Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:38:48.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between-group attack and defence in an ecological setting: Insights from nonhuman animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Andrew N. Radford Open the ORCID record for Andrew N. Radford [Opens in a new window] ,
Susanne Schindler  and
Tim W. Fawcett
Andrew N. Radford
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom. [email protected]@bristol.ac.ukhttp://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/research/behavior/Vocal_Communication/home.htmlhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/biology/people/susanne-schindler/overview.html
Susanne Schindler
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom. [email protected]@bristol.ac.ukhttp://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/research/behavior/Vocal_Communication/home.htmlhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/biology/people/susanne-schindler/overview.html
Tim W. Fawcett
Affiliation:
Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, University of Exeter, Devon EX4 4QG, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.timwfawcett.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attempts to understand the fundamental forces shaping conflict between attacking and defending groups can be hampered by a narrow focus on humans and reductionist, oversimplified modelling. Further progress depends on recognising the striking parallels in between-group conflict across the animal kingdom, harnessing the power of experimental tests in nonhuman species and modelling the eco-evolutionary feedbacks that drive attack and defence.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e137
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arseneau-Robar, T. J. M., Müller, E., Taucher, A. L., van Schaik, C., Bshary, R. & Willems, E. P. (2018) Male monkeys use punishment and coercion to de-escalate costly intergroup fights. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285:20172323.Google Scholar
Arseneau-Robar, T. J. M., Taucher, A. L., Müller, E., van Schaik, C., Bshary, R. & Willems, E. P. (2016) Female monkeys use both the carrot and the stick to promote male participation in intergroup fights. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283:20161817.Google Scholar
Batchelor, T. P. & Briffa, M. (2011) Fight tactics in wood ants: individuals in smaller groups fight harder but die faster. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278:3243–50.Google Scholar
Bruintjes, R., Lynton-Jenkins, J., Jones, J. W. & Radford, A. N. (2016) Out-group threat promotes within-group affiliation in a cooperative fish. The American Naturalist 187:274–82.Google Scholar
Christensen, C., Kern, J. M., Bennitt, E. & Radford, A. N. (2016) Rival group scent induces changes in dwarf mongoose immediate behavior and subsequent movement. Behavioral Ecology 27:1627–34.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. & Radford, A. N. (2018) Dear enemies or nasty neighbours? Causes and consequences of variation in the responses of group-living species to territorial intrusions. Behavioral Ecology 29:1004–13.Google Scholar
Crofoot, M. C., Gilby, I. C., Wikelski, M. C. & Kays, R. W. (2008) Interaction location outweighs the competitive advantage of numerical superiority in Cebus capucinus intergroup contests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:577–81.Google Scholar
Enquist, M. & Leimar, O. (1983) Evolution of fighting behaviour: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. Journal of Theoretical Biology 102:387–410.Google Scholar
Furrer, R. D., Kyabulima, S., Willems, E. P., Cant, M. A. & Manser, M. B. (2011) Location and group size influence decisions in simulated intergroup encounters in banded mongooses. Behavioral Ecology 22:493–500.Google Scholar
Hardy, I. C. W. & Briffa, M. (2013) Animal contests. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Houston, A. I. & McNamara, J. M. (2005) John Maynard Smith and the importance of consistency in evolutionary game theory. Biology & Philosophy 20:933–50.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R. A. (2001) Eavesdropping and animal conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:9177–80.Google Scholar
Kitchen, D. M. & Beehner, J. C. (2007) Factors affecting individual participation in group-level aggression among non-human primates. Behaviour 144(12):1551–81.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. M. (2013) Towards a richer evolutionary game theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 10:20130544.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. M. & Houston, A. I. (2005) If animals know their own fighting ability, the evolutionarily stable level of fighting is reduced. Journal of Theoretical Biology 232:1–6.Google Scholar
Radford, A. N. (2003) Territorial vocal rallying in the green woodhoopoe: influence of rival group size and composition. Animal Behaviour 66:1035–44.Google Scholar
Radford, A. N. (2005) Neighbour-stranger discrimination in the group-living green woodhoopoe. Animal Behaviour 70:1227–34.Google Scholar
Radford, A. N. (2011) Preparing for battle? Potential intergroup conflict promotes current intragroup affiliation. Biology Letters 7:26–29.Google Scholar
Radford, A. N. & du Plessis, M. A. (2004) Territorial vocal rallying in the green woodhoopoe: Factors affecting the contest length and outcome. Animal Behaviour 68:803–10.Google Scholar
Radford, A. N., Majolo, B. & Aureli, F. (2016) Within-group behavioural consequences of between-group conflict: A prospective review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283(1843):20161567.Google Scholar
Schindler, S. & Radford, A. N. (2018) Factors influencing within-group conflict over defence against conspecific outsiders seeking breeding positions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285:20181669.Google Scholar
Strong, M. J., Sherman, B. L. & Riehl, C. (2018) Home field advantage, not group size, predicts outcomes of intergroup conflicts in a social bird. Animal Behaviour 143:205–13.Google Scholar
Thompson, F. J., Marshall, H. H., Vitikainen, E. I. K. & Cant, M. A. (2017) Causes and consequencs of intergroup conflict in cooperative banded mongooses. Animal Behaviour 126:31–40.Google Scholar
Willems, E. P., Arseneau, T. J. M., Schleuning, X. & van Schaik, C. P. (2015) Communal range defence in primates as a public goods dilemma. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370:20150003.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. L., Hauser, M. D. & Wrangham, R. W. (2001) Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? Animal Behaviour 61:1203–16.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. L., Kahlenberg, S. M., Wells, M. & Wrangham, R. W. (2012) Ecological and social factors affect the occurrence and outcomes of intergroup encounters in chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour 83:277–91.Google Scholar