Does losing reduce the tendency to engage with rivals to reach mates? An experimental test.

Chenke Zang, Meng-Han Joseph Chung, Teresa Neeman, Lauren Harrison, Ivan M Vinogradov, Michael D Jennions
Author Information
  1. Chenke Zang: Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia. ORCID
  2. Meng-Han Joseph Chung: Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia. ORCID
  3. Teresa Neeman: Biological Data Science Institute, Australian National University, Canberra Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
  4. Lauren Harrison: School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom. ORCID
  5. Ivan M Vinogradov: Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
  6. Michael D Jennions: Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia. ORCID

Abstract

Male-male contests for access to females or breeding resources are critical in determining male reproductive success. Larger males and those with more effective weaponry are more likely to win fights. However, even after controlling for such predictors of fighting ability, studies have reported a winner-loser effect: previous winners are more likely to win subsequent contests, while losers often suffer repeated defeats. While the effect of winning-losing is well-documented for the outcome of future fights, its effect on other behaviors (e.g. mating) remains poorly investigated. Here, we test whether a winning versus losing experience influenced subsequent behaviors of male mosquitofish () toward rivals and potential mates. We housed focal males with either a smaller or larger opponent for 24 h to manipulate their fighting experience to become winners or losers, respectively. The focal males then underwent tests that required them to enter and swim through a narrow corridor to reach females, bypassing a cylinder that contained either a larger rival male (competitive scenario), a juvenile or was empty (non-competitive scenarios). The tests were repeated after 1 wk. Winners were more likely to leave the start area and to reach the females, but only when a larger rival was presented, indicating higher levels of risk-taking behavior in aggressive interactions. This winner-loser effect persisted for at least 1 wk. We suggest that male mosquitofish adjust their assessment of their own and/or their rival's fighting ability following contests in ways whose detection by researchers depends on the social context.

Keywords

Associated Data

Dryad | 10.5061/dryad.s4mw6m9dv

References

  1. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2022 Jun;97(3):1210-1230 [PMID: 35150197]
  2. Behav Ecol. 2010 Mar;21(2):404-409 [PMID: 22476369]
  3. Horm Behav. 2012 Jan;61(1):140-6 [PMID: 22155114]
  4. Am Nat. 2011 Feb;177(2):202-10 [PMID: 21460556]
  5. Nat Commun. 2016 Aug 18;7:12517 [PMID: 27535478]
  6. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Apr 12;366(1567):958-68 [PMID: 21357218]
  7. Ecol Lett. 2012 Nov;15(11):1340-1351 [PMID: 22925080]
  8. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 7;274(1608):333-9 [PMID: 17164196]
  9. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Feb;11(2):92-8 [PMID: 21237769]
  10. Brain Behav Evol. 1999 Nov;54(5):263-75 [PMID: 10640786]
  11. Horm Behav. 2012 May;61(5):741-9 [PMID: 22504307]
  12. PLoS One. 2023 Jul 20;18(7):e0287836 [PMID: 37471414]
  13. Horm Behav. 2020 Jul;123:104537 [PMID: 31181193]
  14. Ecol Evol. 2019 Jul 23;9(16):9185-9206 [PMID: 31463015]
  15. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2022 Aug;97(4):1365-1388 [PMID: 35229450]
  16. Behav Ecol. 2024 May 03;35(4):arae037 [PMID: 38779595]
  17. Biol Lett. 2018 May;14(5): [PMID: 29769302]
  18. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Jan;21(1):16-21 [PMID: 16701465]
  19. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 18;8(9):e74489 [PMID: 24058575]
  20. Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Dec;32(12):964-976 [PMID: 29050795]
  21. Anim Behav. 1999 Apr;57(4):903-910 [PMID: 10202098]
  22. Sci Total Environ. 2022 May 1;819:153046 [PMID: 35032527]
  23. Am Nat. 2023 Mar;201(3):442-459 [PMID: 36848507]
  24. Integr Comp Biol. 2012 Dec;52(6):801-13 [PMID: 22576819]
  25. Naturwissenschaften. 2016 Jun;103(5-6):38 [PMID: 27108453]
  26. Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 26;8(1):9695 [PMID: 29946077]
  27. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 Feb;81(1):33-74 [PMID: 16460581]
  28. Eur J Neurosci. 2016 Jul;44(2):1886-95 [PMID: 27086724]
  29. J Evol Biol. 2009 Jan;22(1):13-26 [PMID: 19120810]
  30. Behav Processes. 2021 Mar;184:104337 [PMID: 33515634]
  31. Front Zool. 2011 Nov 03;8(1):28 [PMID: 22051441]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0contestsmaleeffectfemalesmaleslikelyfightingmosquitofishlargerreachwinfightsabilitywinner-loserwinnerssubsequentlosersrepeatedbehaviorstestlosingexperiencerivalsfocaleithertestsrival1wkMale-maleaccessbreedingresourcescriticaldeterminingreproductivesuccessLargereffectiveweaponryHoweverevencontrollingpredictorsstudiesreportedeffect:previousoftensufferdefeatswinning-losingwell-documentedoutcomefutureegmatingremainspoorlyinvestigatedwhetherwinningversusinfluencedtowardpotentialmateshousedsmalleropponent24hmanipulatebecomerespectivelyunderwentrequiredenterswimnarrowcorridorbypassingcylindercontainedcompetitivescenariojuvenileemptynon-competitivescenariosWinnersleavestartareapresentedindicatinghigherlevelsrisk-takingbehavioraggressiveinteractionspersistedleastsuggestadjustassessmentand/orrival'sfollowingwayswhosedetectionresearchersdependssocialcontextreducetendencyengagemates?experimentalmale–malecompetitionsexualselectionwinner–loser

Similar Articles

Cited By