4.3 Article

Startle durations reveal visual assessment abilities during contests between convict cichlids

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 750-756

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.05.001

关键词

Amatitlania nigrofasciata; Contests; Game theory; Motivation; Mutual assessment; Self-assessment

资金

  1. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Northern Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In animal contests, the widespread ability of contestants to assess their opponents' resource holding potential (RHP) relative to their own, termed mutual assessment, has recently been questioned. It is possible that each contestant may only have information about its own abilities or state, incurring costs up to a particular threshold then giving up, termed self-assessment. We used a technique that provides a measure of fight motivation to discriminate between different assessment models during aggressive encounters between male convict cichlids, Amatitlania nigrofasciata. A novel stimulus was applied to cause a startle response in one contestant of an aggressively interacting, size mis-matched pair, whereby the animal temporarily stops fighting. The time taken to resume the contest has been verified to provide a measure of the motivation to fight, from which it is possible to infer if any visual information concerning opponent asymmetries has been gathered. The data showed support for two differing types of assessment. There was some support for self-assessment, with startle duration being negatively related to own size, and, in a later trial series some support for an opponent only assessment strategy, with startle duration being positively related to opponent size. These results are consistent with individuals learning to use visual information about opponents when deprived of other sensory cues. Evidence within a trial supporting visual mutual assessment was lacking and possible reasons for this are discussed. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据