High motivation enables smaller contestants to win the contests in fiddler crabs (Brachyura, Ocypodidae)

in Crustaceana
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

We observed the outcomes of fights of smaller contestants against larger opponents during male-male contests in Uca annulipes (H. Milne Edwards, 1837), Uca bengali Crane, 1975, and Uca rosea (Tweedie, 1937). Smaller contestants won 30, 31 and 37% of the contests in U. annulipes, U. bengali and U. rosea, respectively, regardless of body size disadvantages. Smaller contestants won when body size asymmetries were lesser, but took a longer time to win the contests, while with greater size-asymmetries, smaller ones lost the contests in a short time. In U. bengali and U. rosea, most of the smaller winners were residents (burrow owners), but not in U. annulipes. This study shows that longer fighting duration or high motivation enables the smaller contestants, especially the residents, to overcome their inferior fighting ability and win contests against larger opponents.

Crustaceana

International Journal of Crustacean Research

Sections

References

BarretteC.VandalD., 1990. Sparring, relative antler size, and assessment in male caribou. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 26: 383-387.

BriffaM., 2014. What determines the duration of war? Insights from assessment strategies in animal contests. PLoS One, 9: e108491.

BriffaM.ElwoodR. W.RussJ. M., 2003. Analysis of multiple aspects of a repeated signal: power and rate of rapping during shell fights in hermit crabs. Behav. Ecol., 14: 74-79.

BriffaM.SneddonL. U., 2007. Physiological constraints on contest behaviour. Funct. Ecol., 21: 627-637.

BrownW. D.ChimentiA. J.SiebertJ. R., 2007. The payoff of fighting in house crickets: motivational asymmetry increases male aggression and mating success. Ethology, 113: 457-465.

EnquistM.LeimarO., 1987. Evolution of fighting behaviour: the effect of variation in resource value. J. Theor. Biol., 127: 187-205.

GrafenA., 1987. The logic of divisively asymmetric contests: respect for ownership and the desperado effect. Anim. Behav., 35: 462-467.

HofmannH. A.SchildbergerK., 2001. Assessment of strength and willingness to fight during aggressive encounters in crickets. Anim. Behav., 62: 337-348.

HurdP. L.EnquistM., 1998. Conventional signalling in aggressive interactions: the importance of temporal structure. J. Theor. Biol., 192: 197-211.

JaroensutasineeM.TantichodokP., 2002. Effects of size and residency on fighting outcomes in the fiddler crab, Uca vocans hesperiae (Decapoda, Brachyura, Ocypodidae). Crustaceana, 75: 1107-1117.

JennionsM. D.BackwellP. R. Y., 1996. Residency and size affect fight duration and outcome in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 57: 293-306.

JenssenT. A.DecourcyK. R.CongdonJ. D., 2005. Assessment in contests of male lizards (Anolis carolinensis): how should smaller males respond when size matters? Anim. Behav., 69: 1325-1336.

KoopsM. A.GrantJ. W. A., 1993. Weight asymmetry and sequential assessment in convict cichlid contests. Can. J. Zool., 71: 475-479.

Maynard SmithJ.ParkerG. A., 1976. The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim. Behav., 24: 159-175.

MorrellL. J.BackwellP. R. Y.MetcalfeN. B., 2005a. Fighting in fiddler crabs Uca mjoebergi: what determines duration? Anim. Behav., 70: 653-662.

MorrellL. J.LindstromJ.RuxtonG. D., 2005b. Why are small males aggressive? Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci., 272: 1235-1241.

MuramatsuD.KogaT., 2016. Fighting with an unreliable weapon: opponent choice and risk avoidance in fiddler crab contests. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 70: 713-724.

NeatF. C.HuntingfordF. A.BeveridgeM. M., 1998. Fighting and assessment in male cichlid fish: the effects of asymmetries in gonadal state and body size. Anim. Behav., 55: 883-891.

NosilP., 2002. Food fights in house crickets, Acheta domesticus, and the effects of body size and hunger level. Can. J. Zool., 80: 409-417.

ParkerG. A., 1974. Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J. Theor. Biol., 47: 223-243.

SacchiR.PupinF.GentilliA.RuboliniD.ScaliS.FasolaM.GaleottiP., 2009. Male-male combats in a polymorphic lizard: residency and size, but not color, affect fighting rules and contest outcome. Aggr. Behav., 35: 274-283.

TaylorP. W.ElwoodR. W., 2003. The mismeasure of animal contests. Anim. Behav., 65: 1195-1202.

TinaF. W.JaroensutasineeM.JaroensutasineeK., 2015. Effects of body size, resident status and handedness on fighting behaviour of the fiddler crab, Uca bengali Crane, 1975. Crustaceana, 88: 775-789.

TinaF. W.JaroensutasineeM.JaroensutasineeK., 2016. Body size, resident status, handedness and claw originality in Uca rosea (Tweedie, 1937) male fights. Crustaceana, 89: 1687-1700.

Figures

  • Fighting stages of Uca males; a, claw contact; b, claw interlock.

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 18 18 4
Full Text Views 7 7 7
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0