Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 381–390

Bridging the gap between mechanistic and adaptive explanations of territory formation

Original Article

Abstract

How animals divide space can have fundamental implications for the population dynamics of territorial species. It has recently been proposed that space can be divided if animals tend to avoid fight locations, rather than the winner of fights gaining access to exclusive resources, behaviour that generates exclusive territories in two-dimensional space. A game-theory model has shown that this avoidance behaviour can be adaptive, but the adaptiveness has not been investigated in a spatially realistic context. We present a model that investigates potential strategies for the acquisition of territories when two-dimensional space must be divided between individuals. We examine whether exclusive territories form when animals avoid all encounters with others, or only those encounters that have led to losing fights, under different fighting costs and population densities. Our model suggests that when fighting costs are high, and the population density is low, the most adaptive behaviour is to avoid fight locations, which generates well-defined, exclusive territories in a population that is able to resist invasion by more aggressive strategies. Low fighting costs and high population densities lead to the break-down of territoriality and the formation of large, overlapping home ranges. We also provide a novel reason as to why so-called paradoxical strategies do not exist in nature: if we define a paradoxical strategy as an exact mirror-image of a common-sense one, it must respond in the opposite way to a draw as well as to wins and losses. When this is the case, and draws are common (fight outcomes are often not clear-cut in nature), the common-sense strategy is more often adaptive than a paradoxical alternative.

Keywords

Aggression Fighting Territoriality Divisible space Paradoxical strategy 

References

  1. Adams ES (1998) Territory size and shape in fire ants: a model based on neighborhood interactions. Ecology 79:1125–1134Google Scholar
  2. Adams ES (2001) Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler FR, Gordon DM (2003) Optimization, conflict and nonoverlapping foraging ranges in ants. Am Nat 165:529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bascompte J, Solé RC (1997) Modelling spatiotemporal dynamics in ecology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleistein S, Horsup A, Ganslosser U (1994) Border conflicts among territorial rock wallabies (Petrogale assimilis). Aggressive Behav 20:325–333Google Scholar
  6. Both C, Visser ME (2003) Density dependence, territoriality, and divisibility of resources: from optimality models to population processes. Am Nat 161:326–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Broom M, Cannings C, Vickers GT (1997) A sequential-arrivals model of territory acquisition. J Theor Biol 189:257–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 76:160–69Google Scholar
  9. Buckley PA, Buckley FG (1977) Hexagonal packing of royal tern nests. Auk 94:36–43Google Scholar
  10. Burgess JW (1976) Social spiders. Sci Am March:100–106Google Scholar
  11. Crowley PH (2000) Hawks, doves, and mixed-symmetry games. J Theor Biol 204:543–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Draud M, Macías-Ordóñez R, Verga J, Itzkowitz M (2004) Female and male Texas cichlids (Herichthys cyanoguttatum) do not fight by the same rules. Behav Ecol 15:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunham ML, Warner RR, Lawson JW (1995) The dynamics of territory acquisition—a model of two coexisting strategies. Theor Popul Biol 47:347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eason PK, Trinca KG, Cobbs GA (1999) The use of landmarks to define territorial boundaries. Anim Behav 58:85–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebersole JP (1980) Food density and territory size: an alternative model and test on the reef fish Eupomacentrus leucostictus. Am Nat 115:492–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enquist M, Leimar O (1987) Evolution of fighting behaviour: the effect of variation in resource value. J Theor Biol 127:187–205Google Scholar
  17. Eshel I, Sansone E (1995) Owner–intruder conflict, Grafen effect and self-assessment. The Bourgeois principle re-examined. J Theor Biol 177:341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernet DA, Smith RJF (1976) Agonistic behaviour of captive goldeneyes (Hiodon alosides). J Fish Res Bd Can 33:695–702Google Scholar
  19. Getty T (1987) Dear enemies and the prisoners dilemma: why should territorial neighbors form defensive coalitions? Am Zool 27:327–336Google Scholar
  20. Gill FB, Wolf LL (1975) Economics of feeding territoriality in the golden-winged sunbird. Am Zool 27:327–36Google Scholar
  21. Gordon DM (1997) The population consequences of territorial behavior. Trends Ecol Evol 12:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grafen A (1979) The hawk–dove game played between relatives. Anim Behav 27:905–907Google Scholar
  23. Grafen A (1987) The logic of divisively asymmetric contests—respect for ownership and the desperado effect. Anim Behav 35:462–467Google Scholar
  24. Hack MA (1997) The energetic costs of fighting in the house cricket, Acheta domesticus L. Behav Ecol 8:28–36Google Scholar
  25. Hammerstein P, Parker GA (1982) The asymmetric war of attrition. J Theor Biol 96:647–682Google Scholar
  26. Hammerstein P, Riechert SE (1988) Payoffs and strategies in territorial contests: ESS analyses of two ecotypes of the spider Agelenopsis aperta. Evol Ecol 2:115–138Google Scholar
  27. Hixon MA (1980) Food production and competitor density as determinants of feeding territory size. Am Nat 115:510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Höjesjö J, Johnsson JI, Petersson E, Järvi T (1998) The importance of being familiar: individual recognition and social behaviour in sea trout (Salmo trutta). Behav Ecol 9:445–451Google Scholar
  29. Houston A, McNamara JM (1991) Evolutionary stable strategies in the repeated hawk–dove game. Behav Ecol 2:219–227Google Scholar
  30. Iguchi K, Hino T (1996) Effect of competitor abundance on feeding territoriality in a grazing fish, the ayu Plecoglossus altivelis. Ecol Res 11:165–173Google Scholar
  31. Kallenberg H (1958) Observations in a stream tank of territoriality and competition in juvenile salmon and trout (Salmo salar L. and S. trutta L.) Inst Freshw Res Drottningholm Rep No 39:55–98Google Scholar
  32. Keeley ER (2000) An experimental analysis of territory size in juvenile steelhead trout. Anim Behav 59:477–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kernohan BJ, Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ (2001) Analysis of animal space use and movements. In: Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM (eds) Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic, San Diego, Calif.Google Scholar
  34. Kokko H, Lundberg P (2001) Dispersal, migration and offspring retention in saturated habitats. Am Nat 157:188–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kokko H, Sutherland WJ (1998) Optimal floating and queuing strategies: consequences for density dependence and habitat loss. Am Nat 152:354–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LaManna JR, Eason PK (2003) Effects of landmarks on territorial establishment. Anim Behav 65:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis MA, Moorcroft P (2001) ESS analysis of mechanistic models for territoriality: the value of scent marks in spatial resource partitioning. J Theor Biol 210:449–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis MA, Murray JD (1993) Modelling territoriality and wolf–deer interactions. Nature 366:738–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lima SL (1984) Territoriality in variable environments—a simple model. Am Nat 124:641–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maynard Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175Google Scholar
  43. Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18Google Scholar
