing secondary contact, even if their feeding habits were sufficiently different for coexistence. Orians and Willson (1964:737) seem to dismiss the possibility of such a fortuitous occurrence of interspecific territoriality by observing that the defense of a territory against individuals of other species demands increased expenditure of time and energy. However,

Seasonal Social Organization and Movements of Spruce Grouse

Abstract: The results of a study of territoriality among male Spruce Grouse (Canachites canadensis) during the breeding season have already been summarized (Ellison 1971). The purpose of this paper is to report on some aspects of flock size, associations within sex and age classes, and minimum size of home ranges in all seasons. In comparison with other tetraonids, little published information exists on movements and social groupings in Spruce Grouse. Three unpublished M.S. theses (Stoneberg 1967; McCourt 1969; McLachlin 1970) discuss territoriality among males or summer movements of hens and broods. Lumsden (1961), MacDonald (1968), and Hjorth (1970) give excellent descriptions of displays and aggressive behavior between males in the spring. Robinson and Maxwell (1968) summarized some of their results obtained in a continuing study of population processes in Spruce Grouse.

Cottage Fourteen: Dominance and Territoriality in a Group of Institutionalized Boys

Abstract: This study intends to illustrate the significance of ethological concepts-i.e., territoriality and dominance hierarchy-for the understanding of group behavior in an institution. Ethology studies the behavior of animals in their natural habitat, accentuating the adaptive value of specific behaviors under special environmental conditions. The importance of ethological methods in human observation has been shown in psychiatry (Hutt and Hutt, 1970). I believe that institutional management of children can benefit equally from ethological studies, especially where these may shed light on the influence of the superimposed adult power structure. Institutions foster relative group isolation, which guarantees that group members know each other sufficiently for us to attribute observed aggression to dominance and territorial (defense) behavior. 1 Group isolation practically prevents redirection or compensation in other ways of emotional

Ethnoarcheological interpretations of territoriality and land use in southwestern alaska

Abstract: Land use and the perceived spatial extension of a village or community are two rather different variables subsumed under the concept of territoriality. One involves the concept of resource use within specifically designated areas not necessarily interconnected while the other is a more pervasive, continous dimension which includes areas not important to subsistence. A subsistence-ecology model framed within the temporal span provided by archeological investigations is first considered. To provide a more dynamic cultural approach, archeological data from the late prehistoric-historic phases were supplemented by historical and ethnographic data. This data revealed that in the proto-historic phase violent confrontations occurred between local groups of Eskimos with a rending of territorial boundaries. Subsequent contact with Russian and American entrepeneurs further altered spatial relationships.

John Locke On Territoriality: An Unnoticed Aspect of the Second Treatise

Abstract: T ANY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE POLITICAL THEORY of John Locke have appeared in the past several years. Most lave dwelt in one way or another on his theunes of property, consent, or obligation, individually or in combination. From all these discussions. one must important feature has been missing. Locke having provided no name for it, I shall call this feature territoriality. In addition to its immense ~lgr1lt Icance in its own right, territoriality is a premise upon which the other three rest. A complete, perhaps even an accurate, picture uf these concepts is impossible without it. The purpose of this essay is to discuss this premise and to examine property, consent. and obligation in light of it. Territoriality is never addressed directly by Locke. It is developed discontinuously over a substantial portion of the first half of the Second 7reatise. The final form does not appear until paragraph 122. Two passages pnor to paragraph 1 ?’? foreshadow the concept by presuming the ideas of territoriality. These previews appear in paragraphs 45 and 73.

Territoriality: A Fundamental Consideration of Spatial Behaviour

Abstract: The central theme of this paper is territoriality. Essentially, I am concerned with the part that territo--­riality plays in determining spatial behaviour. Part One introduces the subject and demonstrates the need for geo­ graphers to examine territoriality more thoroughly. The newly developed field of behavioural geography is assessed, the importance of scale being a fundamental consideration. Part Two deals with definiti~n of territoriality in animal and human populations. The problems encountered in defin~ ition and delineation of human territories are discussed. Part 1hree poses two important questions. 1. What function does territoriality serve? 2. Is territory innate or a cul­ tural acquisition? Although the answers to these questions are subject to further research, the importance of these considerations is demonstrated. Part Four considers dom­ inance and leadership. The spatial implicat5-ons of these concepts are developed. Part Five centres about territo­ rial encroachment and the subsequent reaction. Essentlally