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.

Self-assessment by males during energetically costly contests over precopula females in amphipods

In animal contests, individuals can either engage in mutual assessment of both their own and their opponent's resource-holding potential (RHP) and adjust their behaviour according to estimated differences, or instead persist in accordance with thresholds determined by assessment of just their own RHP. We examined the predictions of alternative mutual assessment and self-assessment models for decision rules in contest resolution during struggles between males over females in precopula in the amphipod Gammarus pulex. Contest duration was positively related to the weight of the loser but not the weight of the winner. Our results support the hypothesis that males rely on information about their own RHP in determining contest behaviour and do not use information about their opponent. Fighting was energetically costly, and energy reserves were depleted during contests. Contest duration was associated with the physiological state of the loser (but not the winner) at the end of the contest, and to a lesser extent his size, further supporting self-assessment. (c) 2006 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.

The power of shell rapping influences rates of eviction in hermit crabs

Hermit crabs fight for ownership of shells, and shell exchange may occur after a period of shell rapping, involving the initiating or attacking crab bringing its shell rapidly and repeatedly into contact with the shell of the noninitiator or defender, in a series of bouts. The temporal pattern of rapping contains information about the motivation and/or relative resource holding potential (RHP) of the initiator and acts as a repeated signal of stamina. Here we investigated the role of the force with which the rapping is performed and how this is related to the temporal pattern of rapping by rubberizing the external surface of shells. Initiators that are prevented from rapping with their usual level of force persist with the activity for longer over the whole encounter but use fewer raps per bout and are less likely to effect an exchange than those supplied with control shells. The fact that the force of rapping affects the likelihood of a crab being victorious suggests that either the force of rapping contains information about motivation or RHP or that force directly affects noninitiators, reducing their ability to maintain an adequate grip on their shells. The data suggest that shell rapping is an agonistic signal rather than one that provides information useful to the noninitiator, as has been suggested by the negotiation model of shell exchange.

Aggressiveness as a component of fighting ability in pigs using a game-theoretical framework

Understanding animal contests has benefited greatly from employing the concept of fighting ability, termed resource-holding potential (RHP), with body size/weight typically used as a proxy. However, victory does not always go to the larger/heavier contestant and the existing RHP approach thereby fails to accurately predict contest outcome. Aggressiveness, typically studied as a personality trait, might explain part of this discrepancy. We investigated whether aggressiveness forms a component of RHP, examining effects on contest outcome, duration and phases, plus physiological measures of costs (lactate and glucose). Furthermore, using the correct theoretical framework, we provide the first study to investigate whether individuals gather and use information on aggressiveness as part of an assessment strategy. Pigs, Sus scrofa, were assessed for aggressiveness in resident-intruder tests whereby attack latency reflects aggressiveness. Contests were then staged between size-matched animals diverging in aggressiveness. Individuals with a short attack latency in the resident-intruder test almost always initiated the first bite and fight in the subsequent contest. However, aggressiveness had no direct effect on contest outcome, whereas bite initiation did lead to winning in contests without an escalated fight. This indirect effect suggests that aggressiveness is not a component of RHP, but rather reflects a signal of intent. Winner and loser aggressiveness did not affect contest duration or its separate phases, suggesting aggressiveness is not part of an assessment strategy. A greater asymmetry in aggressiveness prolonged contest duration and the duration of displaying, which is in a direction contrary to assessment models based on morphological traits. Blood lactate and glucose increased with contest duration and peaked during escalated fights, highlighting the utility of physiological measures as proxies for fight cost. Integrating personality traits into the study of contest behaviour, as illustrated here, will enhance our understanding of the subtleties of agonistic interactions.

Complex contests and the influence of aggressiveness in pigs

Animal contests vary greatly in behavioural tactics used and intensity reached, with some encounters resolved without physical contact while others escalate to damaging fighting. However, the reasons for such variation remains to be fully explained. Aggressiveness, in terms of a personality trait, offers a potentially important source of variation that has typically been overlooked. Therefore, we studied how aggressiveness as a personality trait influenced escalation between contestants matched for resource holding potential (RHP), using detailed observations of the contest behaviour, contest dynamics, and escalation levels. We predicted that winner and loser behaviour would differ depending on personality. This was tested by examining 52 dyadic contests between pigs (Sus scrofa). Aggressiveness was assayed in resident-intruder tests prior to the contest. Contests were then staged between pigs matched for RHP in terms of body weight but differing in their aggressiveness. In 27% of the contests a winner emerged without escalated physical fighting, demonstrating that a fight is not a prerequisite between RHP-matched contestants. However, the duration of contests with or without fighting was the same. In contests without a fight, opponents spent more time on mutual investigation and non-contact displays such as parallel walking, which suggests that ritualized display may facilitate assessment and decision making. Winners low in aggressiveness invested more time in opponent investigation and display and showed substantially less aggression towards the loser after its retreat compared to aggressive winners. Aggressiveness influenced contest dynamics but did not predict the level of escalation. Prominent behavioural differences were found for the interaction between personality and outcome and we therefore recommend including this interaction in models where personality is considered. Analyses based on contest duration only would miss many of the subtleties which are shown here and we therefore encourage more detailed analyses of animal contests, irrespective of the level of contest escalation.