Assessment during Intergroup Contests

The dyadic assessment framework – studying the strategies animals use to gather information during one-on-one contests, and how this drives contest behaviors outcomes can be fruitfully adapted intergroup contests: those between stable social-living groups.Heterogeneity among group members groups cohere make effective decisions are unique features of social living that add complexity assessment.Understanding inform research in evolution ecology, for example, by revealing selective pressures on size drivers population dynamics. Research competitors assess (i.e., on) fighting ability contested resources, as well impacts processes outcomes, has been fundamental field (one-on-one) contests. Despite recent growth studies contests groups, there is limited understanding these We adapt current knowledge case, describing what traits members, resources assessed, manifested (e.g., behaviors) outcomes. This synthesis helps explain role individual heterogeneity shaped pressure Animal determine access crucial such territory, food, mates. Because result unequal distribution mating opportunities [1.Jennings D.J. Contest behaviour varies relation reproductive success fallow deer.Anim. Beh. 2020; 163: 95-103Crossref Scopus (2) Google Scholar]), influence resource ecology. In addition, dynamic displays [2.Searcy W.A. Nowicki S. Evolution Communication: Reliability Deception Signaling Systems. Princeton University Press, 2005Google Scholar] exaggerated weapons [3.Emlen animal weapons.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2008; 39: 387-413Crossref (423) thought evolve, part, under Much our come from (see Glossary), or information-gathering, individuals. Models which have usually validated using evolutionary game theory [4.Maynard Smith J. Price G.R. logic conflict.Nature. 1973; 246: 15-18Crossref (3669) Scholar], experimental tests models (reviewed [5.Hardy I.C.W. Briffa M. Contests. Cambridge 2013Crossref show individuals intrinsic (behavioral, morphological, physiological) themselves and/or their competitors, extrinsic factors resources). turn, influences strategic decision-making decision give up a (Box 1). term suite corresponding approaches framework.Box 1Dyadic Intergroup Assessment TheoryBoth associated with specific theories predictions regarding should proceed. However, focus differs two types contest. Dyadic generates about within-contest changes intensity fighting, based assumptions adaptive value (that some but not all cases verified an evolutionarily solution) various strategies. By contrast, makes attrition rates experienced weaker side, effect numerical advantage distinct ways below).Dyadic long history at core behavioral ecology [38.Kokko H. modelling fights individuals.in: Hardy 2013: 5-32Crossref Scholar]. Empirical work focused directly testing assumptions, sometimes predictions, three models: sequential model (SAM) [66.Enquist Leimar O. behaviour: rules relative strength.J. Theor. Biol. 1983; 102: 387-410Crossref (611) energetic war (EWOA) [50.Payne R.J.H. Pagel Escalation time costs endurance.J. 1996; 183: 185-193Crossref (133) cumulative (CAM) [82.Payne Gradually escalating displays: model.Anim. Behav. 1998; 56: 651-662Crossref PubMed (205) SAM assumes each rival compares its own holding potential (RHP) opponent, losers when they know ('mutual assessment'). EWOA CAM assume accumulated cross threshold ('self-assessment'). A correlational approach described Taylor Elwood [78.Taylor P.W. R.W. mismeasure contests.Anim. 2003; 65: 1195-1202Crossref (238) analyses progressions [83.Briffa Difficulties remain distinguishing mutual self-assessment 2009; 77: 759-762Crossref (85) often used distinguish (Figure I), although many may fall outside dichotomy [72.Chapin K.J. et al.Further mismeasures new strategies.Behav. 2019; 30: 1177-1185Crossref (19) Scholar,77.Briffa al.Using ternary plots investigate continuous variation strategies.Anim. 167: 85-99Crossref (4) Scholar].Intergroup considered body spanning third-party interventions conflicts larger [13.Rusch Gavrilets conflict: review.J. Econ. Org. 2017; 178: 1014-1030Crossref (26) Scholar,17.Sherratt T.N. al.Models multi-party contests.in: 33-46Crossref Scholar]). latter key ideas Lanchester’s laws developed World War I. These consider superior numbers could best utilized armies ranged weapons. If extra more numerous side held reserve until needed matches number combatants materiel allocated less side), then linear law followed I). square would if commit fray, concentrate attacks outnumbered Both below). More recently, rapid organisms. driven, attempts understand human conflict [6.Riddihough G. al.Human winning peace.Science. 2012; 336: 818-819Crossref (11) Scholar,7.Henriques G.J. al.Acculturation conflict.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. A. 116: 14089-14097Crossref (3) also widespread non-human organisms, including bacteria (multiple species) [8.Granato E.T. al.The bacterial warfare.Curr. 29: R521-R537Abstract Full Text PDF (116) ants harvester Messor barbarus) [9.Birch al.Behavioural response workers repeated encounters ant barbarus.Insect. Soc. 66: 491-500Crossref (7) eusocial shrimps (Synalpheus spp.) [10.Hultgren K.M. al.Sociality shrimps.in: Rubenstein D.R. Abbot P. Comparative Social Evolution. 2017: 224-250Crossref (14) birds acorn woodpeckers Melanerpes formicivorus) [11.Barve al.Tracking warriors spectators woodpecker wars.Curr. R982-R983Abstract (6) primates [12.Majolo B. al.Effect characteristics primates.Int. Primatol. 41: 325-341Crossref into generally member participation conflict, studied Scholar, 14.Reeve H.K. Holldobler emergence superorganism through competition.Proc. Natl USA. 2007; 104: 9736-9740Crossref (132) 15.Choi J.K. Bowles coevolution parochial altruism war.Science. 318: 636-640Crossref (608) 16.Gavrilets Fortunato L. solution collective action problem between-group within-group inequality.Nat. Comm. 2014; 5: 3526Crossref Our themselves, other, group-level still underdeveloped [17.Sherratt power rich availability well-established readily theoretical empirical exploration components 1, Key Figure). include ownership modified prior experience. shows integrate affect costs, behaviors, trait Before boxing match, commentators describe 'tale tape' both outlining size-based metrics weight, height, reach success. research, similar Parker [18.Parker G.A. strategy behavior.J. 1974; 47: 223-243Crossref (1561) termed (RHP), defined 'absolute ability'. RHP concept measured proxy single variable predicts [19.Briffa al.Analysis data.in: 47-85Crossref (Table Most commonly mass Scholar]; other proxies weapon [20.Rink A.N. al.Contest dynamics combatant monkey beetles (Scarabaeidae: Hopliini).Behav. 713-723Crossref physiological capacity [21.Boisseau R.P. metabolic host exploitation seed-drilling parasitic wasp.J. Exp. 220: 3955-3966Crossref (9) important given system drive proxies; systems where involve frequent physical contact might find force output proxy, whereas avoid endurance-based proxies, fat glycogen reserves, [22.Lailvaux S.P. Irschick functional perspective sexual selection: insights future prospects.Anim. 2006; 72: 263-273Crossref (183) meta-analysis, however, found no support arthropods [23.Vieira M.C. Peixoto P.E.C. Winners losers: meta-analysis determinants arthropod contests.Funct. 2013; 27: 305-313Crossref (43) Though trait, instead composite physiological, traits. For determined alone, likely combination reach, skill delivering punches, factors. best-supported size: group. affirmed relevant taxa wood Formica rufa) [24.Batchelor T.P. Influences resource-holding dangerous ants.Anim. 2010; 80: 443-449Crossref (23) lions (Panthera leo) [25.Mosser Packer C. Group territoriality benefits sociality African lion, Panthera leo.Anim. 78: 359-370Crossref (201) (green woodhoopoes Phoeniculus purpureus) ([26.Radford du Plessis M.A. Territorial vocal rallying green woodhoopoe: affecting length outcome.Anim. 2004; 68: 803-810Crossref (50) cf [27.Strong M.J. al.Home advantage, size, bird.Anim. 2018; 143: 205-213Crossref does predict greater anis Crotophaga major). than absolute important. total better high levels contact. Other reveal importance 2). was grey wolf (Canis lupus) males overcome disadvantage [28.Cassidy K.A. al.Group composition effects aggressive interpack interactions gray wolves Yellowstone National Park.Behav. 