Previous experiences can play a significant role in determining future behaviors. Winner and loser effects, where the outcome of previous aggressive encounters influences the behavioral approach to and outcomes of future conflicts, have been documented in many taxa and illustrate this phenomenon. These effects are prevalent in species that interact frequently because modulation of these potentially costly social interactions may influence fitness. Stalk-eyed flies of the dimorphic species Teleopsis dalmanni engage in frequent fights over food resources, as well as over access to harems of females, with larger males typically prevailing when size disparities exist. However, whether and how prior experience influences fighting decisions and outcomes remains unexplored. To test for winner and loser effects in stalk-eyed flies, sexually mature flies were paired in size-mismatched dyads to establish winning and losing experiences. After their first contest, the flies were paired with size-matched individuals and allowed to interact. We determined whether an initial winning or losing experience significantly altered the outcome probabilities in the second size-matched encounter. Initial winning experience did not significantly affect the second interaction, providing no evidence for a winner effect. However, initial losers were significantly more likely to lose a subsequent interaction which provides evidence for a loser effect in stalk-eyed flies. In addition, smaller males experienced an increased probability of losing their second interaction regardless of prior winning or losing experience. This effect was not seen in large males. Our data suggest that the loser effects we observed, which were more pronounced in small males, could result from the energetic costs of fighting that they were less able to absorb than large males.
Aggression Winner and loser effects Stalk-eyed fly Experience
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank Sarah Magdanz, Kassidy Boyd, and Ryan Moriarty for stalk-eyed fly care and maintenance. Thank you to Jerry Wilkinson for providing pupae for our own colonies of flies and Sol Redlin for construction of the arenas where the interactions took place. We acknowledge Jerry Husak and Cliff Summers for comments and critiques on the many drafts of the manuscript and Jake Kerby for his help with statistical analysis and comments. This work was funded by National Science Foundation Grant IOB0448060.
The work in this study was carried out with the highest ethical standards according to the laws of the country in which the work was performed.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Baker RH, Denniff M, Futerman P, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A, Chapman T (2003) Accessory gland size influences time to sexual maturity and mating frequency in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Behav Ecol 14:607–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beacham JL (2003) Models of dominance hierarchy formation: effects of prior experience and intrinsic traits. Behaviour 140(10):1275–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrand JP, Payette D, Goulet C (1996) Conflict outcome in male green swordtail fish dyads (Xiphophorus helleri): interaction of body size, prior dominance/subordination experience, and prior residency. Behaviour 133:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begin J, Beaugrand JP, Zaya R (1996) Selecting dominants and subordinates at conflict outcome can confound the effects of prior dominance or subordination experience. Behav Process 36:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt Y, Swallow JG (2009) Do the elongated eye stalks of Diopsid flies facilitate rival assessment? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1243–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt D, de la Motte I (1983) How stalk-eyed flies eye stalk-eyed flies: observations and measurements of the eyes of Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diopsidae, Diptera). J Comp Physiol 151:407–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen S, Yeelin Lee A, Bowens NM, Huber R, Kravitz EA (2002) Fighting fruit flies: a model system for the study of aggression. PNAS 99:5664–5668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
De la Motte I, Burkhardt D (1983) Portrait of an Asian stalk-eyed fly. Naturwiss 70:451–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugatkin LA (1997) Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav Ecol 8(6):583–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugatkin LA, Druen M (2004) The social implications of winner and loser effects. Proc Biol Sci 271(Suppl 6):S488–S489Google Scholar
Small J, Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2009) Male eyespan and resource ownership affect contest outcome in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. Anim Behav 78:1213–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse MEA (1997) Experience influences male-male contests in the spider Argyrodes antipodiana (Theridiidae: Araneae). Anim Behav 53:9113–9923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson G (1993) Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Genet Res Cam 62:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson G, Dodson G (1997) Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In: Choe C (ed) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Yurkovic A, Wang O, Basu AC, Kravitz EA (2006) Learning and memory associated with aggression in Drosophila melanogaster. Neuroscience 103(46):17519–17524Google Scholar