Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Kura, K.
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: QA
In this research we analyse the formation of dominance hierarchies from different viewpoints and various models of dominance hierarchy formation have been proposed, one important class being winner--loser models and another being Swiss tournaments.\ud \ud We start by understanding the structure of hierarchies emerging under the influence of winner and loser effects and two situations are considered: (i) when each individual has the same, fixed (unchanged) aggression threshold, meaning that all of them use the same rule when deciding whether to fight or retreat, and (ii) when individuals select an aggression threshold comparing their own and their opponent's abilities, and fighting if and only if the situation is sufficiently favourable to themselves. For both situations, we investigate if we can achieve hierarchy linearity, and if so, when it is established. We are particularly interested in the question of how many fights are necessary to establish dominance hierarchy.\ud \ud To examine these questions we use existing and new statistical measures. Besides understanding the structure and the temporal dynamic of the hierarchy formation, we also analyse the effect of the information that each individual has about the strength of their opponents on linearity.\ud \ud For the second situation, where individuals choose different aggression threshold, we find the appropriate level of aggression and examine the conditions when an individual needs to be more aggressive and when not.\ud \ud Lastly, we develop a model which allows only the individuals with the same number of wins and losses to fight each other. We show that linear hierarchies are always established. A formula for the total number of fights is derived, and the effect of group size on the level of aggressiveness is analysed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 4 An Alternative Swiss Tournament Model of Dominance Hierarchy Formation 130 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 4.2 Swiss tournaments with byes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 4.2.1 The exact number of rounds until a unique winner . . . 136
    • [8] TH Bakker, E Bruijn, and P Sevenster. Asymmetrical effects of prior winning and losing on dominance in sticklebacks (gasterosteus aculeatus). Ethology, 82(3):224-229, 1989.
    • [9] R Balakrishnan and K Ranganathan. Springer, 2012.
    • [18] E´ Borel. Sur les jeux ouinterviennent le hasard et l?habilete des joueurs? Theorie des probabilites, Paris: Librairie Scientifique. Translated by LJ Savage in (1953) as :On Games that Involve Chance and the Skill of Players, Econometrica, 21:101-115, 1924.
    • [27] M Broom, A Koenig, and C Borries. Variation in dominance hierarchies among group-living animals: modeling stability and the likelihood of coalitions. Behavioral Ecology, 20(4):844-855, 2009.
    • [37] MS de Villiers, PRK Richardson, and AS van Jaarsveld. Patterns of coalition formation and spatial association in a social carnivore, the african wild dog (lycaon pictus). Journal of Zoology, 260(04):377-389, 2003.
    • [39] C Doutrelant, P K McGregor, and RF Oliveira. The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male siamese fighting fish, betta splendens. Behavioral Ecology, 12(3):283-286, 2001.
    • [40] C Drews. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour, 125(3):283-313, 1993.
    • [41] LA Dugatkin. Formalizing allee's ideas on dominance hierarchies: an intrademic selection model. American Naturalist, pages 954-960, 1995.
    • [47] ST Emlen. An evolutionary theory of the family. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 92(18):8092-8099, 1995.
    • [48] ST Emlen. Predicting family dynamics in social vertebrates. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 4:228-253, 1997.
    • [49] M Enquist and O Leimar. Evolution of fighting behaviour: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. Journal of theoretical Biology, 102(3):387-410, 1983.
    • [50] I Estevez, I Andersen, and E Naevdal. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 103(3):185- 204, 2007.
    • [51] I Est´evez, RC Newberry, and LA De Reyna. Broiler chickens: a tolerant social system. Etologia, 5:19-29, 1997.
    • [66] L Keller and HK Reeve. Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9(3):98-102, 1994.
    • [68] MG Kendall. Rank correlation methods. Griffin, London, 1962.
    • [95] R Moss, R Parr, and X Lambin. Effects of testosterone on breeding density, breeding success and survival of red grouse. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 258(1352):175-180, 1994.
    • [122] SL Vehrencamp. Optimal degree of skew in cooperative societies. American Zoologist, 23(2):327-335, 1983.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article