Chapter 18, page 406, Aggression and agonistic behaviors are two ways to describe conflict/ Its seems like the main difference is aggression is between interspecific predators and agonistic is threats between conspecific. is there anything else to tell them apart? Chapter 18, page 407, For game theory, such as Hawk-dove game, do this work for most species? when you see any two species displaying aggression, can they be both be considered a hawk or a dove, or do some species not get placed into game theory situations? Chapter 18, page 415, I am little confused by the term "home range" . Is this where the nest is located? and the core area isn't actually like the core(middle), is it just the most popular area within the home range?
Em, agonistic behaviors are like the starts of fights. So they could be displays from a distance or bluffs. Aggression is overt fighting and could be between conspecifics or heterospecifics. The two words are made all the more complicated because many people use them interchangeably.
Yep, hawk-dove was designed as a way to examine aggression in any and all species, even ones that aren't very aggressive.
Those terms are definitely confusing. So home ranges are the broader areas an individual or groups of individuals travels in (think about how ungulates have big areas they graze in but have one area that they like the most. The area they like the most would be the core and the big area they could potentially graze in and do sometimes is the home range.)
1. Chapter 18, page 407. How often will you come across the Payoff Matrix or need to use one? I feel like it can be applied to most species but how often will/can it be used?
2. Chapter 18, Page 411. Asymmetry in Experience talks about how the individual gains the experience from past combats and their wins and losses. I'm curious though, can a young learn and gain experience through watching a combat of their mother/father?
3. Chapter 18, page 415. Why is there a home range and a cone area? a home range is defined as the area where activities occur, and the cone area is where most activities are concentrated. My question is why not just have a cone area or just have a home range. The cone area seems to be the most important in terms of territory since its where most activities occur.
Payoff matrixes are key to understanding aggression and dominance in any species. They are used frequently and are often made much more complex than how they've been presented in the book. Usually a model is created and statistics are used to generate the matrixes.
Absolutely fighting tactics could be socially learned. Asymmetries in experience and winner/loser effects have to come about directly. You couldn't learn a winner effect.
Home ranges don't have to be territories. Think about ungulates; they have huge home ranges that they graze upon but these aren't territories.
Chapter 18, Page 407: how does the hawk-dove game apply when you have a species which exhibits more than these two responses or more complicated series response?
Chapter 18, Page 408: how can ESS's be so conclusively identified? How rare are they?
Chapter 18, Page 416: I understand the concept of resource distribution and how it would be harder to defend as larger amount of resources, but also wouldn't an animal be motivated to defend a small resource when they are rare? As they don't know when they will find another so that is essentially their life source, at least until they use it all?
Hawk-dove can actually cover even complicated responses. So whole bluff displays still fit the dove model. Individuals can switch between hawk and dove in different interactions with different or the same individuals.
They're actually pretty common when the cost:benefit ratios are either skewed markedly in one direction or, if there are multiple strategies, if the cost:benefit are really similar.
chapter 18 p 413--The paragraph talks about dominance in hierarchies and how they can get confusing in certain situations and if circumstances change. Apart from a death of a dominant ranked animal what other kinds of changes in circumstance could cause the hierarchy of dominance to shift?
Chapter 18 pg 414--if dominant animals gain reproductive success, feeding and territory, while the subordinate animals do not succeed as well, how important are the subordinate animals to fitness? If dominant ones get everything, wouldn't there be a time where subordinate ones no longer have a use? Or are they important in some other way? I just am confused because I understand some of it's genetic and you're born into it, and some of it is traits, but if dominant ones are preferred and favored in reproductive situations, they would produce offspring with mostly dominant traits, right? So how important are the subordinate ones?
chapter 18 pg 415-- do all territories have both a home range and a core range? Are there any circumstances where a territory only needs one over the other?
1. Chapter 18, page 406: the author states that although very common, conflict is not ubiquitous across species. Are there species who don't display any sort of conflict whatsoever? And if there are, is it simply because they have access to enough resources where it is not necessary to fight?
2. Chapter 18, page 411: when discussing asymmetries in contests, it is stated that many individuals have asymmetry in their fighting ability, experience, and value of the resource. I was wondering if a resource is equally important to both individuals, would an individual ever sacrifice their access to the resource if the other individual was much larger and more experience than them? Even if the resource is highly valued?
