Residency and size affect fight duration and outcome in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 57, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 293-306

  Jennions, Michael D ^a,c   Backwell, Patricia R Y ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

^c SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

Fighting; Resource holding potential; Sequential assessment game; Visual assessment

Indexed keywords

DECAPODA (CRUSTACEA); OCYPODIDAE; UCA ANNULIPES;

EID: 17544384267     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01851.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Adams ES, Caldwell RL. 1990. Deceptive communication in asymmetric fights of the stomatopod crustacean Gonodactylus bredini. Animal Behaviour 39: 706-716.
2. Backwell PRY, Passmore NI. In press. Time constraints and multiple choice criteria in the sampling behavioural and mate choice of the fiddler crab Uca annulipes. Behaviour Ecology and Sociobiology.
3. Brooke M de L. 1981. Size as a factor influencing the ownership of copulation burrows by the ghost crab (Ocypode ceratophthalamus). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychology 55: 63-78.
4. Christy JH. 1982. Burrow structure and use in the fiddler crab Uca pugilator. Animal Behaviour 30: 487-494.
5. Crane J. 1967. Combat and its ritualization in fiddler crabs (ocypodidae) with special reference to Uca rapax (Smith). Zoologica: New York Zoological Society 52: 49-78.
6. Crane J. 1975. Fiddler Crabs of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7. Crespi BJ. 1986. Size assessment and alternative fighting tactics in Elaphrothrips tuberculatus (Insecta: Thysanoptera). Animal Behaviour 34: 1324-1335.
8. England G, Olsson TI. 1990. Fighting and assessment in the net-spinning cadddis larva Arctopsyche ladogensis: a test of the sequential assessment game. Animal Behaviour 39: 55-62.
9. Enquist M, Leimar O. 1983. The evolution of fighting behaviour: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. Journal of Theoretical Biology 102: 387-410.
10. Enquist M, Leimar O, Ljungberg T, Mallner Y, Segerdahl N. 1990. A test of the sequential assessment game: fighting in the cichlid fish Nannacara anomala. Animal Behaviour 40: 1-14.
11. Enquist M, Ljundberg T, Zandor A. 1987. Visual assessment of fighting ability in the cichlid fish Nannacara anomala. Animal Behaviour 35: 1262-1264.
12. Faber DB, Baylis JR. 1993. Effects of body size on agonistic encounters between male jumping spiders (Araneaea: Salticidae). Animal Behaviour 45: 289-299.
13. Gordon HRS. 1958. Synchronous claw-waving in fiddler crabs. Animal Behaviour 6: 238-241.
14. Grafen A. 1987. The logic of diversively asymmetric contests: respect for ownership and the desparado effect. Animal Behaviour 35: 462-467.
15. Hammerstein P, Parker GA. 1982. The asymmetric war of attrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology 96: 647-682.
16. Harper DGC. 1991. Communication. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB, eds. Behavioural Ecology: an evolutionary approach 3rd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 374-397.
17. Huntingford FA, Turner AK. 1987. Animal Conflict and Fighting Behaviour. London: Chapman & Hall.
18. Hyatt GW, Salmon M. 1978. Combat in the fiddler crabs Uca pugilator and Uca pugnax: a quantitative analysis. Behaviour 65: 182-211.
19. Hyatt GW, Salmon M. 1979. Comparative statistical and information analysis of combat in the fiddler crabs, Uca pugilator and Uca pugnax. Behaviour 68: 1-23.
20. Jacobsson S, Brick O, Kullberg C. 1995. Escalated fighting behaviour incurs increased predation risk. Animal Behaviour 49: 235-238.
21. Keeley ER, Grant JWA. 1993. Asymmetries in the expected value of food do not predict the outcome of contests between convict cichlids. Animal Behaviour 45: 1035-1037.
22. Leimar O, Enquist M. 1984. The effect of asymmetries in owner-intruder interactions. Journal of Theoretical Biology 111: 475-491.
23. Lindström K. 1992. The effect of resource holding potential, nest size and information about resource quality on the outcome of intruder- owner conflicts in the sand gobby. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 30: 53-58.
24. Warden JH, Waage JS. 1990. Escalated damselfly territorial contests are escalated wars of attrition. Animal Behaviour 39: 954-959.
25. Marden JH, Rollins RA. 1994. Assessment of energy reserves by damselflies engaged in aerial contests for mating territories. Animal Behaviour 48: 1023-1030.
26. Maynard Smith J, Parker G. 1976. The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour 24: 159-175.
27. Olsson M. 1992. Contest success in relation to size and residency in male sand lizards, Lacerta agilis. Animal Behaviour 44: 386-388.
28. Parker GA. 1974. Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 47: 223-243.
29. Rosenberg RH, Enquist M. 1991. Contest behaviour in Weidemeyer's admiral butterfly Limenitis weidemeyerii (Nymphalidae): the effect of size and residency. Animal Behaviour 42: 805-811.
30. Smith IP, Huntingford FA, Atkinson FJ, Taylor AC. 1994. Strategic decisions during agonistic behaviour in the swimming crab Necora puber. Animal Behaviour 47: 885-894.
31. Thornhill R, Sauer P. 1992. Genetic sire effects on the fighting ability of sons and daughters and mating success of sons in a scorpionfly. Animal Behaviour 43: 255-264.
32. Turner GF. 1994. The fighting tactics of male mouthbrooding cichlids: the effects of size and residency. Animal Behaviour 47: 655-662.
33. Waas JR. 1991. The risks and benefits of signalling aggressive motivation: a study of cave-dwelling little blue penguins. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 139-146.