The relative importance of body size and aggressive experience as determinants of dominance in pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus

Beacham, Jeffery L.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(88)80042-3

Cited by 98 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We assumed that the behavioural types were independent events. Lastly, we examined the proportion of victories (wins) by the size differential (d) between contestants for all four treatments combined using logistic regression analysis (Beacham 1988): [(the size of the resident À the size of the intruderÞ =ðsize of the intruderÞ Â 100 :…”

Section: Behavioural Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Animals that engage in interactions make assessments about contested territories (or resources) and the fighting ability of the owner relative to the intruder (Parker 1974, Barlow 1983. Winners in territorial disputes are determined by the effect of prior residence (Braddock 1949, Figler & Einhorn 1983, body size (Parker 1974, Faria et al 1998, previous experience (Beacham 1988, Beaugrand & Goulet 2000 or combinations of factors (Takahashi et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of fish size on shelter choice and intraspecific interactions by round gobies Neogobius melanostomus

Stammler

Corkum

2005

Environ Biol Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined shelter occupancy and behavioural interactions in non-reproductive male round gobies, Neogobius melanostomus, an invasive fish, to determine if gobies can assess one another's prowess effectively. Results of laboratory experiments revealed a significant, positive relationship between body size (total mass) and time for individual fish to occupy shelters. Shelter size selection did not vary with body size, but males that abandoned shelters were smaller than those that remained. Overall, the number of interactions between residents and intruders were low with most interactions occurring between large residents and large intruders. A size differential between residents and intruders of 3% was sufficient to predict the proportion of victories in conflicts between round gobies. This ability of the round goby to perceive size differences between themselves and potential opponents reduces the number of interactions and may account for the occurrence of high densities of round gobies observed in the field.

show abstract

Section: Behavioural Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of fish size on shelter choice and intraspecific interactions by round gobies Neogobius melanostomus

Stammler

Corkum

2005

Environ Biol Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The attributes that are correlated with rank are varied sorts, depending on study and species, but age, sex, physical size and strength, physiology, and level of aggressiveness are among the most common (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)18). More specifically, some researchers have shown that in groups of three animals with great discrepancies in prior attributes (e.g., A, a recent winner and 30-40% larger than the others; B and C of similar size, but B a recent winner; and C a recent loser), individuals more often form hierarchies according to their rank in attributes than expected by chance alone (19,20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perfectly linear hierarchies are most common in groups under 10 members, and as groups grow larger, irregularities may appear (11). Rank in hierarchies influences such important things as behavior, physiology, health, and ability to produce offspring (12)(13)(14)(15)(16).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies

Chase

Tovey

Spangler-Martin

et al. 2002

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

303

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linear hierarchies, the classical pecking-order structures, are formed readily in both nature and the laboratory in a great range of species including humans. However, the probability of getting linear structures by chance alone is quite low. In this paper we investigate the two hypotheses that are proposed most often to explain linear hierarchies: they are predetermined by differences in the attributes of animals, or they are produced by the dynamics of social interaction, i.e., they are self-organizing. We evaluate these hypotheses using cichlid fish as model animals, and although differences in attributes play a significant part, we find that social interaction is necessary for high proportions of groups with linear hierarchies. Our results suggest that dominance hierarchy formation is a much richer and more complex phenomenon than previously thought, and we explore the implications of these results for evolutionary biology, the social sciences, and the use of animal models in understanding human social organization.L inear hierarchies, classic pecking-order structures, are formed readily in nature and the laboratory by many species: some insects and crustaceans and various fish, birds, and mammals including human children and adolescents (1-10). However, the probability of generating linear hierarchies by chance alone is low. We do not know how these social structures develop their linear form, and even the types of mechanisms that might produce linearity are controversial. In this paper we evaluate hypotheses concerning the two most commonly proposed factors for explaining the formation of linear hierarchies through a series of experimental studies using cichlid fish.Two individuals have a dominance relationship if one chases, threatens, or bites, but receives little or no aggression, from the other. Dominance hierarchies, known in the mathematical literature as tournaments, are social structures consisting of dominance relationships between all pairs of individuals in a group. In a linear hierarchy one individual dominates all the other individuals in a group, a second dominates all but the first, and so on down to the last individual who is dominated by all the others. Dominance relationships in a linear hierarchy are always transitive. For any three individuals (triad) in the group, if A dominates B and B dominates C, then A also dominates C. If a hierarchy is not linear, it contains at least one intransitive triad (A dominates B, B dominates C, but C dominates A), and the more intransitive triads there are, the further the hierarchy is from linearity (by many measures of linearity). Perfectly linear hierarchies are most common in groups under 10 members, and as groups grow larger, irregularities may appear (11). Rank in hierarchies influences such important things as behavior, physiology, health, and ability to produce offspring (12-16).The first and most often suggested hypothesis concerning the mechanisms accounting for linearity is that individuals' positions in hierarchies are predetermined by diffe...

show abstract

“…However, linear hierarchies are found to be present e.g. in birds, mammals, fish or crustaceans ( [1], [7], [13], [22], [41]). They are also common in insects [19], [35], [37], [38], [44], [45], [47].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling Dominance Hierarchies Under Winner and Loser Effects

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Abstract Animals that live in groups commonly form themselves into dominance hierarchies which are used to allocate important resources such as access to mating opportunities and food. In this paper we develop a model of dominance hierarchy formation based upon the concept of winner and loser effects using a simulation-based model, and consider the linearity of our hierarchy using existing and new statistical measures. Two models are analysed: when each individual in a group does not know the real ability of their opponents to win a fight and when they can estimate their opponents' ability every time they fight. This estimation may be accurate or fall within an error bound. For both models we investigate if we can achieve hierarchy linearity, and if so, when it is established. We are particularly interested in the question of how many fights are necessary to establish a dominance hierarchy. Permanent

show abstract

The relative importance of body size and aggressive experience as determinants of dominance in pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus

Cited by 98 publications

References 8 publications

Assessment of fish size on shelter choice and intraspecific interactions by round gobies Neogobius melanostomus

Assessment of fish size on shelter choice and intraspecific interactions by round gobies Neogobius melanostomus

Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies

Modelling Dominance Hierarchies Under Winner and Loser Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About