Mis-measure of animal contests.

Contests between rivals placing similar value on the resource at stake are commonly won by the rival having greater 'resource holding potential' (RHP). Mutual assessment of RHP difference between rivals is usually expected as an economical means of resolution; weaker rivals can retreat when they detect their relative inferiority, thereby avoiding costly, futile persistence. Models of contest resolution that entail retreat decisions based on estimates of RHP difference predict that contest duration diminishes as RHP difference between rivals increases because the asymmetry is more readily detected. This prediction appears to have been fulfilled in contests of diverse taxa, generating widespread support for assessment of RHP differences in contests. But few studies have considered alternatives in which each rival simply persists in accord with its own RHP ('own RHP-dependent persistence'). In contests decided by own RHP-dependent persistence, in which costs accrue only through each rival's own actions, weaker rivals retreat first because they are inherently less persistent, and contest duration depends primarily on the weaker (losing) rival's RHP rather than RHP difference between the rivals. We show here that the analyses most commonly used to detect effects of RHP difference cannot discriminate between these alternatives. Because RHP difference between rivals tends to be correlated with RHP of the weaker rival in a pair, a negative relation between RHP difference and contest duration may be generated even when decisions of retreat are not based on estimated RHP difference. Many studies purporting to show a negative relation between RHP difference and contest duration may actually reflect an incidental association between weaker rival RHP and RHP difference. We suggest statistical and experimental approaches that may help to discriminate between effects of weaker rival RHP and true effects of RHP difference. We also discuss whether 'true' negative effects of RHP difference on contest duration always reflect retreat decisions based on estimated RHP differences. Copyright 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd on behalf of The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Gender differences in aggressive behaviour in convict cichlids

Males and females of many species engage in agonistic encounters. However, differing selection pressures on each sex are predicted to result in sex differences in aggressive behaviour during contests. Comparing male and female intrasexual contests can yield intriguing differences, shedding light on the forces shaping the use of particular aggressive tactics. We investigated whether fundamental gender-related differences in aggression, not explained by current parental role, are present in convict cichlids, Amatitlania nigrofasciata. Intrasexual agonistic encounters between isolated males and between isolated females not previously paired to a breeding partner were staged. Using this approach we first tested for behavioural differences between the sexes. Second, using a novel startle technique aimed at probing motivation to fight, we tested for gender-related differences in aggressive motivation. Third, we examined whether size, rather than gender, plays a role in determining the tactics used during contests. In addressing these aims we found: (1) females used more frontal display and biting, and spent more time in close proximity to their opponent, whereas males used more lateral display and tail beating than females during agonistic encounters; (2) there was no difference in the response of male or female convict cichlids to a startling stimulus aimed at probing motivation to fight; and (3) the addition of focal weight and length as possible covariates had no significant effect on the analyses. Possible causal and functional reasons for these gender-related differences in fight tactics are discussed. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests

Selection should favour accurate information gathering regarding the likely costs and benefits of continued conflict. Here we consider how variation in the abilities of contestants to assess resource-holding potential (RHP) influences fights. This has been examined in various game theory models. However, discriminating between assessment strategies has proven difficult and has resulted in confusion. To add clarity, we group existing models into three main types that differ in the information about RHP that contestants are presumed to gather: (1) pure self-assessment, (2) cumulative assessment and (3) mutual assessment. Within this framework we outline methods advocated to discriminate successfully between the three main assessment models. We discuss support for each model, before highlighting a number of conflicting and inconclusive studies, leading us to consider alternative approaches to investigate assessment. Furthermore, we examine support for newly emerging concepts such as 'varying degrees of assessment', 'switching assessment' strategies and the possibility of contestants adopting different assessment strategies within a fight involving distinctive roles. We suggest future studies will benefit by judicious use of a battery of techniques to determine how animals settle contests. Finally, we highlight difficulties with current game theory models, and raise concerns regarding the use of certain behavioural criteria to accept or reject a model, particularly since this may conflict with evidence for a given assessment strategy. Furthermore, the failure of existing models to account for newly emerging concepts points to limitations of their use and leads us to challenge game theoreticians to develop upon them. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contests

Contestants are predicted to adjust the cost of a fight in line with the perceived value of the resource and this provides a way of determining whether the resource has been assessed. An assessment of resource value is predicted to alter an animal's motivational state and we note different methods of measuring that state. We provide a categorical framework in which the degree of resource assessment may be evaluated and also note limitations of various approaches. We place studies in six categories: (1) cases of no assessment, (2) cases of internal state such as hunger influencing apparent value, (3) cases of the contestants differing in assessment ability, (4) cases of mutual and equal assessment of value, (5) cases where opponents differ in resource value and (6) cases of particularly complex assessment abilities that involve a comparison of the value of two resources. We examine the extent to which these studies support game theory predictions and suggest future areas of research. (C) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.