3. Chapter 18, page 413: When discussing dominance hierarchies, it is said that dominance may be a birthright based on the status of one's parents. However, what if the offspring of the dominant parents turns out to be small in size and weak in strength? Would they still assume the dominant position? If the dominant parents have multiple offspring of similar fitness levels, does only one of the offspring assume the dominant position? Or do they all gain the dominant status from their parents?
1.) Chapter 18, page 407: When talking about the mathematical expression for the payoff matrix, how can they assign a resource a value? What does that number mean? It says they are currencies related to fitness, but is v a quantity or some arbitrary value?
2.) Chapter 18, page 411, it said here that some individuals may not be able to assess another individuals RHP. I was wondering why this would be the case? Is it environmental factors like they simply cannot see the other individual, but can hear them? Or can they truly just not make the judgement about another individual at all?
3.) Chapter 18, page 421: Here it says that being subordinate is not always more stressful than being dominant. Other than unstable dominance hierarchies, what other instances would being dominant cause an individual more stress than a subordinate individual?
Chapter 18, page 407: The book says that strategies are assumed to be heritable. Aren't there situations where animals may change their strategy over their life time based on experience with other animals, rather than it being determined by genes? This seems like a concept where learning would play a heavy role. Chapter 18, page 411: It says that sometimes individuals have to make decisions about conflict based only on their self-assessment. I imagine they would assess themselves as weak if they've sustained injuries or perhaps haven't eaten enough lately. Do we know how they assess strength vs neutral? Or is lack of noticeable weakness considered strength? Chapter 18, page 415: I was surprised to see there was so little agreement about the definition of territory, especially considering how frequently it is used. I understand why they can't claim an area is defended (making it a territory) when supporting data is unavailable, but for clarity, wouldn't it be better to use another term? Is there any particular reason another term hasn't caught on yet?
Chapter 18, page 406, Aggression and agonistic behaviors are two ways to describe conflict/ Its seems like the main difference is aggression is between interspecific predators and agonistic is threats between conspecific. is there anything else to tell them apart?
ReplyDeleteChapter 18, page 407, For game theory, such as Hawk-dove game, do this work for most species? when you see any two species displaying aggression, can they be both be considered a hawk or a dove, or do some species not get placed into game theory situations?
Chapter 18, page 415, I am little confused by the term "home range" . Is this where the nest is located? and the core area isn't actually like the core(middle), is it just the most popular area within the home range?
Em, agonistic behaviors are like the starts of fights. So they could be displays from a distance or bluffs. Aggression is overt fighting and could be between conspecifics or heterospecifics. The two words are made all the more complicated because many people use them interchangeably.
DeleteYep, hawk-dove was designed as a way to examine aggression in any and all species, even ones that aren't very aggressive.
Those terms are definitely confusing. So home ranges are the broader areas an individual or groups of individuals travels in (think about how ungulates have big areas they graze in but have one area that they like the most. The area they like the most would be the core and the big area they could potentially graze in and do sometimes is the home range.)
1. Chapter 18, page 407. How often will you come across the Payoff Matrix or need to use one? I feel like it can be applied to most species but how often will/can it be used?
ReplyDelete2. Chapter 18, Page 411. Asymmetry in Experience talks about how the individual gains the experience from past combats and their wins and losses. I'm curious though, can a young learn and gain experience through watching a combat of their mother/father?
3. Chapter 18, page 415. Why is there a home range and a cone area? a home range is defined as the area where activities occur, and the cone area is where most activities are concentrated. My question is why not just have a cone area or just have a home range. The cone area seems to be the most important in terms of territory since its where most activities occur.
Payoff matrixes are key to understanding aggression and dominance in any species. They are used frequently and are often made much more complex than how they've been presented in the book. Usually a model is created and statistics are used to generate the matrixes.
DeleteAbsolutely fighting tactics could be socially learned. Asymmetries in experience and winner/loser effects have to come about directly. You couldn't learn a winner effect.
Home ranges don't have to be territories. Think about ungulates; they have huge home ranges that they graze upon but these aren't territories.
