Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 805–812 | Cite as

Dominance and social information use in a lizard

  • Fonti KarEmail author
  • Martin J. Whiting
  • Daniel W. A. Noble
Original Paper

Abstract

There is mounting evidence that social learning is not just restricted to group-living animals, but also occurs in species with a wide range of social systems. However, we still have a poor understanding of the factors driving individual differences in social information use. We investigated the effects of relative dominance on social information use in the eastern water skink (Eulamprus quoyii), a species with age-dependent social learning. We used staged contests to establish dominant–subordinate relationships in pairs of lizards and tested whether observers use social information to more quickly solve both an association and reversal learning task in situations where the demonstrator was either dominant or subordinate. Surprisingly, we found no evidence of social information use, irrespective of relative dominance between observer and demonstrator. However, dominant lizards learnt at a faster rate than subordinate lizards in the associative learning task, although there were no significant differences in the reversal task. In light of previous work in this species, we suggest that age may be a more important driver of social information use because demonstrators and observers in our study were closely size-matched and were likely to be of similar age.

Keywords

Social learning Private information Social status Social rank Reptile 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on the earlier version of this manuscript. We are grateful for Christine Wilson for scoring our video footage, and we would also like to thank the numerous members of the Lizard Lab that assisted us with lizard collection, husbandry and experimental setup.

Funding

DWAN was supported by an Australian Research Council (DECRA: DE150101774), and this work was also supported by Macquarie University and a Discovery Grant (DP130102998) awarded by the Australian Research Council to MJW.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All protocols for this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Macquarie University Animal Ethics Committee (ARA 2014/036). A scientific permit for this study was granted by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Office of Environment and Heritage (SL100328).

Supplementary material

10071_2017_1101_MOESM1_ESM.docx (599 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 598 kb)

References

  1. Aplin LM, Sheldon BC, Morand-Ferron J (2013) Milk bottles revisited: social learning and individual variation in the blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus. Anim Behav 85:1225–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awazu S, Fujita K (2000) Influence of dominance on food transmission in rats. Jpn J Anim Psychol 50:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson-Amram S, Heinen V, Gessner A, Weldele ML, Holekamp KE (2014) Limited social learning of a novel technical problem by spotted hyenas. Behav Process 109:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boogert NJ, Reader SM, Laland KN (2006) The relation between social rank, neophobia and individual learning in starlings. Anim Behav 72:1229–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1995) Why does culture increase human adaptability? Ethol Sociobiol 16:125–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coussi-Korbel S, Fragaszy DM (1995) On the relation between social dynamics and social learning. Anim Behav 50:1441–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis KM, Burghardt GM (2011) Turtles (Pseudemys nelsoni) learn about visual cues indicating food from experienced turtles. J Comp Psychol 125:404–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Done BS, Heatwole H (1977) Social behavior of some Australian skinks. Copeia 1977:419–430Google Scholar
  9. Doody JS, Burghardt GM, Dinets V (2013) Breaking the social–non-social dichotomy: a role for reptiles in vertebrate social behavior research? Ethology 119:95–103. doi: 10.1111/eth.12047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drea CM, Wallen K (1999) Low-status monkeys “play dumb” when learning in mixed social groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:12965–12969CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Duffy GA, Pike TW, Laland KN (2009) Size-dependent directed social learning in nine-spined sticklebacks. Anim Behav 78:371–375. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galef BG, Laland KN (2005) Social learning in animals—empirical studies and theoretical models. Bioscience 55:489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galef BG, Marczinksi CA, Murray KA, Whiskin EE (2001) Food stealing by young Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus). J Comp Psychol 115:16–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Halliday TR, Verrell P (1988) Body size and age in amphibians and reptiles. J Herpetol 22(3):253–265Google Scholar
  15. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156. doi: 10.2307/177062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kar F, Whiting MJ, Noble DW (2016) Influence of prior contest experience and level of escalation on contest outcome. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1679–1687. doi: 10.1007/s00265-016-2173-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kavaliers M, Colwell D, Choleris E (2005) Kinship, familiarity and social status modulate social learning about “micropredators” (biting flies) in deer mice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:60–71. doi: 10.1007/s00265-004-0896-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial Learning. Adv Stud Behav 35:333–379. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3454(05)35008-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kendal R, Hopper LM, Whiten A, Brosnan SF, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ, Hoppitt W (2014) Chimpanzees copy dominant and knowledgeable individuals: implications for cultural diversity. Evol Hum Behav 36:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kis A, Huber L, Wilkinson A (2014) Social learning by imitation in a reptile (Pogona vitticeps). Anim Cognit 18:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krueger K, Heinze J (2008) Horse sense: social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses’ behavior. Anim Cognit 11:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laland KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 32:4–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lefebvre L (2010) Taxonomic counts of cognition in the wild. Biol Lett. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0556 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicol CJ, Pope SJ (1999) The effects of demonstrator social status and prior foraging success on social learning in laying hens. Anim Behav 57:163–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Noble DW, Wechmann K, Keogh JS, Whiting MJ (2013) Behavioral and morphological traits interact to promote the evolution of alternative reproductive tactics in a lizard. Am Nat 182:726–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Noble DW, Byrne RW, Whiting MJ (2014) Age-dependent social learning in a lizard. Biol Lett. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0430 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Pérez-Cembranos A, Pérez-Mellado V (2015) Local enhancement and social foraging in a non-social insular lizard. Anim Cognit 18:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pongracz P, Vida V, Banhegyi P, Miklosi A (2008) How does dominance rank status affect individual and social learning performance in the dog (Canis familiaris)? Anim Cognit 11:75–82. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0090-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rieucau G, Giraldeau LA (2011) Exploring the costs and benefits of social information use: an appraisal of current experimental evidence. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 366:949–957. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shepherd SV, Deaner RO, Platt ML (2006) Social status gates social attention in monkeys. Curr Biol CB 16:R119–R120. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.02.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Spritzer MD, Meikle DB, Solomon NG (2004) The relationship between dominance rank and spatial ability among male meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Comp Psychol 118:332–339. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.3.332 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stahl J, Tolsma PH, Loonen MJ, Drent RH (2001) Subordinates explore but dominants profit: resource competition in high Arctic barnacle goose flocks. Anim Behav 61:257–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Templeton JJ, Giraldeau L-A (1996) Vicarious sampling: the use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patchy environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Bergen Y, Coolen I, Laland KN (2004) Nine-spined sticklebacks exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 271:957–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whiting MJ, Greeff JM (1999) Use of heterospecific cues by the lizard Platysaurus broadleyi for food location. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:420–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whiting MJ, Stuart-Fox DM, O’Connor D, Firth D, Bennett NC, Blomberg SP (2006) Ultraviolet signals ultra-aggression in a lizard. Anim Behav 72:353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilkinson A, Kuenstner K, Mueller J, Huber L (2010) Social learning in a non-social reptile (Geochelone carbonaria). Biol Lett 6:614–616. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0092 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesKensingtonAustralia

Personalised recommendations