Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 165–175 | Cite as

Multiple contest experiences interact to influence each other’s effect on subsequent contest decisions in a mangrove killifish

  • Yuying Hsu
  • Yu-Yun Huang
  • Ya-Ting Wu
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Animal contest Winner/loser effect Information integration Kryptolebias marmoratus Mangrove killifish 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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).

References

  1. Arnott G, Elwood RW (2009) Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests. Anim Behav 77:991–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austad SN (1983) A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela). Anim Behav 31:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bouton ME, Moody EW (2004) Memory processes in classical conditioning. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 28:663–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burmeister SS, Kailasanath V, Fernald RD (2007) Social dominance regulates androgen and estrogen receptor gene expression. Horm Behav 51:164–170PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns JG, Foucaud J, Mery F (2011) Costs of memory: lessons from ‘mini’ brains. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:923–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang C, Li CY, Earley RL, Hsu Y (2012) Aggression and related behavioral traits: the impact of winning and losing and the role of hormones. Integr Comp Biol 52:801–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dall SRX, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dukas R (1995) Transfer and interference in bumblebee learning. Anim Behav 49:1481–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dukas R (1999) Costs of memory: ideas and predictions. J Theor Biol 197:41–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Earley RL, Hsu Y (2008) Reciprocity between endocrine state and contest behavior in the killifish, Kryptolebias marmoratus. Horm Behav 53:442–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earley RL, Lu CK, Lee IH, Wong SC, Hsu Y (2013) Winner and loser effects are modulated by hormonal states. Front Zool 10:6PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ejima A, Smith BPC, Lucas C, Levine JD, Griffith LC (2005) Sequential learning of pheromonal cues modulates memory consolidation in trainer-specific associative courtship conditioning. Curr Biol 15:194–206PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fawcett TW, Bleay C (2009) Previous experiences shape adaptive mate preferences. Behav Ecol 20:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Hsu Y, Wolf LL (1999) The winner and loser effect: integrating multiple experiences. Anim Behav 57:903–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu Y, Earley RL, Wolf LL (2006) Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biol Rev 81:33–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsu YY, Lee SP, Chen MH, Yang SY, Cheng KC (2008) Switching assessment strategy during a contest: fighting in killifish Kryptolebias marmoratus. Anim Behav 75:1641–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hsu YY, Lee IH, Lu CK (2009) Prior contest information: mechanisms underlying winner and loser effects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1247–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang SP, Yang SY, Hsu Y (2011) Persistence of winner and loser effects depends on the behaviour measured. Ethology 117:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonides J, Lewis RL, Nee DE, Lustig CA, Berman MG, Moore KS (2008) The mind and brain of short-term memory. Ann Rev Psychol 59:193–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lan YT, Hsu Y (2011) Prior contest experience exerts a long-term influence on subsequent winner and loser effects. Front Zool 8:28PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Mery F, Burns JG (2010) Behavioural plasticity: an interaction between evolution and experience. Evol Ecol 24:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mery F, Kawecki TJ (2004) An operating cost of learning in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 68:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mery F, Kawecki TJ (2005) A cost of long-term memory in Drosophila. Science 308:1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mesterton-Gibbons M (1999) On the evolution of pure winner and loser effects: a game-theoretic model. Bull Math Biol 61:1151–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neat FC, Taylor AC, Huntingford FA (1998) Proximate costs of fighting in male cichlid fish: the role of injuries and energy metabolism. Anim Behav 55:875–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niven JE, Laughlin SB (2008) Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems. J Exp Biol 211:1792–1804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oliveira RF, Silva A, Canário AVM (2009) Why do winners keep winning? Androgen mediation of winner but not loser effects in cichlid fish. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:2249–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oyegbile TO, Marler CA (2005) Winning fights elevates testosterone levels in California mice and enhances future ability to win fights. Horm Behav 48:259–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oyegbile TO, Marler CA (2006) Weak winner effect in a less aggressive mammal: correlations with corticosterone but not testosterone. Physiol Behav 89:171–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rebar D, Zuk M, Bailey NW (2011) Mating experience in field crickets modifies pre- and postcopulatory female choice in parallel. Behav Ecol 22:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richards TM, Krebs JM, McIvor CC (2011) Microhabitat associations of a semi-terrestrial fish, Kryptolebias marmoratus (Poey 1880) in a mosquito-ditched mangrove forest, west-central Florida. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 401:48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2011.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberts WA, Dale RHI (1981) Remembrance of places lasts: proactive inhibition and patterns of choice in rat spatial memory. Learn Motiv 12:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rutte C, Taborsky M, Brinkhof MWG (2006) What sets the odds of winning and losing? Trends Ecol Evol 21:16–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PricetonGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Taylor PW, Elwood RW (2003) The mismeasure of animal contests. Anim Behav 65:1195–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor DS, Turner BJ, Davis WP, Chapman BB (2008) Natural history note—a novel terrestrial fish habitat inside emergent logs. Am Nat 171:263–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walker MM, Lee Y, Bitterman ME (1990) Transfer along a continuum in the discriminative learning of honeybees (Apis mellifera). J Comp Psychol 104:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Whitehouse MEA (1997) Experience influences male–male contests in the spider Argyrodes antipodiana (Theridiidae: Araneae). Anim Behav 53:913–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life ScienceNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations