Dominance hierarchy arises when members of a social group interact, often aggressively, to create a ranking system. In social living groups, members are likely to compete for access to limited resources and mating opportunities. Rather than fight each time they meet, relative relationships are formed between members of the same sex. These repetitive interactions lead to the creation of a social order that is subject to change each time a dominant animal is challenged by a subordinate one.


An image depicting the social orders a social group may demonstrate. In an egalitarian society, all members are equal, and relative ranking is not assigned. In a linear hierarchy (pecking order), each member is assigned a rank relative to one another, creating a linear distribution of power. In a despotic hierarchy, one member is assigned dominance while all other members are subordinate.

This manifestation of intrasexual conflict can be observed in one of two systems. The social order can be either egalitarian or despotic. In a linear ranking system (often referred to as a pecking order), every member of the gender is recognized as either dominant or submissive relative to every other member, creating a linear distribution of rank. For example, groups of spotted hyenas and brown hyenas both demonstrate linear dominance.[citation needed] In a despotic system, one member is considered dominant while all others members of the living group are equally submissive. Examples of despotic social systems are found in meerkats, wolves, male gorillas, Neolamprologus pulcher, and African wild dogs.[1]

Wedge-capped capuchins have a clear dominance hierarchy

Determining the outcome of conflict


Patterns of animal conflict reveal important insights into the evolution of behavior and the influence of behavior on relationships that develop in a social group. Pair-wise interactions have been observed to promote social hierarchies within groups of animals where individuals with successful agonistic behaviors often achieve dominance. These behaviors, which include aggression, threats, displays, and fighting, are indicative of competition over resources, such as food or mates. However, they may vary based on the situation and position of the individuals involved.

Animal decisions regarding involvement in conflict are defined by the interplay between the costs and benefits of agonistic behaviors. When initially developed, game theory, the study of optimal strategies during pair-wise conflict, was grounded in the false assumption that animals engaged in conflict were of equal fighting ability. Modifications, however, have provided increased focus on the differences between the fighting capabilities of animals and raised questions about their evolutionary development. These differences are believed to determine the outcomes of fights, their intensity, and animal decisions to submit or continue fighting. The influence of aggression, threats, and fighting on the strategies of individuals engaged in conflict has proven integral to establishing social hierarchies reflective of dominant-subordinate interactions.[2]

The asymmetries between individuals have been categorized into three types of interactions.[3]

  1. Resource-holding potential: Animals that are better able to defend resources often win without much physical contact.
  2. Resource value: Animals more invested in a resource are likely to invest more in the fight despite potential for incurring higher costs.
  3. Intruder retreats: When participants are of equal fighting ability and competing for a certain territory, the resident of the territory is likely to end as the victor because he values the territory more. This can be explained further by looking at the example of the common shrews. If one participant believes he is the resident of the territory, he will win when the opponent is weaker or food is scarce. However, if both shrews believe they are the true territory holder, the one with the greater need for food, and therefore, one that values the resource more, is most likely to win.

As expected, the individual who emerges triumphant is rewarded with the dominant status, having demonstrated his/her physical superiority. However, the costs incurred to the defeated, which include loss of reproductive opportunities and quality food, can hinder the individual’s fitness. In order minimize these losses, animals generally retreat from fighting or displaying fighting ability unless there are obvious cues indicating victory. These often involve characteristics that provide an advantage during agonistic behavior, such as size of body, displays, etc. Red stags, for example, engage in exhausting roaring contests to exhibit their strength (Huntingford). However, such an activity would impose more costs than benefits for unfit stags, and compel them to retreat from the contest. Larger stags have also been known to make lower-frequency threat signals, acting as indicators of body size, strength, and dominance.

Engaging in agonistic behavior can be very costly and thus there are many examples in nature of animals who achieve dominance in more passive ways. In some, the dominance status of an individual is clearly visible, eliminating the need for agonistic behavior. In wintering bird flocks, white-crowned sparrows display a unique white plumage; the higher the percentage of the crown that consists of white feathers, the higher the status of the individual.[4] For other animals, the time spent in the group serves as a determinant of dominance status. Pack members of gray wolves, for example, need the time to reach the top of the ladder. Rank may also be acquired from maternal dominance rank. In rhesus monkeys, offspring gain dominance status based on the rank of the mother—the higher ranked the mother, the higher ranked the offspring will be (Yahner). Similarly, the status of a male Canada goose is determined by the rank of his family. Although dominance is determined differently in each case, it is influenced by the relationships between members of social groups.[5]

These observed interactions reflect the battle for resources. The association between resource availability and agonistic behavior suggests that animal conflict is adaptive by enabling competition and exploitation of available food and mates. The outcome of these interactions results in important social patterns that define hierarchies and, therefore, future access to resources.[2]





Reproductive success


In primates, one of the most widely studied hierarchal groups, many studies have found a positive relationship between high rank and reproductive success. In baboons, higher-ranking males have the highest reproductive success due to increased female acquisition. Also, female baboons benefit from increased rank because high-ranking females produce more surviving offspring.[6]

Bonnet macaques demonstrate another example of increased reproductive success from high rank. High-ranking males have more access to fertile females and consequently partake in most of the mating within the group, demonstrated by one population in which only three males were responsible for over 75% of mating. In this population, males often vary in their rank, and as they gain rank, they gain more time spent exclusively with fertile females; the opposite relationship is seen as males drop in rank.[7] In many primates, including bonnet macaques and rhesus monkeys, the offspring of high-ranking individuals have better fitness and thus an increased rate of survival. This is most likely a function of two factors. The first is that high-ranking males mate with high-ranking females. Assuming their high rank is correlated with higher fitness and fighting ability, this trait will be conferred to their offspring. The second factor is that higher-ranking parents probably provide better protection to their offspring and thus ensure higher survival rates.[6]

In rodents, the highest-ranking male frequently sires the most offspring. The same pattern is found in most carnivores, such as the dwarf mongoose. The dwarf mongoose lives in a social system with one dominant pair. The dominant female produces all or almost all of the offspring in the living group, and the dominant male has first access to her during her oestrus period. In red deer, the males who experienced winter dominance, resulting from greater access to preferred foraging sites, had higher ability to get and maintain larger harems during the mating season.[6]

In many monogamous bird species, the dominant pairs tend to get the best territories, which in turn promote offspring survival and adult health. In dunnocks, a species of birds that experiences many mating systems, sometimes individuals will form a group that will have one dominant male who achieves all of the mating in the group.[6]

Foraging success


Another benefit to high-ranking individuals is increased foraging success and access to food resources. During times of water shortage the highest-ranking vervet females have greater access than subordinates females to water in tree holes. In chacma baboons, the high-ranking males have the first access to vertebrate prey that has been caught by the group, and in yellow baboons the dominant males feed for longer without being interrupted.

In many bird species the dominant individuals have higher rates of food intake including dark-eyed juncos and oystercatchers. The dominant individuals in these groups fill themselves up first and fill up more quickly, so they spend less time foraging, which reduces the risk of predation. Thus they have increased survival because of increased nutrition and decreased predation.[6]



Despite the benefits to being of a high rank in a hierarchal group, there are also costs which offset these benefits. The most common costs to high-ranking individuals are higher metabolic rates and higher levels of stress hormones.[6] In Great Tits and pied flycatchers, high-ranking individuals experience higher resting metabolic rates and therefore need to consume more food in order to maintain fitness and activity levels compared to subordinates in their groups. The energetic costs of defending territory, mates, and other resources can be very consuming and cause high-ranking individuals, who spend more time in these activities, to lose body mass over long periods of dominance. Therefore their physical condition decreases the longer they spend partaking in these high-energy activities and they lose rank as a function of age.[6]

In wild male baboons, the highest ranking male, also known as the alpha, experiences high levels of both testosterone and glucocorticoid, which indicates that high-ranking males undergo higher levels of stress which reduces fitness. Reduced health and longevity occurs because these two hormones have immunosuppressant activity, which reduces survival and presents opportunities for parasitic infestation and other health risks. This reduced fitness due to the alpha position results in individuals maintaining high rank for shorter periods of time and having an overall reduced health and longevity from the physical strain and costs of the position.[8]

When to seek high rank


Given the benefits and costs of possessing a high rank within a hierarchal group, there are certain characteristics of individuals, groups, and environments that determine whether an individual will benefit from a high rank. Individual characteristics include whether or not high rank gives them access to valuable resources such as mates and food. Individuals will often weigh the cost of the resource against factors including their age, intelligence, experience, and physical fitness, which can determine the costs to gaining rank.

Hierarchy results as an accumulation of individual interaction, group dynamics, and sharing of resources, therefore group size and composition can affect the dominance decisions of high-ranking individuals and hierarchy type. For example, in a large group with many males, it may be very challenging for the highest-ranking male to dominate all the mating opportunities, so some mate sharing probably exists. These occasional mating opportunities available to subordinates reduce the likelihood of subordinates challenging the dominant male - mating is no longer an all-or-nothing game and the scraps are enough to placate most subordinates. Another aspect that can determine dominance hierarchies is the environment. In populations of Kenyan vervets, high-ranking females have higher foraging success when the food resources are clumped, but when food is distributed throughout an area they lose their advantage because subordinate females can acquire food with less risk of encountering a dominant female.[6]





Direct benefits


There are a number of benefits to being subordinate. Subordination is beneficial in agonistic conflicts where rank predicts the outcome of a fight. Less injury will occur if subordinate individuals avoid fighting with higher-ranking individuals who would win a large percentage of the time - knowledge of the pecking order keeps both parties from incurring the costs of a prolonged fight. In hens it has been observed that both dominants and subordinates benefit from a stable hierarchical environment because fewer challenges means more resources can be dedicated to laying eggs.[9] It is also possible that in groups consisting of highly related individuals, kin selection influences the stability of hierarchical dominance. If a subordinate individual is closely related to the dominant individual, the subordinate may benefit more genetically by assisting the dominant individual, as his or her genes are still passed along in the offspring of the dominant individual. In a study of male savanna baboons, alpha males exhibited high levels of testosterone and stress. This stress and testosterone over a long period of time can lead to decreased fitness. The lowest ranking males in the hierarchy also demonstrated high stress levels, suggesting that it is the beta males that gain the most fitness, avoiding stress while still maintaining some of reproductive and nutritional benefits of moderate rank.[10]

Mitigating costs of being subordinate


Subordinate animals engage in a number of behaviors in order to outweigh the costs of low rank. Dispersal is often associated with increased mortality and subordination may decrease the potential benefits of leaving the group. In the red fox it has been shown that subordinate individuals, given the opportunity to desert, often do not due to the risk of death and the low possibility that they would establish themselves as dominant members in a new group.[11] There is also the possibility that a subordinate individual who stays may become a high-ranking individual at a future time if the alpha male dies or is usurped.

