Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1183–1193 | Cite as

Contest experience and body size affect different types of contest decisions

  • Yu-Ju Chen
  • Yuying HsuEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This study examined the relative importance of contest experience and size differences to behavioral decisions over the course of contests. Using a mangrove rivulus fish, Kryptolebias marmoratus, we showed that although contest experience and size differences jointly determined contest outcomes, they affected contestants’ interactions at different stages of contests. Contest experience affected behavioral decisions at earlier stages of contests, including the tendency and latency to launch attacks, the tendency to escalate contests into mutual attacks and the outcome of non-escalated contests. Once contests were escalated into mutual attacks, the degree of size difference affected the fish’s persistence in escalation and chance of winning, but contest experience did not. These results support the hypothesis that contest experience modifies individuals’ estimation of their fighting ability rather than their actual strength. Furthermore, (1) in contests between two naïve contestants, more than 60 % of fish that were 2–3 mm smaller than their opponent escalated the contest to physical fights, even though their larger opponents eventually won 92 % of escalated fights and (2) fish with a losing experience were very likely to retreat in the face of an opponent 2–3 mm smaller than them without escalating. The result that a 2–3 mm size advantage could not offset the influence of a losing experience on the tendency to escalate suggests that, as well as depending on body size, the fish’s physical strength is influenced by other factors which require further investigation.

Keywords

Animal contest Behavioral decisions Winner–loser effect Size difference Kryptolebias marmoratus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on improving the manuscript. We also thank Yu-Ting Chang for transcribing behavioral data from the video recordings and Alan Watson for help with comments and on the manuscript. We thank Yi-Ting Lan for providing us a photograph of K. marmoratus. This research was supported by Taiwan National Science Council (NSC100-2621-B-003-005-MY3).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors assert that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethics statement

The Animal Care and Use Committee of National Taiwan Normal University approved K. marmoratus as the study organism and the procedures for the use of the fish (permit #99034). To measure a fish’s SL, we moved the fish from its maintenance container to a clear plastic bag where it could be measured and kept moist with a hand net. We measured the fish through the bag with a digital caliper and then returned the fish to its maintenance container. To mark the fish, we netted the fish and placed it inside folded plastic wrap to keep it moist. We exposed the tail and dragged a needle over the non-vascularized thin membrane between two of the caudal fin rays to break it. All fish resumed regular feeding behavior within 5 s of marking, which did not cause bleeding or observable adverse effects upon the fishes’ health or behavior (Hsu et al. 2008). The membrane usually grows back completely in 3 d. All contests were videotaped and monitored by an observer sitting behind the camcorder. Contests were terminated 5 min after one of the contestants retreated from its opponent’s displays/attacks. This time period was used to confirm the winner–loser status of a contest pair. During this period, the loser was able to flip out of water and stick to the side of the aquarium to avoid post-contest harassment from the winner. All fish were visually inspected, returned to their maintenance containers and fed brine shrimp (Artemia) nauplii after the contests. None of the fish suffered visible physical injury (e.g., scale loss, wounds, bleeding, abnormal swimming behavior) from the contests.

Supplementary material

10071_2016_1028_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2027 kb)

References

  1. Bakker TCM, Feuthdebruijn E, Sevenster P (1989) Asymmetrical effects of prior winning and losing on dominance in sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ethology 82:224–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beacham JL (1988) The relative importance of body size and aggressive experience as determinants of dominance in pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus. Anim Behav 36:621–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaugrand JP, Goulet C, Payette D (1991) Outcome of dyadic conflict in male green swordtail fish, Xiphophorus helleri: effects of body size and prior dominance. Anim Behav 41:417–424. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80842-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 133:303–319. doi: 10.1163/156853996x00161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brick O (1999) A test of the sequential assessment game: the effect of increased cost of sampling. Behav Ecol 10:726–732. doi: 10.1093/beheco/10.6.726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 52:801–813. doi: 10.1093/icb/ics057 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Drummond H, Canales C (1998) Dominance between booby nestlings involves winner and loser effects. Anim Behav 55:1669–1676. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0714 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dugatkin LA (1997) Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav Ecol 8:583–587. doi: 10.1093/beheco/8.6.583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earley RL, Hsu Y (2008) Reciprocity between endocrine state and contest behavior in the killifish, Kryptolebias marmoratus. Horm Behav 53:442–451. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.11.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Earley R, Lu C, Lee I, Wong S, Hsu Y (2013) Winner and loser effects are modulated by hormonal states. Front Zool 10:6. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Edenbrow M, Croft DP (2013) Environmental and genetic effects shape the development of personality traits in the mangrove killifish Kryptolebias marmoratus. Oikos 122:667–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20556.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellison A, Cable J, Consuegra S (2011) Best of both worlds? Association between outcrossing and parasite loads in a selfing fish. Evolution 65:3021–3026. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01354.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 40:1–14. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80660-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goubault M, Decuignière M (2012) Previous experience and contest outcome: winner effects persist in absence of evident loser effects in a parasitoid wasp. Am Nat 180:364–371. doi: 10.1086/667192 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 73:427–436. doi: 10.1007/s10641-005-2196-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, Heidelberg, pp 249–262. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-66069-6_25
  17. Hsu Y, Wolf LL (1999) The winner and loser effect: integrating multiple experiences. Anim Behav 57:903–910. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.1049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hsu Y, Wolf LL (2001) The winner and loser effect: what fighting behaviours are influenced? Anim Behav 61:777–786. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu Y, Earley RL, Wolf LL (2006) Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biol Rev 81:33–74. doi: 10.1017/S146479310500686X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsu Y, Lee S, Chen M, Yang S, Cheng K (2008) Switching assessment strategy during a contest: fighting in killifish Kryptolebias marmoratus. Anim Behav 75:1641–1649. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu Y, Lee I, Lu C (2009) Prior contest information: mechanisms underlying winner and loser effects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1247–1257. doi: 10.1007/s00265-009-0791-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hsu Y, Earley RL, Wolf LL (2011) Chapter 6. Aggressive behaviour in fishes: integrating information on contest costs. In: Brown C, Laland K, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behaviour, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, pp 108–134. doi: 10.1002/9781444342536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu Y, Huang YY, Wu Y-T (2014) Multiple contest experiences interact to influence each other’s effect on subsequent contest decisions in a mangrove killifish. Anim Cogn 17:165–175. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0649-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang W, Hsu Y (2015) Asymmetrical resource ownership increases owners’ and reduces non-owners’ motivation to fight in the mangrove rivulus, Kryptolebias marmoratus. Ethology 121:915–921. doi: 10.1111/eth.12404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang S, Yang S, Hsu Y (2011) Persistence of winner and loser effects depends on the behaviour measured. Ethology 117:171–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01856.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huehner MK, Schramm ME, Hens MD (1985) Notes on the behavior and ecology of the killifish Rivulus marmoratus poey 1880 (Cyprinodontidae). Fla Sci 48:1–7Google Scholar
  27. Kasumovic MM, Elias DO, Punzalan D, Mason AC, Andrade MCB (2009) Experience affects the outcome of agonistic contests without affecting the selective advantage of size. Anim Behav 77:1533–1538. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.02.026 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelley JL, Yee M-C, Brown AP, Richardson RR, Tatarenkov A, Lee CC, Harkins TT, Bustamante CD, Earley RL (2016) The genome of the self-fertilizing mangrove rivulus fish, Kryptolebias marmoratus: a model for studying phenotypic plasticity and adaptations to extreme environments. Genome Biol Evol (in press). doi: 10.1093/gbe/evw145
  29. Kristensen I (1970) Competition in three Cyprinodont fish species in the Netherlands Antilles. Stud Fauna Curaçao Caribbean Isl 119:82–101Google Scholar
  30. Lan YT, Hsu Y (2011) Prior contest experience exerts a long-term influence on subsequent winner and loser effects. Front Zool 8:28. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-8-28 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Li C, Earley RL, Huang S, Hsu Y (2014) Fighting experience alters brain androgen receptor expression dependent on testosterone status. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1532 Google Scholar
  32. 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 103:9924–9928. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0603847103 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin F, Beaugrand JP, Lague PC (1997a) The role of hen’s weight and recent experience on dyadic conflict outcome. Behav Processes 41:139–150. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(97)00040-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin F, Beaugrand JP, Lague PC (1997b) The role of recent experience and weight on hen’s agonistic behavior during dyadic conflict resolution. Behav Process 41:159–170. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(97)00044-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mesterton-Gibbons M (1999) On the evolution of pure winner and loser effects: a game-theoretic model. Bull Math Biol 61:1151–1186. doi: 10.1006/bulm.1999.0137 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mesterton-Gibbons M, Dai Y, Goubault M (2016) Modeling the evolution of winner and loser effects: a survey and prospectus. Math Biosci 274:33–44. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2016.02.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Morrell LJ, Backwell PRY, Metcalfe NB (2005) Fighting in fiddler crabs Uca mjoebergi: what determines duration? Anim Behav 70:653–662. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neat FC (1998) Mouth morphology, testes size and body size in male Tilapia zillii: implications for fighting and assessment. J Fish Biol 53:890–892. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01842.x Google Scholar
  39. Neat FC, Taylor AC, Huntingford FA (1998) Proximate costs of fighting in male cichlid fish: the role of injuries and energy metabolism. Anim Behav 55:875–882. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0668 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Connor CM et al (2015) Motivation but not body size influences territorial contest dynamics in a wild cichlid fish. Anim Behav 107:19–29. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reaney LT, Drayton JM, Jennions MD (2011) The role of body size and fighting experience in predicting contest behaviour in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:217–225. doi: 10.1007/s00265-010-1030-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schuett GW (1997) Body size and agonistic experience affect dominance and mating success in male copperheads. Anim Behav 54:213–224. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0417 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor DS (1990) Adaptive specializations of the Cyprinodont fish Rivulus marmoratus. Fla Sci 53:239–248Google Scholar
  44. 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 52:724–736. doi: 10.1093/icb/ics062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor PW, Hasson O, Clark DL (2001) Initiation and resolution of jumping spider contests: roles for size, proximity, and early detection of rivals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:403–413. doi: 10.1007/s002650100390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whitehouse MEA (1997) Experience influences male-male contests in the spider Argyrodes antipodiana (Theridiidae:Araneae). Anim Behav 53:913–923. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life ScienceNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations