Many animals modify behavioural decisions based on information they have previously acquired. Contest behaviour is often affected by previous contest experiences: individuals behave more and less aggressively after a victory and defeat, respectively (winner/loser effect). Individuals in the field sometimes encounter multiple competitors in quick succession, but whether these experiences interact to influence each other’s importance is unclear. We tested five hypotheses for experience interaction (no interaction, retroactive interference, proactive interaction, reinforcement and diminishing returns) using Kryptolebias marmoratus. Focal individuals were paired up with opponents having the same 1-month contest outcome (1 month before the experiment), as this difference in actual or perceived fighting ability has been shown to affect the fish’s response to new experiences. We gave the focal individual of a pair a winning or losing experience on day 1. Then both fish of the pair received the same winning, losing or no-contest experience on day 2. Then we organised fights between the two. The effect of a day-1 losing experience did depend on the fish’s actual or perceived fighting ability: one-month losers readily showed loser effects from the day-1 losing experience, irrespective of the day-2 experience (i.e. no interaction between day-1 and day-2 experiences). One-month winners, however, only showed loser effects from a day-1 losing experience when the day-2 experience was also a loss (i.e. reinforcement). Day-1 winning experiences did not interact with day-2 experiences in 1-month losers or winners. Therefore, multiple experiences sometimes reinforce each other, but how they combine to influence behaviour depends on an individual’s actual or perceived fighting ability.
Animal contest Winner/loser effect Information integration Kryptolebias marmoratusMangrove killifish
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank I-Han Lee, Yu-ju Chen, Jing-Huan Kuo and Wei-Lin Huang for assistance with data collection. We thank Alan Watson for help with comments and on the manuscript. We thank Drs. Ken Cheng and Robert W. Elwood and the anonymous reviewer for their thorough and helpful comments. This research was supported by Taiwan National Science Council (NSC 100-2621-B-003-004-MY3).
Arnott G, Elwood RW (2009) Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests. Anim Behav 77:991–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austad SN (1983) A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela). Anim Behav 31:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff M, Dugatkin LA (2000) Winner and loser effects and the development of dominance relationships in young coyotes: an integration of data and theory. Evol Ecol Res 2:871–883Google Scholar
Dunlap AS, McLinn CM, MacCormick HA, Scott ME, Kerr B (2009) Why some memories do not last a lifetime: dynamic long-term retrieval in changing environments. Behav Ecol 20:1096–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earley RL, Hsu Y (2008) Reciprocity between endocrine state and contest behavior in the killifish, Kryptolebias marmoratus. Horm Behav 53:442–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett TW, Johnstone RA (2010) Learning your own strength: winner and loser effects should change with age and experience. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:1427–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett TW, Hamblin S, Giraldeau L-A (2013) Exposing the behavioral gambit: the evolution of learning and decision rules. Behav Ecol 24:2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuxjager MJ, Marler CA (2010) How and why the winner effect forms: influences of contest environment and species differences. Behav Ecol 21:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goubault M, Decuigniere M (2012) Previous experience and contest outcome: winner effects persist in absence of evident loser effects in a parasitoid wasp. Am Nat 180:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grageda MVC, Sakakura Y, Minamimoto M, Hagiwara A (2005) Differences in life-history traits in two clonal strains of the self-fertilizing fish, Rivulus marmoratus. Environ Biol Fishes 73:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington RWJ (1975) Sex determination and differentiation among uniparental homozygotes of the hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Cyprinodontidae: Atheriniformes). In: Reinboth R (ed) Intersexuality in the animal kingdom. Springer, Hedelberg, pp 249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackiewicz M, Tatarenkov A, Taylor DS, Turner BJ, Avise JC (2006) Extensive outcrossing and androdioecy in a vertebrate species that otherwise reproduces as a self-fertilizing hermaphrodite. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:9924–9928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melton AW, von Lackum WJ (1941) Retroactive and proactive inhibition in retention: evidence for a two-factor theory of retroactive inhibition. Am J Psychol 54:157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mery F, Burns JG (2010) Behavioural plasticity: an interaction between evolution and experience. Evol Ecol 24:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mery F, Kawecki TJ (2004) An operating cost of learning in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 68:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santangelo N, Bass AH (2006) New insights into neuropeptide modulation of aggression: field studies of arginine vasotocin in a territorial tropical damselfish. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:3085–3092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PricetonGoogle Scholar
Taylor DS (2012) Twenty-four years in the mud: what have we learned about the natural history and ecology of the mangrove rivulus, Kryptolebias marmoratus? Integr Comp Biol 52:724–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar