2 results
20 - Conclusions and future directions
-
- By Peter Neuhaus, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, Kathreen E. Ruckstuhl, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, Larissa Conradt, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton
- Edited by Kathreen Ruckstuhl, University of Cambridge, Peter Neuhaus, University of Cambridge
-
- Book:
- Sexual Segregation in Vertebrates
- Published online:
- 04 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 05 January 2006, pp 395-402
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
OVERVIEW
Sexual segregation is predominant in sexually dimorphic ungulates and is generally a common feature in vertebrates and also occurs in some invertebrates as described recently in squids (Arkhipkin, 2002). When we first had the idea of this book we did not know if, and to what extent, non-ungulate species showed this phenomenon. We think that the contributors to this volume have done a great job in describing what is known about sexual segregation, not only in ungulates but also in a wide variety of other vertebrate species. However, this book is not only an update of what is known about this topic in vertebrates, but within the different chapters it also discusses what is not known and where future research could and should progress in clarifying the causes and consequences of sexual segregation. The novelty of this book is the collection and discussion of the many different consequences and probable causes of sexual segregation on many different levels. While different taxa have been looked at and described in this book, notably ungulates (Chapters 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 19), marsupials (Chapter 14), primates, including humans (Chapters 12 and 17), odontocetes (Chapter 16), bats (Chapter 15), birds (Chapters 5, 6 and 18), seals (Chapter 4), sharks (Chapter 8), reptiles (Chapter 13) and to a certain extent other fish (Chapter 7), other important groups such as rodents or carnivores (other than seals) have not been dealt with.
2 - Definitions, hypotheses, models and measures in the study of animal segregation
-
- By Larissa Conradt, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex
- Edited by Kathreen Ruckstuhl, University of Cambridge, Peter Neuhaus, University of Cambridge
-
- Book:
- Sexual Segregation in Vertebrates
- Published online:
- 04 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 05 January 2006, pp 11-32
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
OUTLINE
In this chapter, the term ‘segregation’ is clarified, the different types of segregation are defined, and the importance of using terms accurately and consistently is illustrated. The rationale of the key hypotheses relating to causes of different types of segregation is briefly explained and a measure of the degree of segregation (the ‘segregation coefficient’) is presented that is suitable (i) to test hypotheses relating to segregation; and (ii) to make comparisons between populations, species and types of segregation. The chapter concludes with a model to predict the degree of social segregation in a population and ends with three brief empirical examples.
DEFINITIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF SEGREGATION AND DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM
In many group-living animals, individuals of different classes such as, for example, males and females, subadults and adults, or large and small individuals tend to form separate social groups (e.g. Croft et al., 2003). This is termed ‘social segregation’ (Villaret & Bon, 1995, 1998; Bon & Campan, 1996). Further, classes of animals often differ in their habitat use, which is called ‘habitat segregation’, and/or they differ in their area use, which is termed ‘spatial segregation’ (e.g. Clutton-Brock et al., 1982), whereby ‘spatial segregation’ should be treated as an auxilliary concept (see later). Additionally, the terms ‘diet segregation’ (the classes differ in diet choice) and ‘temporal segregation’ (the classes use the same area but at different times of the year) are used by many authors (e.g. see Chapter 14).