|
|
Chase, I. D., Bartolomeo, C., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1994). Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning? Anim. Behav., 48(2), 393–400.
Abstract: Abstract. Considerable evidence across many taxa demonstrates that prior social experience affects the outcome of subsequent aggressive interactions. Although the 'loser effect', in which an individual losing one encounter is likely to lose the next, is relatively well understood, studies of the 'winner effect', in which winning one encounter increases the probability of winning the next, have produced mixed results. Earlier studies differ concerning whether a winner effect exists, and if it does, how long it lasts. The variation in results, however, may arise from different inter-contest intervals and procedures for selecting contestants employed across previous studies. These methodological differences are addressed through a series of experiments using randomly selected winners and three different inter-contest intervals in the pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus. The results indicate that a winner effect does in fact exist in pumpkinseed sunfish, but that it only lasts between 15 and 60 min. Based on these results, predictions about the behavioural dynamics of hierarchy formation are discussed, and it is suggested that it may be impossible, in principle, to predict the outcome of dominance interactions between some individuals before they are actually assembled to form a group. Finally, the possible mechanisms underlying the winner effect are explored.
|
|
|
|
Mesterton-Gibbons, M., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1995). Toward a theory of dominance hierarchies: effects of assessment, group size, and variation in fighting ability. Behav. Ecol., 6(4), 416–423.
Abstract: We introduce assessment to the analysis of dominance hierarchies by exploring the effect of an evolutionarily stable fighting rule when there is variation in resource holding potential (RHP) and RHP is not a perfectly reliable predictor of the outcome of a fight. With assessment, the probability of a linear hierarchy decreases with group size but can remain appreciable for groups of up to seven or eight individuals, whereas it decreases virtually to zero if there is no assessment. The probability of a hierarchy that correlates perfectly with RHP is low unless group size is small.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Hoglund, J. (1995). Delayed breeding and the evolution of mate copying in lekking species. J. Theor. Biol., 174(3), 261–267.
Abstract: Recent experimental evidence indicates that females may copy the mate choice of others. Here, we present a model for the evolution of mate copying strategies in lekking species. In the model, all females (copiers and non-copiers) assess male quality, but a copier's assessment of a male's quality increases after males have mated with other females. The model demonstrates that mate copying is favored when breeding late in the season has a relatively high cost. We hope that our results will spur empirical work quantifying the time constraints associated with breeding, thus allowing more direct tests of the model's predictions.
|
|
|
|
Godin, J. - G. J., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1995). Variability and repeatability of female mating preference in the guppy. Anim. Behav., 49(6), 1427–1433.
Abstract: Models of inter-sexual selection generally assume heritable variation in mating preferences among females within populations. However, little is known about the nature of such variation. The aim of this study was to characterize quantitatively the phenotypic variation in female preference for a sexually selected male trait, body colour pattern, within a population of the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Significantly more female guppies preferred the more brightly coloured of two similar-sized males presented simultaneously as potential mates. Mating preference scores for individual females were significantly and positively correlated between two repeated trials on successive days. Females were thus individually consistent in their particular choice of mates, and the calculated repeatability of their mating preference was relatively high. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, significant variation existed among females in the degree of their preference for brightly coloured males. Individual mating preference scores were not normally distributed, but were rather skewed to the right (i.e. towards greater values). These results suggest that additive genetic variation for mating preferences based on male colour pattern is maintained, and the opportunity for the further evolution of both bright male colour patterns and female preference for this trait appears to exist in the study population from the Quare River, Trinidad.
|
|
|
|
Wilson, D. S., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1996). A reply to Lombardi & Hurlbert. Anim. Behav., 52(2), 423–425.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A., & Mesterton-Gibbons, M. (1996). Cooperation among unrelated individuals: reciprocal altruism, by-product mutualism and group selection in fishes. Biosystems, 37(1-2), 19–30.
Abstract: Cooperation among unrelated individuals can evolve not only via reciprocal altruism but also via trait-group selection or by-product mutualism (or some combination of all three categories). Therefore the (iterated) prisoner's dilemma is an insufficient paradigm for studying the evolution of cooperation. We replace this game by the cooperator's dilemma, which is more versatile because it enables all three categories of cooperative behavior to be examined within the framework of a single theory. Controlled studies of cooperation among fish provide examples of each category of cooperation. Specifically, we describe reciprocal altruism among simultaneous hermaphrodites that swap egg parcels, group-selected cooperation among fish that inspect dangerous predators and by-product mutualism in the cooperative foraging of coral-reef fish.
|
|
|
|
Crowley, P. H., Provencher, L., Sloane, S., Dugatkin, L. A., Spohn, B., Rogers, L., et al. (1996). Evolving cooperation: the role of individual recognition. Biosystems, 37(1-2), 49–66.
Abstract: To evaluate the role of individual recognition in the evolution of cooperation, we formulated and analyzed a genetic algorithm model (EvCo) for playing the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD) game. Strategies compete against each other during each generation, and successful strategies contribute more of their attributes to the next generation. Each strategy is encoded on a `chromosome' that plays the IPD, responding to the sequences of most recent responses by the interacting individuals (chromosomes). The analysis reported in this paper considered different memory capabilities (one to five previous interactions), pairing continuities (pairs of individuals remain together for about one, two, five, or 1000 consecutive interactions), and types of individual recognition (recognition capability was maximal, nil, or allowed to evolve between these limits). Analysis of the results focused on the frequency of mutual cooperation in pairwise interactions (a good indicator of overall success in the IPD) and on the extent to which previous responses by the focal individual and its partner were associated with the partner's identity (individual recognition). Results indicated that a fixed, substantial amount of individual recognition could maintain high levels of mutual cooperation even at low pairing continuities, and a significant but limited capability for individual recognition evolved under selection. Recognition generally increased mutual cooperation more when the recent responses of individuals other than the current partner were ignored. Titrating recognition memory under selection using a fitness cost suggested that memory of the partner's previous responses was more valuable than memory of the focal's previous responses. The dynamics produced to date by EvCo are a step toward understanding the evolution of social networks, for which additional benefits associated with group interactions must be incorporated.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1996). Tit for Tat, by-product mutualism and predator inspection: a reply to Connor. Anim. Behav., 51(2), 455–457.
|
|
|
|
Mesterton-Gibbons, M., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). Cooperation and the Prisoner's Dilemma: towards testable models of mutualism versus reciprocity. Anim. Behav., 54(3), 551–557.
Abstract: For the purpose of distinguishing between mutualism and reciprocity in nature, recent work on the evolution of cooperation has both oversimplifed and undersimplified the distinction between these two categories of cooperation. This article addresses the resulting issues of model testability, clarifies the role of time and argues that the category of `pseudo-reciprocity' is an unnecessary complication.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Ecol., 8(6), 583–587.
Abstract: In the literature on dominance hierarchies, “winner” and “loser” effects usually are denned as an increased probability of winning at time T, bated on victories at time T-l, T-2, etc, and an increased probability of losing at time T, based on losing at T-1, T-2, etc., respectively. Despite some early theoretical work on winner and loser effects, these factors and how they affect the structure of dominance hierarchies have not been examined in detail. I developed a computer simulation to examine winner and loser effects when such effects are independent of one another (as well as when they interact) and when combatants assess each other's resource-holding power. When winner effects alone were important, a hierarchy in which all individuals held an unambiguous rank was found. When only loser effects were important, a dear alpha individual always emerged, but the rank of others in the group was often unclear because of the scarcity of aggressive interactions. Increasing winner effects for a given value of the loser effect increase the number of individuals with unambiguous positions in a hierarchy and the converse is true for increasing the value of the loser effect for a given winner effect Although winner and loser effects have been documented in a number of species, no study has documented both winner and loser effects (using some controlled, pairwise testing system) and the detailed nature of behavioral interactions when individuals are in groups. I hope the results of this model will spur such studies in the future.
|
|
