Search

Animal groups are often organized hierarchically, with dominant individuals gaining priority access to resources and reproduction over subordinate individuals. Initial dominance hierarchy formation may be influenced by multiple interacting factors, including an animal’s individual attributes, conventions and self-organizing social dynamics. After establishment, hierarchies are typically maintained over the long-term because individuals save time, energy and reduce the risk of injury by recognizing and abiding by established dominance relationships. A separate set of behaviours are used to maintain dominance relationships within groups, including behaviours that stabilize ranks (punishment, threats, behavioural asymmetry), as well as signals that provide information about dominance rank (individual identity signals, signals of dominance). In this review, we describe the behaviours used to establish and maintain dominance hierarchies across different taxa and types of societies. We also review opportunities for future research including: testing how self-organizing behavioural dynamics interact with other factors to mediate dominance hierarchy formation, measuring the long-term stability of social hierarchies and the factors that disrupt hierarchy stability, incorporating phenotypic plasticity into our understanding of the behavioural dynamics of hierarchies and considering how cognition coevolves with the behaviours used to establish and maintain hierarchies. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dominance is important for access to resources. As dominance interactions are costly, individuals should be strategic in whom they interact with. One hypothesis is that individuals should direct costly interactions towards those closest in rank, as they have most to gain—in terms of attaining or maintaining dominance—from winning such interactions. Here, we show that male vulturine guineafowl (Acryllium vulturinum), a gregarious species with steep dominance hierarchies, strategically express higher-cost aggressive interactions towards males occupying ranks immediately below themselves in their group’s hierarchy. By contrast, lower-cost aggressive interactions are expressed towards group members further down the hierarchy. By directly evaluating differences in the strategic use of higher- and lower-cost aggressive interactions towards competitors, we show that individuals disproportionately use highest-cost interactions—such as chases—towards males found one to three ranks below themselves. Our results support the hypothesis that the costs associated with different interaction types can determine their expression in social groups with steep dominance hierarchies. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dominance behaviours have been collected for many groups of animals since 1922 and serve as a foundation for research on social behaviour and social structure. Despite a wealth of data from the last century of research on dominance hierarchies, these data are only rarely used for comparative insight. Here, we aim to facilitate comparative studies of the structure and function of dominance hierarchies by compiling published dominance interaction datasets from the last 100 years of work. This compiled archive includes 436 datasets from 190 studies of 367 unique groups (mean group size 13.8, s.d. = 13.4) of 135 different species, totalling over 243 000 interactions. These data are presented in an R package alongside relevant metadata and a tool for subsetting the archive based on biological or methodological criteria. In this paper, we explain how to use the archive, discuss potential limitations of the data, and reflect on best practices in publishing dominance data based on our experience in assembling this dataset. This archive will serve as an important resource for future comparative studies and will promote the development of general unifying theories of dominance in behavioural ecology that can be grounded in testing with empirical data. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A century ago, foundational work by Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe described a ‘pecking order’ in chicken societies, where individuals could be ordered according to their ability to exert their influence over their group-mates. Now known as dominance hierarchies, these structures have been shown to influence a plethora of individual characteristics and outcomes, situating dominance research as a pillar of the study of modern social ecology and evolution. Here, we first review some of the major questions that have been answered about dominance hierarchies in the last 100 years. Next, we introduce the contributions to this theme issue and summarize how they provide ongoing insight in the epistemology, physiology and neurobiology, hierarchical structure, and dynamics of dominance. These contributions employ the full range of research approaches available to modern biologists. Cross-cutting themes emerging from these contributions include a focus on cognitive underpinnings of dominance, the application of network-analytical approaches, and the utility of experimental rank manipulations for revealing causal relationships. Reflection on the last 100 years of dominance research reveals how SchjelderupEbbe’s early ideas and the subsequent research helped drive a shift from an essentialist view of species characteristics to the modern recognition of rich inter-individual variation in social, behavioural and physiological phenotypes. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dimorphism on dominance and agonistic behaviour in mammals tends to be strongly biased toward males. In this review, we focus on a select few species of mammals in which females are as or more aggressive than males, and/or are dominant to males, and explore the role of androgenic hormones in mediating this important difference. While the data are not as clear-cut as those published on traditional laboratory mammals, our review highlights important endocrine substrates for both organizational and activational influences of steroids on female aggressive behaviour. We highlight areas in which further observations and experiments are crucial, especially the potential facilitative effects of androgens on female aggression. Finally, new and innovative techniques, including molecular genetics and receptor pharmacology, portend important insights into the ways in which androgenic hormones regulate aggressive behaviour in 'atypical' female mammals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within-brood or -litter dominance provides fitness-related benefits if dominant siblings selfishly skew access to food provided by parents in their favour. Models of facultative siblicide assume that dominants exert complete control over their subordinate sibling's access to food and that control is maintained, irrespective of the subordinate's hunger level. By contrast, a recent functional hypothesis suggests that subordinates should contest access to food when the cost of not doing so is high. Here, we show that within spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) twin litters, dominants most effectively skew access to maternal milk in their favour when their aggression prompts a highly submissive response. When hungry, subordinates were less submissive in response to aggression, thereby decreasing lost suckling time and increasing suckling time lost by dominants. In a species where adult females socially dominate adult males, juvenile females were more often dominant than males in mixed-sex litters, and subordinate sisters used more effective counter-tactics against dominant brothers than subordinate brothers against dominant sisters. Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first evidence in a mammal that dominant offspring in twin litters do not exert complete control over their sibling's access to resources (milk), and that sibling dominance relationships are influenced by sibling sex and training effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]