The construction of dominance order: comparing performance of five methods using an individual-based model

In studies of animal behaviour investigators correlate dominance with all kinds of behavioural variables, such as reproductive success and foraging success. Many methods are used to produce a dominance hierarchy from a matrix reflecting the frequency of winning dominance interactions. These different methods produce different hierarchies. However, it is difficult to decide which ranking method is best. In this paper, we offer a new procedure for this decision: we use an individual-based model, called DomWorld, as a test-environment. We choose this model, because it provides access to both the internal dominance values of artificial agents (which reflects their fighting power) and the matrix of winning and losing among them and, in addition, because its behavioural rules are biologically inspired and its group-level patterns resemble those of real primates. We compare statistically the dominance hierarchy based on the internal dominance values of the artificial agents with the dominance hierarchy produced by ranking individuals by (a) their total frequency of winning, (b) their average dominance index, (c) a refined dominance index, the David's score, (d) the number of subordinates each individual has and (e) a ranking method based on maximizing the linear order of the hierarchy. Because dominance hierarchies may differ depending on group size, type of society, and the interval of study, we compare these ranking methods for these conditions. We study complete samples as well as samples randomly chosen to resemble the limitations of observing real animals. It appears that two methods of medium complexity (the average dominance index and David's score) lead to hierarchical orders that come closest to the hierarchy based on internal dominance values of the agents. We advocate usage of the average dominance index, because of its computational simplicity.

[1]  De,et al.  Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review. , 1998, Animal behaviour.

[2]  B. Thierry,et al.  Social grooming in Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) , 1990, International Journal of Primatology.

[3]  Sandra L. Vehrencamp,et al.  A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  Allan Mazur,et al.  A Biosocial Model of Status in Face-to-Face Primate Groups , 1985 .

[5]  F. D. de Waal,et al.  Toward a comparative socioecology of the genus Macaca: Different dominance styles in rhesus and stumptail monkeys , 1989, American journal of primatology.

[6]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  The logical stag: Adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) , 1979, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  J. M. Roberts,et al.  Modeling hierarchy: Transitivity and the linear ordering problem , 1990 .

[8]  P. Hogeweg,et al.  The ontogeny of the social structure in a captive Bombus terrestris colony , 1981, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[9]  Han de Vries,et al.  Elo-rating as a tool in the sequential estimation of dominance strengths , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  B. Thierry,et al.  Covariation of Conflict Management Patterns across Macaque Species , 2001 .

[11]  B. Thierry.  Tonkean macaque behaviour from the perspective of the evolution of Sulawesi macaques , 1994 .

[12]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Dominance style, differences between the sexes and individuals: An agent-based model , 2004 .

[13]  Michael C. Appleby,et al.  Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy: a comparison of the I&SI and the BBS methods , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  R. Michael,et al.  Dominance index: A simple measure of relative dominance status in primates , 1986, American journal of primatology.

[15]  J. Caldecott,et al.  Mating patterns, societies and the ecogeography of macaques , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  C. Hemelrijk.  An individual–orientated model of the emergence of despotic and egalitarian societies , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  Han de Vries,et al.  David's score: a more appropriate dominance ranking method than Clutton-Brock et al.'s index , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  Craig A. Tovey,et al.  Two's Company, Three's a Crowd: Differences in Dominance Relationships in Isolated Versus Socially Embedded Pairs of Fish , 2003 .

[19]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Despotic societies, sexual attraction and the emergence of male 'tolerance': An agent-based model , 2002 .

[20]  Craig Tovey,et al.  Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Robert Boyd,et al.  A method for assigning cardinal dominance ranks , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  L. L. Wolf,et al.  The winner and loser effect: integrating multiple experiences , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  H. Drummond,et al.  Dominance between booby nestlings involves winner and loser effects , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  H. Vries,et al.  Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  J. Atema,et al.  Individual recognition and memory in lobster dominance , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  Carolyn L. Ehardt,et al.  Intragroup agonistic behavior in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) , 1985 .

[28]  F. Guinness,et al.  Conflict between red deer hinds: the winner always wins , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  B. Thierry,et al.  Feedback loop between kinship and dominance: the macaque model. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.