ArticleFrontiers in zoology2023
Third-party intervention and post-conflict behaviour in agonistic encounters of pigs (Sus scrofa).
Article in Frontiers in zoology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategic third-party interventions in feral ungulate affiliation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThird-party interference in agonistic contests entails a deliberate intervention in an ongoing fight by a bystanding individual (third party) and may be followed by post-conflict social behaviour to provide support to a specific individual. The mechanisms behind third-party intervention are, however, still largely understudied. The aim of this study was to investigate third-party interference, with the predictions that (1) the interferer derives benefits from its action by winning a fight, (2) that patterns of intervention depend on familiarity, (3) that dyadic fights last longer than triadic fights, and (4) that interferers engage in non-agonistic social behaviours afterwards. Pre-pubertal pigs (Sus scrofa) (n = 384) were grouped with one familiar and four unfamiliar conspecifics (all non-kin) to elicit contests for dominance rank. Third-party interference was analysed for the first 30 min after grouping, along with the behaviour (nosing or aggression), contest duration, contest outcome, and interferer behaviour after the fight (post-conflict social behaviour).
resultsThree types of interference were observed: non-agonistic involvement (nose contact) by the interferer in a dyadic fight; a triadic fight with each of three contestants fighting one opponent at a time; and triadic fights with two opponents jointly attacking the third one (two-against-one fights). The likelihood of a third-party intervention to occur did not depend on the presence of a familiar animal in the fight. However, once intervention was triggered, interferers attacked unfamiliar fight initiators more than familiar ones. Two-against-one fights lasted longer than other triadic fights and occurred more often when both initial contestants were females. Results of 110 triadic fights (out of 585 fights in total) revealed that interferers were more likely to win compared to the initial opponents at equal body weight. The most common post-conflict behaviour displayed by the interferer was agonistic behaviour towards another group member, independently of familiarity.
conclusionsThe general lack of discrimination for familiarity suggests interference is not driven by support to familiar individuals in pigs. The results show that intervening in an ongoing fight gives the interferer a high chance of contest success and may be a strategy that is beneficial to the interferer to increase its dominance status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.