2015; 26: 1352-1360Crossref (95) Males females, suggesting reason impact RHP. Finally, cohesion execute coordinated fashion win. Exactly comprising within morphology, physiology, behavior. characterized features, cohesion, play Unlike individuals, inherently heterogeneous, being composed vary strength, genetic relatedness, place resources. thus attributes is, degree act together. Heterogeneity source (CAP), depends effort, effort borne [84.Olson Logic Collective Action: Public Goods Theory Groups, Second Printing New Preface Appendix. Harvard 2009Crossref Individuals lower predicted free-ride stronger incentivized mates [85.Ostrom E. norms.J. Persp. 2000; 14: 137-158Crossref (1860) CAP hinders aggression, particularly large bound tightly kinship ecological constraints [57.Crofoot Gilby I.C. Cheating monkeys undermine strength enemy territory.Proc. 109: 501-505Crossref (57) Scholar,86.Willems E.P. van Schaik C.P. competition nonhuman primates.Behav. 625-631Crossref (52) Scholar,87.Willems al.Communal range defence public goods dilemma.Philos. Trans. R. Lond. Ser. B 37020150003Crossref (33) CAP, like dilemmas coercion inducements cooperate. Among Turkana warriors, desertion cowardice raids later punished severe beatings extraction fines [88.Mathew Boyd Punishment sustains large-scale cooperation prestate warfare.Proc. 2011; 108: 11375-11380Crossref (214) Scholar,89.Mathew How second-order free rider solved small-scale society.Am. 107: 578-581Crossref (17) societies, encouraged affiliative behavior after encounter [90.Radford Duration outcome intragroup behaviour.Proc. 275: 2787-2791Crossref (67) 91.Bruintjes al.Out-group threat promotes affiliation cooperative fish.Am. Nat. 2016; 187: 274-282Crossref (38) 92.Morris-Drake al.Experimental evidence out-group threats behavior.Behav. 1425-1435Crossref (15) asymmetric relationships flow back punisher [93.Przepiorka W. Diekmann Individual costly punishment: volunteer's dilemma.Proc. 28020130247Crossref (59) 94.Wong M.Y. punishment enforces peaceful stabilizes queues coral-reef fish.Proc. 274: 1093-1099Crossref (112) 95.Cant Johnstone Self-serving cooperation.J. 19: 1383-1385Crossref (27) general, hierarchical societies vulnerable because high-ranked who gain largest share fitness overcompensate free-riding low-ranked [16.Gavrilets Strong leave heterogeneous 'exploitative' leaders, initiate benefit rest [96.Johnstone R.A. al.Exploitative leaders incite warfare mammal.Proc. 117: 29759-29766Crossref Exploitative leadership suffer strong against desertion. circumstances, selection acting lead damaging negative consequences fitness. violent banded mongooses, species females instigate disproportionately bear decoupling one causes extreme aggression. Previous experience opponent One well-known example building winner loser 1), winners win lose [29.Hsu Y. al.Modulation experience: mechanisms outcomes.Biol. 81: 33-74Crossref (509) Winner observed subsequent male red-bellied (Melanerpes carolinus) won simulated (via playback experiments) gave territorial intruders [30.Miles Fuxjager context modulates restructures free-living woodpeckers.Anim. 150: 209-218Crossref inferred movement patterns. losing area occurred frequently [31.Markham A.C. al.Intergroup predictors defeat wild primate population.Anim. 82: 399-403Crossref (55) moved faster further [32.Crofoot cost defeat: capuchin travel further, neighbors.Am. Phys. Anthropol. 152: 79-85Crossref (39) slept closer territory center ([33.Dyble aggression meerkats.Proc. 28620191993Crossref (21) [34.Radford Fawcett T.W. Conflict defense critical cooperatively breeding bird.Curr. 24: 2935-2939Abstract (28) boundary). Although imply effect, none tested whether actually lost, won, component establishing effects. same way develop hypotheses [35.O'Brien D.M. al.Muscle sexually selected weapons.Proc. 28620191063Crossref (20) forces living. competitive increased Which competitor owns [36.Kokko al.From hawks doves self-consistent games behavior.Am. 901-912Crossref (151) [37.Arnott Information gathering making 76: 529-542Crossref (218) central feature plays (also 'prior residency')