4.5 Article

Rules of engagement for resource contests in a social fish

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 82, 期 1, 页码 93-99

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.04.003

关键词

aggression; cichlid; Neolamprologus pulcher; opponent assessment; sex difference

资金

  1. National Science and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canadian Commonwealth Post-doctoral Fellowship
  3. Ministry of Research and Innovation
  4. NSERC Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rich theoretical framework exists for understanding animal conflict. When two opponents fight over a resource, the duration, intensity and outcome of the fight ought to be determined in large part by the relative difference in resource-holding power between contestants. While our understanding of onetime conflict resolution is excellent, our knowledge is still limited of how these rules scale up when contests occur in a social context where individuals have long-term interactions. Here, we use a convenient model system, Neolamprologus pulcher, a small cooperatively breeding cichlid fish, to explore decisions in pairwise contests over resources in a species where two individual contestants are likely to remain in the same social group, and regularly and repeatedly interact. Contests began after approximately 1 min, with a short display phase, and continued in an aphasic manner for an average of 10 min before a clear winner emerged. Information about opponents' body size was important when deciding on the giving-up point, but contestants' own body size was not, suggesting that assessment of opponent size is paramount in contest decision making. No sex differences were detected in contest structure, duration or intensity, and contests between males or between females were indistinguishable. These results offer an important window on conflict in a cooperative breeder and shed insight on rules of engagement within hierarchical social groups. (C) 2011 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据