Fighting for occasional success

Fighting with the dominant male(s) is usually a risky behavior resulting in defeat, injury or even death. In bighorn sheep, however, subordinates occasionally win a fight for a female. Resulting in subordinates fathering 44% of the lambs born in the population. These sheep live in large flocks, and dominance hierarchies are often restructured each breeding season.[12]

Sneak copulations and female mimicry

Burying beetles, which have a social order involving one dominant male controlling most access to mates, display a behavior known as sneak copulation. While one male at a carcass has a 5:1 mating advantage, subordinate males will tempt females away from the carcass with pheromones and attempt to copulate, before the dominant male can drive them forcefully away.[13] In flat lizards, young males take advantage of their underdeveloped secondary sex characteristics to engage in sneak copulations. These young males mimic all the visual signs of a female lizard in order to successfully approach a female and copulate without detection by the dominant male. This strategy does not work at close range because the chemical signals given off by the sneaky males reveal their true nature, and they are chased out by the dominant.[14]

Ganging up

Savanna baboon display a number of mating tactics correlated with their age. One such tactic attributed to older, subordinate males involves forming alliances to combat higher-ranking males in order to achieve access to females for copulation. These lowest ranking males would get no opportunity to copulate otherwise [15]



Decreased fitness and reduced access to nutrition


Subordinate individuals suffer a range of costs from dominance hierarchies, one of the most notable being reduced access to food sources. When a resource is obtained dominant individuals are first to feed as well as taking the longest time. Subordinates also lose out in shelter and nesting sites. Brown hyenas, which display defined linear dominance in both sexes, allow subordinate males and females decreased time of feeding at a carcass.[16] In toque monkeys subordinates are often displaced from feeding sites by dominant males. Additionally, they are excluded from sleeping sites, and they suffer reduced growth and increased mortality.[17]

Decreased reproductive success


Subordinate individuals often demonstrate a huge reproductive disadvantage in dominance hierarchies. Among brown hyenas, subordinate females have less opportunity to rear young in the communal den, and thus had decreased survival of offspring when compared to high-ranking individuals. Subordinate males have far less copulations with females compared to the high-ranking males.[16] In African wild dogs which live in social packs separated into male and female hierarchies, top ranking alpha females have been observed to produce 76-81% of all litters.[18]

Reverse dominance hierarchy


Boehm, having explored data from 48 societies spread across the globe, ranging from small hunting and gathering bands to more sedentary chiefdoms, suggested that with the advent of anatomically modern humans who continued to live in small groups and had not yet domesticated plants and animals, it is very likely that all human societies practised egalitarianism and that most of the time they did so very successfully.[19]

Boehm writes:

"As long as followers remain vigilantly egalitarian because they understand the nature of domination and leaders remain cognizant of this ambivalence-based vigilance, deliberate control of leaders may remain for the most part highly routinized and ethnographically unobvious."

Boehm identifies the following mechanisms ensuring the Reverse Dominance Hierarchy: Public Opinion, Criticism and Ridicule, Disobedience, and Extreme Sanctions. Further characteristics include ambivalence towards leaders and anticipation of domination.

Interpersonal complementarity


The interpersonal complementarity hypothesis suggests that obedience and authority are reciprocal, complementary processes. That is, it predicts that one group member’s behaviours will elicit a predictable set of actions from other group members. Friendly behaviours are predicted to be met with friendly behaviours, and hostile behaviours are predicted to be reciprocated with similar, hostile behaviours. When an individual acts in a dominant, authoritative manner in a group, this behaviour tends to prompt submissive responses from other group members. Similarly, when group members display submissive behaviour, others feel inclined to display dominant behaviours in return.Tiedens and Fragle (2003) found that hierarchical differentiation plays a significant role in liking behaviour in groups.[20] Individuals prefer to interact with other group members whose power, or status behaviour complements their own. That is to say, group members who behave submissively when talking to someone who appears to be in control are better liked, and similarly individuals who display dominant behaviours (e.g., taking charge, issuing orders) are more liked when interacting with docile, subservient individuals.

Mechanisms that regulate the formation of hierarchies in animals


The most basic interaction that establishes a Dominance Hierarchy is the dyad, or paired interaction among individuals. To study the formation of hierarchies, scientists have often used the dyadic method, in which two individuals are forced to interact isolated from others. All individuals in the group are paired with each other (i.e. a round-robin), in isolation, until a hierarchy can be deduced. The process of deducing the hierarchy involves the construction of a dominance matrix, in which wins/ties are expressed in relation to each member of the group.

Recently, it has been postulated that paired interactions alone cannot account for the emergence of dominance hierarchies. This is because in nature, such paired interactions rarely occur in isolation. Thus, a relatively new concept has now emerged in animal behavior: the study of socially embedded dyads. Such phenomena as the audience effect, the context-dependent audience effect in Betta fish (Betta splendens), the observer effect, and the winner-loser effect[citation needed], may play important roles in the formation of dominance hierarchies in social groups. Furthermore, it has been argued that the social group forms a complex signaling network: interactions that occur among just two individuals of the group are in turn affected by other signals transmitted by individuals in direct communication with them. In many animals, these putative signals can include postural changes, as well as changes in “state” (such as color changes).

Individuals with greater hierarchical status tend to displace those ranked lower from access to space, to food and to mating opportunities. Thus, individuals with higher social status tend to have greater reproductive success by mating more often and having more resources to invest in the survival of offspring. Hence it serves as an intrinsic factor for population control, insuring adequate resources for the dominant individuals and thus preventing widespread starvation. Territorial behavior enhances this effect.[21][22]

These hierarchies are not fixed and depend on any number of changing factors, among them are age, gender, body size, intelligence, and aggressiveness.For instance, in linear hierarchies the top ranked individual (“alpha”) is usually replaced by its direct subordinate (“beta”), that assume its role in the group and gain the same benefits.[citation needed] In eusocial species, decrease of fertility is among the main reasons for ranking displacement.

Brood hierarchy


The Blue-footed Booby brood of two chicks always has a dominance hierarchy due to the asynchronous hatching of the eggs. One egg is laid four days before the other, and incubation starts immediately after laying, so the elder chick is hatched four days before the younger chick and has a four-day head start on growth. The elder, stronger chick almost always becomes the dominant chick. During times of food shortage, the dominant chick often kills the subordinate chick by either repeatedly pecking or by ousting the younger chick from the nest. The brood hierarchy makes it easier for the subordinate chick to die quietly in times of food scarcity, which provides an efficient system for booby parents to maximize their investment.[23]

Hormones and dominance


It has been shown that modulation of hormone levels after hibernation may be associated with the establishment of dominance hierarchies within the social order of the Paper wasp (Polistes dominulus).[24] Former studies have shown that dominance hierarchies within the Paper wasp species is dependent on the queen (also known as a foundress, though the mechanism behind the establishment is currently under investigation. Recent research suggests that this manifestation may be dependent on specific hormones contained within the foundress. Laboratory experiments have shown that when foundresses are injected with juvenile hormone (JH), a hormone responsible for regulating growth and development in many insect species including wasps, the foundresses exhibit an increase in dominant behavior compared to those who had not been injected.[24] Further evidence shows that foundresses that have a larger corpora allata, a region of the female wasp brain responsible for the synthesis and secretion of JH, are naturally more dominant.[24] In an effort to determine if JH is indeed responsible for manifesting dominance, a follow up experiment was done utilizing 20-hydroxyecdysone, an ecdysone known to enhance maturation and size of oocytes.[24] The size of the oocytes plays a significant role in establishing dominance within Polistes dominulus and thus researchers used this hormone to compare which condition (either JH or 20-hydroxyecdysone treated) induced higher levels of dominance intensities within foundresses.[25] The results showed that the 20-hydroxyecdysone treated foundresses showed increased dominance compared to those foundresses treated with JH and suggests that 20-hydroxyecdysone, not JH may play a larger role in establishing dominance (Roseler et al., 1984). Subsequent research however, suggests that JH is implicated in the manifestation of dominance, though it only exerts dominance-type effects on certain individuals. By recording the number of mounting attempts between rival foundresses as a measure of dominance, researchers found that when injected with the same amount of JH, larger foundresses showed more mounting behaviors compared to foundresses that were smaller. Additionally, the more dominant foundress tended to show an increased number of oocytes contained within her ovaries. It was concluded that larger foundresses are more reproductively fit and thus JH, which is responsible for the growth and maturation of the ovaries, be more active within these individuals compared to the smaller, less fertile foundresses though the mechanism of action and/or any synergistic effects between JH and other hormones remains unknown.[25]

The effect of relative rank on stress hormone levels in savanna baboons[10]

The hormone model of dominance and reproductive capacity has also been demonstrated in the naked mole-rat (Heterocephalus glaber). It has previously been established that the dominance hierarchy within the species is dependent on the highest ranking female (queen) and her ability to suppress critically important reproductive hormones in male and female sub-dominants. In sub-dominant males, appears that lutenizing hormone and testosterone are suppressed while in females it appears that the suppression involves the entire suppression of the ovarian cycle. This suppression reduces sexual virility and behavior and thus redirects the sub-dominant's behavior into helping the queen with her offspring.[26] though the mechanisms of how this is accomplished are debated. Former research suggests that primer [disambiguation needed] pheromones secreted by the queen cause direct suppression of these vital reproductive hormones and functions however current evidence suggests that it is not the secretion of pheromones which act to suppress reproductive function but rather the queen’s extremely high levels of circulating testosterone, which cause her to exert intense dominance and aggressiveness on the colony and thus "scare" the other mole-rats into submission.[27] Research has shown that removal of the queen from the colony allows the reestablishment of reproductive function in sub-dominant individuals. To see if a priming pheromone secreted by the queen was indeed causing reproductive suppression, researchers removed the queen from the colony but did not remove her bedding. They reasoned that if a primer pheromones were on the bedding then the sub-dominant's reproductive function should continue to be suppressed. Instead however, they found that the sub-dominants quickly regained reproductive function even in the presence of the queen’s bedding and thus it was concluded that primer pheromones do not seem to play a role in suppressing reproductive function.[27]

Evidence also suggests that glucocorticoids, signaling molecules (commonly known as stress hormones) produced by the adrenal glands which stimulate the fight or flight response may also be implicated in the establishment of dominance hierarchies. Field research has shown that higher ranking individuals tend to have much higher levels of circulating glucocorticoids compared to subdominant individuals within the hierarchy.[28] This is in stark opposition to the original suggestion stating that being subdominant was more stressful than being dominant [disambiguation needed] within a hierarchy.[29] Two core hypotheses attempt to explain these unusual findings. The first suggests that higher ranking individuals exert more energy and thus need higher levels of glucocorticoids to more readily mobilize glycogen stores for energy use.[30] This hypothesis is supported by research showing that when food availability is low, cortisol levels tended to increase within the dominant male thus allowing increased glycogen metabolism and subsequent energy production.[29] The second hypothesis suggests that elevated stress hormones are a result of social factors within the hierarchy particularly when the hierarchy is in transition. Proponents of this theory assert that when a hierarchy is unstable, aggressive interaction and confrontations increase within the hierarchy. As a result, the dominant individual ends up fighting much more than when the hierarchy is stable and as consequence of the increased fighting, glucocorticoids are elevated during this period. Field studies of olive baboons in Kenyaseem to support this hypothesis as it has been observed that dominant individuals tended to have lower cortisol levels in a stable hierarchy than did subdominant individuals. When the hierarchy shifted to being unstable however, the dominant individual showed much higher levels of cortisol compared to subdominant individuals.[31] Many are quick to point out however, that this is extremely unusual as dominant individuals rarely have low levels of glucocorticoids regardless of hierarchy state.[29] Nonetheless, it appears that being dominant may not be as beneficial as previously thought since chronic levels of glucocorticoids can have a variety of adverse health effects including immunosuppression, increased appetite, osteoporosis etc. see cortisol and perhaps is the reason why subdominant individuals are so reluctant to challenge the dominant individual for their position during hierarchy transitory periods.

Dominance hierarchies in eusocial insects


In insect societies, only one to few individuals members of a colony can reproduce, whereas the other colony members have their reproductive capabilities suppressed. This conflict over reproduction in some cases results in a dominance hierarchy. Dominant individuals in this case are known as queens and have the obvious advantage of performing reproduction and benefiting from all the tasks performed by their subordinates, the worker caste (foraging, nest maintenance, nest defense, brood care and thermal regulation). Accordingly to Hamilton's rule, the reproduction costs of the worker caste are compensated by the contribution of workers to the queen’s reproductive success, with which they share genes. This is true not only to the popular social insects (ants, termites, some bees and wasps), but also for the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. In a laboratory experiment, Clarke and Faulkes (1997)[32] demonstrated that reproductive status in a colony of H. glaber was correlated with the individual’s ranking position within a dominance hierarchy, but aggression between potential reproductives only started after the queen was removed.

Social insects above mentioned, excluding termites, are haplodiploid. Queen and workers are diploid, but males develop from haploid genotypes. In some species, suppression of ovary development is not totally achieved in the worker caste, which opens the possibility of reproduction by workers. Since nuptial flights are seasonal and workers are wingless, workers are usually virgin and only able to lay eggs that are not inseminated. These eggs are in general viable, developing into males. A worker that perform reproduction is considered a 'cheater' within the colony, because its success in leaving descendants becomes disproportionally larger, compared to its sisters and mother. The advantage of remaining functionally sterile is only accomplished if every worker assume this 'compromise'. When one or more workers start reproducing, the 'social contract' is destroyed and the colony cohesion is dissolved. Aggressive behavior derived from this conflict may result in the formation of hierarchies, and attempts of reproduction by workers are actively suppressed. In some wasps, such as Polistes fuscatus, instead of not laying eggs, the female workers begin being able to reproduce, but once being under the presence of dominant females, the subordinate female workers can no longer reproduce.[33]

In some wasp species such as Liostenogaster flavolineata there are many possible Queens that inhabit a nest, but only one can be queen at a time. When a Queen dies the next Queen is selected by an age based dominance hierarchy. This is also true in the species Polistes instabilis, where the next queen is selected based on age rather than size.Polistes exclamans also exhibits this type of hierarchy.[34] Within the dominance hierarchies of the Polistes versicolor, however, the dominant-subordinate context in the yellow paper wasps is directly related to the exchange of food. Future foundresses within the nest compete over the shared resources of nourishment, such as protein. Unequal nourishment is often what leads to the size differences that result in dominant-subordinate position rankings. Therefore, if during the winter aggregate, the female is able to obtain greater access to food, the female could thus reach a dominant position.[35]

In some species, especially in ants, more than one queen can be found in the same colony, a condition called Polygyny. In this case, another advantage of maintaining a hierarchy is to prolong the colony lifespan. The top ranked individuals may die or lose fertility and "extra queens" may benefit of starting a colony in the same site or nest. This advantage is critical in some ecological contexts, such as in situations where nesting sites are limited or dispersal of individuals is risky due to high rates of predation.

Regulatory mechanisms in eusocial organisms


The suppression of reproduction by dominant individuals is the most common mechanism that maintains the hierarchy. In eusocial mammals this is mainly achieved by aggressive interactions between the potential reproductive females. In eusocial insects, aggressive interactions between sexuals are common determinants of reproductive status, such as in the bumblebee Bombus bifarius,[36] the paper wasp Polistes annularis[37] and in the ants Dinoponera australis and D. quadriceps.[38] In general aggressive interactions are ritualistic and involve antennation (drumming), abdomen curling and very rarely mandible bouts and stinging. The winner of the interaction may walk over the subordinated, that in turn assumes a prostrated posture on the substrate. In order to be effective, these regulatory mechanisms must include traits that make an individual rank position readily recognizable by its nestmates. The composition of the lipid layer present on the cuticle of social insects is usually the clue used by nestmates to recognize each other in the colony and to access information regarding the reproductive status of each one (and therefore its rank in the hierarchy).[39] However, another recent finding suggest that visual cues may also transmit the same information. The paper wasp Polistes dominulus have individual facial marks ("facial badges") that permit them to recognize each other and to identify the hierarchy/reproductive status of each individual.[40] Individuals that have their badges modified by painting were aggressively treated by their nestmates, suggesting that advertising a false ranking status is a costly behavior and it is suppressed in these wasps.

In addition, other behaviors have been demonstrated to be involved in the maintenance of reproductive status in social insects. The removal of a thoracic sclerite in Diacamma ants inhibit ovary development and the only reproductive individual of this naturally queenless genus is the one that retains its sclerite intact. This individual is called gamergate and is responsible for mutilating all the newly emerged females, to maintain its social status. Gamergates of Harpegnathos saltator arise from aggressive interactions, forming a hierarchy of potential reproductives.[41]

In the honey bee Apis mellifera, pheromone produced by the queen mandibular glands is responsible for inhibiting ovary development in the worker caste.[42] "Worker policing" is an additional mechanism that prevents reproduction by workers, found in bees and ants. Policing may involve oophagy and immobilization of egg-layers from the worker caste.[43] In some ant species such as the carpenter ant Camponotus floridanus, eggs from queens have a peculiar chemical profile that workers can distinguish from worker laid eggs. When worker-laid eggs are found, they are eaten.[44] In some species, such as Pachycondyla obscuricornis, workers may try to escape policing by shuffling their eggs within the egg pile laid by the queen.[45]

Female dominance in mammals


Female-biased dominance occurs rarely in mammals, and it is only observed consistently in hyenas, lemurs and the bonobo.[46] It occurs when all adult males exhibit submissive behavior to adult females in social settings. These social settings are usually related to feeding, grooming, and sleeping site priority.

