4.5 Article

Lovers and fighters in sleepy lizard land: where do aggressive males fit in a social network?

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 83, 期 1, 页码 209-215

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.028

关键词

aggression; behavioural syndrome; pairing intensity; pair living; personality; skink; sleepy lizard; social network; Tiliqua rugosa

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study we explored relationships between the aggressiveness of male sleepy lizards, Tiliqua rugosa, and their position in a social network. We attached activity loggers to 60 neighbouring lizards during the activity season (September-December) in 2009 at a study site in the mid-north of South Australia. The loggers continuously recorded the activity and location of lizards, allowing us to infer direct social associations. We calculated pairwise associations and integrated these into a social network and calculated node-based measures that quantified male-male and male-female interactions. Aggressiveness of males was quantified in two ways; by involvement in a fight, as indicated by the presence of fresh scale damage, and by aggression assays that scored the response of lizards to conspecific and predator cues. More aggressive lizards in these assays were more likely to be found with fresh scale damage in field surveys. Less aggressive males were more strongly connected to females in the network, and were more commonly in contact with their monogamous female partner, than more aggressive males. Our results suggest a behavioural syndrome among male lizards connecting level of aggression and association with females, with a divergence in behaviour; lovers that are strongly paired and nonaggressive, and fighters that are weakly associated with females and more aggressive. (C) 2011 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据