Suchergebnisse

Crump et al.'s framework is a powerful tool designed to assist decisions on the ethical treatment of decapod crustaceans. However, the question of whether decapods are sentient (i.e., whether they feel), remains open, perhaps indefinitely. More optimistically, we might design experiments that distinguish among different levels of awareness, sometimes viewed as components of sentience. We should strike a balance between assuming that all organisms are sentient and making unnecessary anatomical assumptions about sentience. Refining current experiments may provide concrete insights about awareness in Decapoda and other taxa.

Crump et al.'s framework is a powerful tool designed to assist decisions on the ethical treatment of decapod crustaceans. However, the question of whether decapods are sentient (i.e., whether they feel), remains open, perhaps indefinitely. More optimistically, we might design experiments that distinguish among different levels of awareness, sometimes viewed as components of sentience. We should strike a balance between assuming that all organisms are sentient and making unnecessary anatomical assumptions about sentience. Refining current experiments may provide concrete insights about awareness in Decapoda and other taxa.

Intro -- Contents -- Contributors -- Foreword A personal history of the development of animal contest theory and its role in the 1970s -- Before 1970 -- The behavioural ecology revolution -- Assessment strategy and RHP -- The birth of the ESS -- ESS and asymmetric contests -- The immediate aftermath -- And beyond -- References -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations -- 1 Introduction to animal contests -- 1.1 Animal contests in nature -- 1.2 Defining animal contests -- 1.3 Animal contests and behavioural ecology -- Acknowledgements -- References -- 2 Dyadic contests: modelling fights between two individuals -- 2.1 Summary -- 2.2 Introduction -- 2.3 Notation -- 2.4 A categorisation of models -- 2.5 The beginning: ESS and the conundrum of limited war -- 2.5.1 Hawks and Doves -- 2.5.2 War of attrition -- 2.5.2.1 Value of fights: why populations evolve to fight at all -- 2.5.2.2 Persistence to the point of absurdity -- 2.6 Asymmetries: when opposites are not alike -- 2.6.1 Uncorrelated and correlated asymmetries -- 2.6.1.1 Why value asymmetries require more careful thought than RHP asymmetries -- 2.6.1.2 RHP and V asymmetries may covary -- 2.6.2 What to do if RHP or V varies depending on the information available -- 2.6.2.1 The Napoleon complex -- 2.6.2.2 Explicit modelling of future options -- 2.6.3 True open-box models -- 2.6.3.1 Sequential assessment game -- 2.6.3.2 Fatal fights -- 2.6.4 Signalling -- 2.6.4.1 Cumulative assessment game -- 2.6.4.2 Honesty, bluff and badges of status -- 2.6.4.3 Threat displays: some of them can be dishonest -- 2.6.4.4 Are threat signals handicaps? -- 2.6.5 Are uncorrelated asymmetries important? -- 2.6.5.1 Bourgeois and its paradoxical mirror image -- 2.6.5.2 The desperado effect -- 2.6.5.3 Towards population-level feedback -- 2.6.5.4 What has eco-evolutionary feedback shown? -- 2.7 Social structure.