The combination of social and personal contexts affects dominance hierarchy development in shore crabs, Carcinus maenas

Many animals that live in groups maintain competitive relationships, yet avoid continual fighting, by forming dominance hierarchies. We compare predictions of stochastic, individual-based models with empirical experimental evidence using shore crabs to test competing hypotheses regarding hierarchy development. The models test (1) what information individuals use when deciding to fight or retreat, (2) how past experience affects current resource-holding potential, and (3) how individuals deal with changes to the social environment. First, we conclude that crabs assess only their own state and not their opponent's when deciding to fight or retreat. Second, willingness to enter, and performance in, aggressive contests are influenced by previous contest outcomes. Winning increases the likelihood of both fighting and winning future interactions, while losing has the opposite effect. Third, when groups with established dominance hierarchies dissolve and new groups form, individuals reassess their ranks, showing no memory of previous rank or group affiliation. With every change in group composition, individuals fight for their new ranks. This iterative process carries over as groups dissolve and form, which has important implications for the relationship between ability and hierarchy rank. We conclude that dominance hierarchies emerge through an interaction of individual and social factors, and discuss these findings in terms of an underlying mechanism. Overall, our results are consistent with crabs using a cumulative assessment strategy iterated across changes in group composition, in which aggression is constrained by an absolute threshold in energy spent and damage received while fighting.

The ghost of social environments past: dominance relationships include current interactions and experience carried over from previous groups.

Dominance hierarchies pervade animal societies. Within a static social environment, in which group size and composition are unchanged, an individual's hierarchy rank results from intrinsic (e.g. body size) and extrinsic (e.g. previous experiences) factors. Little is known, however, about how dominance relationships are formed and maintained when group size and composition are dynamic. Using a fusion-fission protocol, we fused groups of previously isolated shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) into larger groups, and then restored groups to their original size and composition. Pre-fusion hierarchies formed independently of individuals' sizes, and were maintained within a static group via winner/loser effects. Post-fusion hierarchies differed from pre-fusion ones; losing fights during fusion led to a decline in an individual's rank between pre- and post-fusion conditions, while spending time being aggressive during fusion led to an improvement in rank. In post-fusion tanks, larger individuals achieved better ranks than smaller individuals. In conclusion, dominance hierarchies in crabs represent a complex combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, in which experiences from previous groups can carry over to affect current competitive interactions.

Social structure emerges via the interaction between local ecology and individual behaviour.

1. The formation of groups is a fundamental aspect of social organization, but there are still many questions regarding how social structure emerges from individuals making non-random associations. 2. Although food distribution and individual phenotypic traits are known to separately influence social organization, this is the first study, to our knowledge, experimentally linking them to demonstrate the importance of their interaction in the emergence of social structure. 3. Using an experimental design in which food distribution was either clumped or dispersed, in combination with individuals that varied in exploratory behaviour, our results show that social structure can be induced in the otherwise non-social European shore crab (Carcinus maenas). 4. Regardless of food distribution, individuals with relatively high exploratory behaviour played an important role in connecting otherwise poorly connected individuals. In comparison, low exploratory individuals aggregated into cohesive, stable subgroups (moving together even when not foraging), but only in tanks where resources were clumped. No such non-foraging subgroups formed in environments where food was evenly dispersed. 5. Body size did not accurately explain an individual's role within the network for either type of food distribution. 6. Because of their synchronized movements and potential to gain social information, groups of low exploratory crabs were more effective than singletons at finding food. 7. Because social structure affects selection, and social structure is shown to be sensitive to the interaction between ecological and behavioural differences among individuals, local selective pressures are likely to reflect this interaction.