Chapter 18, Page 407: how does the hawk-dove game apply when you have a species which exhibits more than these two responses or more complicated series response?
ReplyDeleteChapter 18, Page 408: how can ESS's be so conclusively identified? How rare are they?
Chapter 18, Page 416: I understand the concept of resource distribution and how it would be harder to defend as larger amount of resources, but also wouldn't an animal be motivated to defend a small resource when they are rare? As they don't know when they will find another so that is essentially their life source, at least until they use it all?
Hawk-dove can actually cover even complicated responses. So whole bluff displays still fit the dove model. Individuals can switch between hawk and dove in different interactions with different or the same individuals.
DeleteThey're actually pretty common when the cost:benefit ratios are either skewed markedly in one direction or, if there are multiple strategies, if the cost:benefit are really similar.
chapter 18 p 413--The paragraph talks about dominance in hierarchies and how they can get confusing in certain situations and if circumstances change. Apart from a death of a dominant ranked animal what other kinds of changes in circumstance could cause the hierarchy of dominance to shift?
ReplyDeleteChapter 18 pg 414--if dominant animals gain reproductive success, feeding and territory, while the subordinate animals do not succeed as well, how important are the subordinate animals to fitness? If dominant ones get everything, wouldn't there be a time where subordinate ones no longer have a use? Or are they important in some other way? I just am confused because I understand some of it's genetic and you're born into it, and some of it is traits, but if dominant ones are preferred and favored in reproductive situations, they would produce offspring with mostly dominant traits, right? So how important are the subordinate ones?
chapter 18 pg 415-- do all territories have both a home range and a core range? Are there any circumstances where a territory only needs one over the other?
Changes in resource abundance, alterations in the male:female ratio, new members entering the group, any of those things could shift a hierarchy.
Delete1. Chapter 18, page 406: the author states that although very common, conflict is not ubiquitous across species. Are there species who don't display any sort of conflict whatsoever? And if there are, is it simply because they have access to enough resources where it is not necessary to fight?
ReplyDelete2. Chapter 18, page 411: when discussing asymmetries in contests, it is stated that many individuals have asymmetry in their fighting ability, experience, and value of the resource. I was wondering if a resource is equally important to both individuals, would an individual ever sacrifice their access to the resource if the other individual was much larger and more experience than them? Even if the resource is highly valued?
3. Chapter 18, page 413: When discussing dominance hierarchies, it is said that dominance may be a birthright based on the status of one's parents. However, what if the offspring of the dominant parents turns out to be small in size and weak in strength? Would they still assume the dominant position? If the dominant parents have multiple offspring of similar fitness levels, does only one of the offspring assume the dominant position? Or do they all gain the dominant status from their parents?
1.) Chapter 18, page 407: When talking about the mathematical expression for the payoff matrix, how can they assign a resource a value? What does that number mean? It says they are currencies related to fitness, but is v a quantity or some arbitrary value?
ReplyDelete2.) Chapter 18, page 411, it said here that some individuals may not be able to assess another individuals RHP. I was wondering why this would be the case? Is it environmental factors like they simply cannot see the other individual, but can hear them? Or can they truly just not make the judgement about another individual at all?
3.) Chapter 18, page 421: Here it says that being subordinate is not always more stressful than being dominant. Other than unstable dominance hierarchies, what other instances would being dominant cause an individual more stress than a subordinate individual?
Chapter 18, page 407: The book says that strategies are assumed to be heritable. Aren't there situations where animals may change their strategy over their life time based on experience with other animals, rather than it being determined by genes? This seems like a concept where learning would play a heavy role.
ReplyDeleteChapter 18, page 411: It says that sometimes individuals have to make decisions about conflict based only on their self-assessment. I imagine they would assess themselves as weak if they've sustained injuries or perhaps haven't eaten enough lately. Do we know how they assess strength vs neutral? Or is lack of noticeable weakness considered strength?
Chapter 18, page 415: I was surprised to see there was so little agreement about the definition of territory, especially considering how frequently it is used. I understand why they can't claim an area is defended (making it a territory) when supporting data is unavailable, but for clarity, wouldn't it be better to use another term? Is there any particular reason another term hasn't caught on yet?