  44. Mesterton-Gibbons M (1992) Ecotypic variation in the asymmetric hawk–dove game—when is bourgeois an evolutionary stable strategy. Evol Ecol 6:198–222Google Scholar
  45. Mesterton-Gibbons M, Adams ES (2003) Landmarks in territory partitioning: a strategically stable convention? Am Nat 162:685–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Morrell LJ, Kokko H (2003) Adaptive strategies of territory formation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morris MR, Gass L, Ryan MJ (1995) Assessment and individual recognition of opponents in the pygmy swordtails Xiphophorus nigrensis and Xiphophorus multilineatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mylius SD, Diekmann O (1995) On evolutionarily stable life histories, optimization and the need to be specific about density dependence. Oikos 74:218–224Google Scholar
  49. Neat FC, Taylor AC, Huntingford FA (1998) Proximate costs of fighting in male cichlid fish: the role of injuries and energy metabolism. Anim Behav 55:875–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Newton I (1992) Experiments on the limitation on bird numbers by territorial behavior. Biol Rev 67:129–173Google Scholar
  51. Parker GA (1974) Courtship persistence and female guarding as male time investment strategies. Behaviour 48:157–183Google Scholar
  52. Parker GA, Knowlton N (1980) The evolution of territory size—some ESS models. J Theor Biol 84:445–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Patterson IJ (1985) Limitation of breeding density through territorial behaviour: experiments with convict cichlids, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 393–405Google Scholar
  54. Peeke HVS, Figler MH, Chang ES (1998) Sex differences and prior residence effects in shelter competition in juvenile lobsters, Homarus americanus Milne-Edwards. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 229:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pereira HM, Bergman A, Roughgarden J (2003) Socially stable territories: the negotiation of space by interacting foragers. Am Nat 161:143–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Praw JP, Grant JWA (1999) Optimal territory size in the convict cichlid. Behaviour 136:1347–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225Google Scholar
  58. Riechert SE (1979) Games spiders play. II. Resource assessment strategies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 6:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riechert SE (1981) The consequences of being territorial: spiders, a case study. Am Nat 117:871–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodenhouse NL, Bohlen PJ, Barrett GW (1997) Effects of woodland shape on the spatial distribution and density of 17-year periodical cicadas (Homoptera: Cicadidae). Am Midl Nat 137:124–135Google Scholar
  61. Ruckstuhl KE, Kokko H (2002) Modelling sexual segregation in ungulates: effects of group size, activity budgets and synchrony. Anim Behav 64:909–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schoener TW (1983) Simple models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121:608–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schoener TW (1987) Time budgets and territory size: some simultaneous optimization models for energy maximisers. Am Zool 27:259–291Google Scholar
  64. Sih A, Mateo J (2001) Punishment and persistence pay: a new model of territory establishment and space use. Trends Ecol Evol 16:477–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Slatkin M, Anderson DJ (1984) A model of competition for space. Ecology 65:1840–1845Google Scholar
  67. Smith IP, Taylor AC (1992) The energetic cost of agnostic behaviour in the velvet swimming crab Necora (=Liocarcinus) puber (L.). Anim Behav 45:375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stamps JA (1999) Dominance and territoriality. In: Adams NJ, Slowtow RH (eds) Proc 22nd Int Ornithol Congr Durban S Afr. BirdLife, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp 1592–1605Google Scholar
  69. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (1994a) Territory acquisition in lizards. 1. First encounters. Anim Behav 47:1375–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (1994b) Territory acquisition in lizards. 2. Establishing social and spatial relationships. Anim Behav 47:1387–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (1995) Territory acquisition in lizards. 3. Competing for space. Anim Behav 49:679–693Google Scholar
  72. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (1997) The function of fights in territory establishment. Am Nat 150:393–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (1998) Territory acquisition in lizards. IV. Obtaining high status and exclusive home ranges. Anim Behav 55:461–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (1999) A learning-based model of territory establishment. Q Rev Biol 74:291–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (2001) How territorial animals compete for divisible space: a learning-based model with unequal competitors. Am Nat 157:154–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Swihart RK, Slade NA (1985) Testing for independence of observations in animal movements. Ecology 66:1176–1184Google Scholar
  77. Swihart RK, Slade NA, Bergstrom BJ (1988) Relating body size to the rate of home range use in mammals. Ecology 69:393–399Google Scholar
  78. Temeles EJ (1994) The role of neighbours in territorial systems: when are they ‘dear enemies’? Anim Behav 47:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Utne-Palm AC, Hart PJB (2000) The effects of familiarity on competitive interactions between threespined sticklebacks. Oikos 91:225–232Google Scholar
  80. White KAJ, Lewis MA, Murray JD (1996) A model for wolf-pack territory formation and maintenance. J Theor Biol 178:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ydenberg RC, Giraldeau LA, Falls JB (1988) Neighbours, strangers, and the asymmetric war of attrition. Anim Behav 36:343–347Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biomedical and Life SciencesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Laboratory of Ecological and Evolutionary Dynamics, Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations