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.

Interactions between invasive and native crustaceans: differential functional responses of intraguild predators towards juvenile hetero-specifics

Intraguild predation (IGP) between invasive and native species can lead to species exclusions or co-existence, dependent on the direction and strength of the interaction. Recently, derivation of 'functional responses' has been identified as a means of comparing the community impacts of invasive and native species. Here, we employ a novel use of this functional response methodology to evaluate any IGP asymmetries between the invasive Ponto-Caspian amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus and the North American native Gammarus fasciatus. The direction and magnitude of intraguild predation of adult males on hetero-specific adult females has previously been shown to reverse across a water conductivity gradient. This partially explains field patterns, but does not predict the co-existence of the two species observed in many habitats and locations. Here, we compared intraguild predation by both species on each other's juveniles in high- and low- conductivity water. G. fasciatus has a higher type II functional response towards E. ischnus juveniles compared to the reciprocal interaction. Conductivity did not influence the predation rate on juveniles of either E. ischnus or G. fasciatus. Thus, the male/female IGP advantage to the native G. fasciatus in low conductivity water is compounded by a juvenile IGP asymmetry, which also counteracts the male/female IGP advantage to E. ischnus in high conductivity waters, helping to explain field patterns of exclusion and co-existence. Thus, complex asymmetries in mutual IGP associated with inherent species differences, environmental modulation, and life-history effects can help us understand and predict the population and community level outcomes of species invasions.