Can Lanchester's Laws Help Explain Interspecific Dominance in Birds?

Shelley, Erin L.; Tanaka, Maile Y. U.; Ratnathicam, Anna R.; Blumstein, Daniel T.

doi:10.1650/7424

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, numerical superiority is often an advantage in group fights or interactions across the animal kingdom (e.g. in primates [17,44]; lions [19]; wolves [45]; birds [46]; honeybees [47] and ants [21,48 -50]) but does not guarantee success [3,18,51,52]. Within ants, intra and interspecific interactions between colonies may result in numerically superior colonies dominating smaller colonies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fight tactics in wood ants: individuals in smaller groups fight harder but die faster

Batchelor

Briffa

2011

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When social animals engage in inter-group contests, the outcome is determined by group sizes and individual masses, which together determine group resource-holding potential ('group RHP'). Individuals that perceive themselves as being in a group with high RHP may receive a motivational increase and increase their aggression levels. Alternatively, individuals in lower RHP groups may increase their aggression levels in an attempt to overcome the RHP deficit. We investigate how 'group RHP' influences agonistic tactics in red wood ants Formica rufa. Larger groups had higher total agonistic indices, but per capita agonistic indices were highest in the smallest groups, indicating that individuals in smaller groups fought harder. Agonistic indices were influenced by relative mean mass, focal group size, opponent group size and opponent group agonistic index. Focal group attrition rates decreased as focal group relative agonistic indices increased and there was a strong negative influence of relative mean mass. The highest focal attrition rates were received when opponent groups were numerically large and composed of large individuals. Thus, fight tactics in F. rufa seem to vary with both aspects of group RHP, group size and the individual attributes of group members, indicating that information on these are available to fighting ants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fight tactics in wood ants: individuals in smaller groups fight harder but die faster

Batchelor

Briffa

2011

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evans et al 1993)]. However, at an Australian food source, body size was found to correlate with inter-species dominance levels, with magpie dominant to all species except the larger Australian raven (Corvus coronoides) (Shelley et al 2004). Field studies on predator recognition in birds have also found a strong mobbing response to life-sized owl and shrike models, but greatly reduced responses to one-third and half-sized models respectively (Hartley 1950;Curio 1975).…”

Section: Two-part Decision Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, body size may be an indicator of resource-holding potential (Parker 1974) and thus be especially important in the perception of heterospecific individuals as threats. Studies have suggested that body size can influence inter-species dominance (Fisler 1977;Alatalo and Moreno 1987;Shelley et al 2004;French and Smith 2005) and competition (Persson 1985;Maynard Smith and Brown 1986;Lee et al 2007). Large body size and aggressive demeanour may also be correlated, as differences in body size between competitors may lead to the evolution of interference behaviour in larger species (Persson 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do heterospecific size and demeanour influence visitation behaviour of birds at urban foraging patches?

Borowske

Morgan

Waas

2011

J Ethol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the feeding behaviour of garden birds in the presence of four heterospecific decoy species at suburban feeding stations to assess the relative importance of body size (large vs. small) and demeanour (high vs. low potential for inter-specific aggression) as cues for threat recognition. We conducted separate trials with live, caged Australian magpie, Cracticus tibicen, and common myna, Acridotheres tristis, large and small species known to chase and harass heterospecifics, and comparably sized species not known for inter-species aggression (i.e. rock dove, Columba livia, and ringneck dove, Streptopelia risoria). Birds of all species arrived at feeding stations sooner and displayed higher-risk activities in the presence of small decoys. The two most common species that visited the feeding stations, silvereye, Zosterops lateralis, and house sparrow, Passer domesticus, were most likely to perform high-risk behaviours (i.e. landing on the stimulus cage and feeding from the station) in the presence of common mynas. The activities were performed least frequently in the presence of Australian magpies. As garden birds likely had the most experience interacting with common mynas, the results suggest that a two-step decision rule, with size and familiarity as important cues, may be used to recognize potential threats.

show abstract

“…These "laws" are mathematical equations that model the dynamics of conflict and its outcomes, and were originally developed with modern human warfare in mind. Although they have long been used in military operational research (for reviews, see MacKay, 2006;Wrigge, Fransen, & Wigg, 1995), they have only recently been applied to explain variation in the patterns of conflict in animals such as ants, birds, lions, and chimpanzees (Franks & Partridge, 1993;Mosser & Packer, 2009;Plowes & Adams, 2005;Shelley, Tanaka, Ratnathicam, & Blumstein, 2004;Whitehouse & Jaffe, 1996), including manipulation experiments showing variation in fighting behavior as parameters were changed (McGlynn, 2000;Wilson, Britton, & Franks, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%