There are three basic proposals for the evolution of female dominance:[47]

  1. The Energy Conservation Hypothesis: males subordinate to females to conserve energy for intense male-male competition experienced during very short breeding seasons
  2. Male behavioral strategy: males defer as a parental investment because it ensures more resources in a harsh unpredictable climate for the female, and thus, the male's future offspring.
  3. Female behavioral strategy: dominance helps females deal with the unusually high reproductive demands; they prevail in more social conflicts because they have more at stake in terms of fitness.

Since these original proposals, scientists like Peter Kappeler have modified and integrated other ideas. However, in the case of lemurs, there is no single hypothesis that can fully explain female social dominance at this time and all three are likely to play a role.

Canidae Dominance Hierarchy


Canidae refers to animals of, relating to, or belonging to the Canidae family of mammals. This includes domestic dogs, jackals, wolves, foxes, coyotes and other dog-like mammals. Dominance Hierarchy is a ranking system or social order among social living groups. Originally it was thought that a pack of dogs (social living group in canines) would have a social ranking order based on specific personality traits and levels of dominance and submission within the pack. It was believed that in each pack there would be an "alpha" leader, a second in command, the "beta", and at the lowest rank, the "omega". Current research suggests that this is a misconception and that the "leaders" of the pack are actually the biological parents of the young pups in the pack. Most packs consist of a nuclear family unit. It is rare that a pack would include non-family members unless the setting is artificial or in some instances orphaned or immigrant individuals may be accepted into a previously-established pack.

Dominance and submissive behaviors were examined in relation to the age and sex of the dogs, as well as in competitive contexts such as feeding, and being in the presence of receptive females (breeding) in a study conducted by Cafazzo, Valsecchi, Bonanni, and Natoli (2010).[48] The population was a group of approximately 100 free-ranging domestic dogs in a suburban environment . This study suggested that there is an age-related dominance hierarchy based on the observation that adolescent dogs frequently submitted to their elders. Young pups were submissive to adolescents as well as the adults. The researchers concluded that a display of submissive behavior was the best measure of dominance. This information conflicts with the long-held belief that dogs use aggressive behavior to dominate others and supports the notion that the leaders of a pack are most often the breeding male parent and breeding female parent.

International wolf expert and research scientist L. David Mech[49] has rescinded his concept of the "Alpha" based on 13 years of natural observation. Mech asserts that the concept of the "alpha" is outdated and that new research shows that in the wild, wolves achieve their position by becoming a breeding parent. Mech's research supports the notion that canids form nuclear families that live together through cooperation, not aggression. He suggests that dominance and aggression are not the same.

In artificial settings such as the home of a domesticated dog, the social hierarchy can be found to be much different than free-ranging dogs or wolves in the wild. The problem is that there is not a whole lot of research on domesticated dogs and most of that research is not scientifically validated. Typically, the domesticated dog sees the owner as its "parent" and other non-related dogs in the home as that dogs "siblings". This comprises what would be seen as a nuclear family outside of captivity, which would be for the most part blood related.

In a longitudinal study of domestic canine behavior and their social organization, Alexandra Semyonova[50] concluded that there is no social ranking or dominance hierarchy in domestic dogs. A hierarchy among domestic dogs is an illusion placed upon them by human fantasy. Semyonova found that each dog in a pack forms relationships with other individual dogs on a one-on-one basis. The relationship is based on signals given and feedback received. When a new dog is introduced, each individual dog forms its own relationship with the new dog. Semyonova proposed that there are three rules or principles presiding over the organization of the group, the behavior between dogs, and the behavior of the group. First, the dogs seek to establish a domain without aggression. Secondly, they establish a common language or system of reciprocal signals to keep social order. Lastly, once a dog recognizes another dog's signals, cues and position, it will make compromises to insure stability within the pack. Overall, dogs seek stability in their habitat.

Another misconception about the previous held notion of dominance hierarchy in dogs is qualifying a dog as dominant or aggressive when they are simply using their own gestures and signals to interact with other dogs[citation needed]. Typically certain threat gestures (formally known as 'dominant') are actually signals that a dog feels threatened or anxious about a situation[citation needed]. Displaying threatening behavior does not make a dog "dominant", he may be simply protecting himself, dealing with his inner emotional states, or telling another dog to "stay away"[citation needed]. Some typical threat gestures are erect ears, staring, growling, barking, having teeth barred, and mounting without sexual intent. Some non-threat gestures (formally known as 'submissive')are ignoring the other dog, averting the eyes, ears held low and folded back, cowering so that the body has a lower posture, holding the tail low and even at times between the legs (covering the genitals), lying on the back. licking at the air or at the corners of the other dogs mouth, urinating unexpectedly, and some also yelp, squeal, or bark in high tones. All of these interactive signals are a common language among dogs to protect themselves and keep peace in their environment.

Dominance in birds


In Dunnocks, two or three males may share one or more females in a polyandrous or polygynandrous mating system. This leads to the males' ranges to overlap so they would cooperate in order to defend the territory. Among the males is a dominance hierarchy: older birds tend to be the alpha male and first year birds are usually the beta males. Studies have not found cases of close male relatives being involved in any mating combinations.

Dominance in fish


Dominance hierarchies can also be observed in many fish. For example, in the dragonet, males form hierarchies that are often exhibited during mating. They can act extremely aggressively towards another male if it intrudes upon courtship and pairing with a female, and fights can be very intense.

See also



  1. ^ Alcock, John. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005.
  2. ^ a b Chase, I. D.; Tovey, C.; Murch, P. (2003). "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd: Differences in Dominance Relationships in Isolated versus Socially Embedded Pairs of Fish". Behavior. 140: 1193–217. doi:10.1163/156853903771980558.
  3. ^ Huntingford, Felicity. The Study of Animal Behaviour. London: Chapman and Hall, 1984.
  4. ^ Laubach, Zachary. "Functional Importance of Plumage Badges as Intraspecific Signals in White-Crowned Sparrows (zonotrichia Leucophrys Oriantha) : Deep Blue at the University of Michigan." Functional Importance of Plumage Badges as Intraspecific Signals in White-Crowned Sparrows (zonotrichia Leucophrys Oriantha) : Deep Blue at the University of Michigan. Deep Blue. 27 Nov. 2012. <>.
  5. ^ Yahner, Richard H. Wildlife Behavior and Conservation. New York: Springer, 2012.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h Huntingford, Felicity, and Angela K. Turner. Animal Conflict. London: Chapman and Hall, 1987
  7. ^ Samuels, A; Silk, JB; Rodman, P (1984). "Changes in the dominance rank and reproductive behavior of male bonnet macaques (Macaca radiate)". Anim. Behav. 32: 994–1003. doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(84)80212-2.
  8. ^ Gesquiere, Laurence R.; Learn, Niki H.; Simao, Carolina M.; Onyango, Patrick O.; Alberts, Susan C.; Altmann, Jeanne (2011). "Life at the Top: Rank and Stress in Wild Male Baboons". Science. 333: 357–60. doi:10.1126/science.1207120.
  9. ^ Pusey, A.E., and C. Packer. 1997. The ecology of relationships. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, edited by J. R. Krebs and N.B. Davies. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp 254-283
  10. ^ a b Gesquiere, Laurence R.; Learn, Niki H.; Simao, M. Carolina M.; Onyango, Patrick O.; Alberts, Susan C.; Altmann, Jeanne (2011). "Life at the Top: Rank and Stress in Wild Male Baboons". Science. 333 (6040): 357–360. doi:10.1126/science.1207120.
  11. ^ Baker, P. J.; Robertson, C. P. J.; Funk, S. M.; Harris, S. (1998). "Potential fitness benefits of group living in the red fox, Vulpes vulpes". Animal Behaviour. 56: 1411–1424. doi:10.1006/anbe.1998.0950.
  12. ^ Hogg, J. T.; Forbes, S. H. (1997). "Mating in bighorn sheep: Frequent male reproduction via a high-risk unconventional tactic". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 41 (1): 33–48. doi:10.1007/s002650050361.
  13. ^ Pettinger, Adam M.; Steiger, Sandra; Mueller, Josef K.; Sakaluk, Scott K.; Eggert, Anne-Katrin (2011). "Dominance status and carcass availability affect the outcome of sperm competition in burying beetles". Behavioral Ecology. 22 (5): 1079–1087. doi:10.1093/beheco/arr093.
  14. ^ Whiting, Martin J.; Webb, Jonathan K.; Keogh, J. Scott (2009). "Flat lizard female mimics use sexual deception in visual but not chemical signals". Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. 276 (1662): 1585–1591. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.182.
  15. ^ Noe, R.; Sluijter, A. A. (1990). "REPRODUCTIVE TACTICS OF MALE SAVANNA BABOONS". Behaviour. 113: 117–170. doi:10.1163/156853990x00455.
  16. ^ a b Owens, D.; Owens, M. (1996). "Social dominance and reproductive patterns in brown hyaenas, Hyaena brunnea, of the central Kalahari desert". Animal Behaviour. 51: 535–551. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0058.
  17. ^ Dittus, W. P. J. (1977). "SOCIAL REGULATION OF POPULATION-DENSITY AND AGE-SEX DISTRIBUTION IN TOQUE MONKEY". Behaviour. 63: 281. doi:10.1163/156853977x00450.
  18. ^ Creel, S (1997). "Handling of African wild dogs and chronic stress: Reply". Conservation Biology. 11 (6): 1454–1456. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.0110061454.x.
  19. ^ Boehm, Christopher (1993). "Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy". Current Anthropology. 34 (3): 227–254. doi:10.1086/204166.
  20. ^ Tiedens, Larissa; Alison Fragale (2003). "Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (3): 558–568. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  21. ^ "Behavior: The Animal Watchers". Time. 1973-10-22. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
  22. ^ Lorenz:On Aggression:BOOK SUMMARY
  23. ^ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions' not found.
  24. ^ a b c d Roseler, P.F.; Roseler, I.; Strambi, A.; Augier, R. (1984). "Influence of insect hormones on the establishment of dominance hierarchies among foundresses of the paper wasp, Polistes gallicus". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 15: 133–142. doi:10.1007/bf00299381.
  25. ^ a b Tibbetts, E.A.; Izzo, A.S. (2009). "Endocrine mediated phenotypic plasticity: Condition-dependent effects on juvenile hormone on dominance and fertility of wasp queens". Hormones and Behavior. 56: 527–531. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.09.003.
  26. ^ Clarke, F.M., Faulkes, C.G. (1998). Hormonal and behavioural correlates of male dominance and reproductive status in captive colonies of the naked mole-rat, Heterocephalus glaber. The Royal Society.
  27. ^ a b Faulkes, C.G.; Abbott, D.H. (1993). "Evidence that primer pheromones do not cause social suppression of reproduction in male and female naked mole-rats". Journal of Reproduction and Fertility. 99: 225–230. doi:10.1530/jrf.0.0990225.
  28. ^ Creel, S (2005). "For example, fishes such as Oreochromis mossambicus display higher levels of glucocorticoids in more dominant individuals compared to less dominant ones. Dominance, aggression and glucocorticoid levels in social carnivores". Journal of Mammatology. 86 (2): 255–264.
  29. ^ a b c Muller, M.N.; Wrangham, R.W. (2004). "Dominance, cortisol and stress in wild chimpanzees". Journal of Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 55: 332–340. doi:10.1007/s00265-003-0713-1.
  30. ^ Genuth, S.M. (1993). The endocrine system. In:Berne RM, Levy MN (eds) Physiology, vol 3. Mosby Year Book, St. Louis. pp 813-1024
  31. ^ Sapolsy, R.M. "Cortisol concentrations and the social significance of rank instability among wild baboons". Journal of Psychoneuroendocrinology. 17: 701–709.
  32. ^ Clarke, FM; Faulkes, CG. (1997). "Dominance and queen succession in captive colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat, Heterocephalus glaber". Proc Biol Sci. 264 (1384): 993–1000. doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0137. PMC 1688532. PMID 9263466.
  33. ^ West-Eberhard, M. J. (1969). "The social biology of polistine wasps". Mis . Publ.Zool. Univ. Michigan. 140: 1–101.
  34. ^ Strassmann & Meyer (1983). "Gerontocracy in the social wasp, Polistes exclamans". Animal Behavior. 31 (1): 431–438. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80063-3.
  35. ^ González, J. A.; Nascimento, F. S.; Gayubo, S. F. (2002). "Observations on the Winter Aggregates of Two Polistine Paper Wasps (Hymenoptera Vespidae Polistinae)". Tropical Zoology. 15 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/03946975.2002.10531162.
  36. ^ Foster, RL; Ameilia, B; Verdirame, D; O'Donnell, S (2004). "Reproductive physiology, dominance interactions, and division of labour among bumble bee workers". Physiological Entomology. 29: 327–334. doi:10.1111/j.0307-6962.2004.00388.x.
  37. ^ Hughes, CR; Beck, MO; Strassman, JE (1987). "Queen succession in the social wasp Polistes annularis". Ethology. 76: 124–132. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00678.x.
  38. ^ Monnin, T; Ratnieks, FLW; Brandao, CRF (2003). "Reproductive conflict in animal societies: hierarchy length increases with colony size in queenless ponerine ants". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 54: 71–79. doi:10.1007/s00265-003-0600-9.
  39. ^ Monnin, T (2006). "Chemical recognition of reproductive status in social insects". Annales Zoologici Fennici. 43: 515–530.
  40. ^ Tibbetts, E.A.; Dale, J. (2004). "A socially enforced signal of quality in paper wasp". Nature. 432 (7014): 218–222. doi:10.1038/nature02949. PMID 15538369.
  41. ^ Peeters, C; Liebig, J; Hölldobler, B (2000). "Sexual reproduction by both queens and workers in the ponerine ant Harpegnathos saltator". Insectes Sociaux. 47: 325–332. doi:10.1007/pl00001724.
  42. ^ Hoover, SER; Keeling, CI; Winston, ML; Slessor, KN (2003). "The effect of queen pheromones on worker honey bee ovary development". Naturwissenschaften. 90: 477–480. doi:10.1007/s00114-003-0462-z.
  43. ^ Ratnieks, FLW; Visscher, PK. (1989). "Worker policing in the honeybee". Nature. 342 (6251): 796–797. doi:10.1038/342796a0.
  44. ^ Endler, A.; Liebig, J; Schmitt, T; Parker, JE; Jones, GR; Schreier, P; H�lldobler, B (2004). "Surface Hydrocarbons of queen eggs regulate worker reproduction in a social insect". PNAS. 101 (9): 2945–2950. doi:10.1073/pnas.0308447101. PMC 365725. PMID 14993614. {{cite journal}}: replacement character in |last7= at position 2 (help)
  45. ^ Oliveim, PS, and Ho11dobler B, 1991. Agonistic interactions and reproductive dominance in Pachycondyla obscuricornis (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Psyche 98: 215–226.
  46. ^ Digby, LI and Kahlenberg, SM (2002). "Female dominance in blue-eyed black lemurs". Primates. 43 (3): 191–199. doi:10.1007/BF02629647. PMID 12145400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  47. ^ Young, Andrew L.; Richard, Alison F.; Aiello, Leslie C. (1990). "Female Dominance and Maternal Investment in Strepsirhine Primates". The American Naturalist. 135 (4): 473–488. doi:10.1086/285057.
  48. ^ Cafazzo, R. Natoli; Valsecchi, S.; Bonanni, P. (2010). "Dominance in relation to age, sex, and competitive contexts in a group of free-ranging domestic dogs". Behavioral Ecology. 21 (3): 443–455. doi:10.1093/beheco/arq001.
  49. ^ Mech, D.L. (2009). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8): 1196-1203, 10.1139/z99-099
  50. ^ Semyonova, A. (2003) The social organization of the domestic dog; a longitudinal study of domestic canine behavior and the ontogeny of domestic canine social systems, The Carriage House foundation, The Hague, version 2006
  • Chase, I.; Tovey, C.; Spangler-Martin, D.; Manfredonia, M. (2002). "Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies". PNAS. 99 (9): 5744–5749. doi:10.1073/pnas.082104199.
  • Chase, I.; Bartolomeo, C.; Dugatkin, L. (1994). "Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning?". Animal Behaviour. 48 (2): 393–400. doi:10.1006/anbe.1994.1253.
  • Cummins, D.D. (1996). "Dominance Hierarchies and the Evolution of Human Reasoning". Minds and Machines. 6 (4): 463–480.
  • Lehner, Philip N, 1998. Handbook of ethological methods (2nd. ed.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, pp. 332–335.
  • Oliveira, RF; McGregor, PK; Latruffe, C (1998). "Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 265 (1401): 1045–1049. doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.0397.
  • Wilson, E. O. Sociobiology. 2000.

Books with this theme