Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 7–13 | Cite as

Twilight fighting in the evening brown butterfly, Melanitis leda (L.) (Nymphalidae): age and residency effects

Original Article

Abstract

Butterflies are conspicuous among animals that fight for mating opportunities because it is not clear how contest costs could accrue. Nevertheless, the bulk of research in this group suggests that contests are settled on the basis of asymmetries in fighting ability (the superior competitor hypothesis). There is also a consistent effect on contest escalation due to apparent 'confusion' over residency, which could result from resident butterflies playing different tactics than non-residents, or from a causal link between residency and fighting ability. I addressed these hypotheses by studying contest behavior in the crepuscular species Melanitis leda (L.) (Nymphalidae) over a 5-month period in tropical Australia. Males competed via conspicuous two-stage maneuvers of a form unique among butterflies. Prior residents won 77% of all contests. Non-resident males arrived and perched in occupied sites until challenged by incumbent residents, and the aggressiveness of these interlopers increased as a function of the time before they were detected. Contest winners also tended to be younger than losers, and contest escalation was negatively related to both the age of the losing male and the magnitude of the between-combatant age asymmetry. These results are consistent with the superior competitor hypothesis based upon age as a determinant (or correlate) of fighting ability, but also suggest residency has a unique influence on contest behavior. Further research is clearly required to unravel the effects of age, residency and other potential biophysical determinants of fighting ability in this species.

Keywords

Contest Intrasexual competition Lepidoptera Sexual selection Territoriality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank John Alcock, Ron Rutowski and Christer Wiklund for helpful editorial comments and discussion. Three anonymous reviewers also provided informative critiques. This research was jointly supported by James Cook and Arizona State Universities.

References

  1. Alcock J, Bailey WJ (1997) Success in territorial defence by male tarantula hawk wasps Hemipepsis ustulata: the role of residency. Ecol Entomol 22:377–383Google Scholar
  2. Baker RR (1972) Territorial behavior of the nymphalid butterflies, Aglais urticae (L.) and Inachis io (L.). J Anim Ecol 41:453–469Google Scholar
  3. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  4. Englund G, Olsson TI (1990) Fighting and assessment in the net-spinning caddis larva Arctopsyche ladogensis: a test of the sequential assessment game. Anim Behav 39:55–62Google Scholar
  5. Enquist M, Leimar O (1983) Evolution of fighting behavior: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. J Theor Biol 102:387Google Scholar
  6. Enquist M, Leimar O, Ljungberg T, Mallner Y, Segerdahl N (1990) A test of the sequential assessment game: fighting in the cichlid fish Nannacara anomala. Anim Behav 40:1–4Google Scholar
  7. Field SA, Calbert G (1999) Don't count your eggs before they're parasitised: contest resolution and trade-offs during patch defense in a parasitoid wasp. Behav Ecol 10:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grafen A (1987) The logic of divisively asymmetric contests: respect for ownership and the desperado effect. Anim Behav 35:462–467Google Scholar
  9. Gribbin SD, Thompson DJ (1991) The effects of size and residency on territorial disputes and short-term mating success in the damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Sulzer) (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Anim Behav 41:689–695Google Scholar
  10. Haley MP (1994) Resource-holding power asymmetries, the prior residence effect, and reproductive payoffs in male northern elephant seal fights. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardy ICW (1998) Butterfly battles: on conventional contests and hot property. Trends Ecol Evol 13:385–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardy ICW, Field SA (1998) Logistic analysis of animal conflicts. Anim Behav 56:787–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hernández MIM, Benson WW (1998) Small-male advantage in the territorial butterfly Heliconius sara (Nymphalidae): a paradoxical strategy? Anim Behav 56:533–540Google Scholar
  14. Huntingford FA, Turner AK (1987) Animal conflict. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnsson JI (1996) Statistics and biological sense: a reply to Thomas and Juanes. Anim Behav 52:860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kemp DJ (2000) Contest behavior in territorial male butterflies: does size matter? Behav Ecol 11:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemp DJ (2002a) Visual mate searching behavior in the evening brown butterfly, Melanitis leda (L.) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Aust J Entomol 41:300–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kemp DJ (2002b) Butterfly contests and flight physiology: why do older males fight harder? Behav Ecol 13:456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kemp DJ (2002c) Sexual selection constrained by life history in a butterfly. Proc R Soc Lond (B) 269:1341–1346Google Scholar
  20. Kemp DJ, Wiklund C (2001) Fighting without weaponry: a review of male-male contest competition in butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krebs JR (1982) Territorial defense in the great tit (Parus major): do residents always win? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:185–194 Google Scholar
  22. Leimar O, Enquist M (1984) Effects of asymmetries in owner-intruder conflicts. J Theor Biol 111:475–491Google Scholar
  23. Leimar O, Austad SN, Enquist M (1991) A test of the sequential assessment game: fighting in the bowl and doily spider Frontinella pyramitela. Evolution 45:862–874Google Scholar
  24. Marden JH, Waage JK (1990) Escalated damselfly territorial contests are energetic wars of attrition. Anim Behav 39:954–959Google Scholar
  25. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Mesterton-Gibbons M, Adams ES (1998) Animal contests as evolutionary games. Am Sci 86:334–341Google Scholar
  27. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Payne RJH (1998) Gradually escalating fights and displays: the cumulative assessment model. Anim Behav 56:651–662Google Scholar
  29. Payne RJH, Pagel M (1996) Escalation and time costs in displays of endurance. J Theor Biol 183:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosenberg RH, Enquist M (1991) Contest behavior in Weidemeyer's admiral butterfly Limenitis weidemeyerii (Nymphalidae): the effect of size and residency. Anim Behav 42:805–811Google Scholar
  31. Rutowski RL (1992) Male mate-locating behavior in the common eggfly, Hypolimnas bolina (Nymphalidae). J Lepid Soc 46:24–38Google Scholar
  32. Stutt AD, Willmer P (1998) Territorial defence in speckled wood butterflies: do the hottest males always win? Anim Behav 55:1341–1347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsubaki Y, Ono T (1987) Effects of age and body size on the male territorial system of the dragonfly, Nannophya pygmaea Rambur (Odonata: Libellulidae). Anim Behav 35:518–525Google Scholar
  34. Waage JK (1988) Confusion over residency and the escalation of damselfly territorial disputes. Anim Behav 36:586–595Google Scholar
  35. Wickman P-O, Wiklund C (1983) Territorial defence and its seasonal decline in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria). Anim Behav 31:1206–1216Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School of Tropical BiologyJames Cook UniversityCairns Australia

Personalised recommendations