TY - JOUR
T1 - Defensive structures influence fighting outcomes
AU - Emberts, Zachary
AU - Wiens, John J.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Cody Howard for his help with data collection and Zack Graham for his input on how to design the fighting arenas. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for providing feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript. This work was supported by NSF grant DBI‐1907051 awarded to Z.E. We have no conflicts of interest to declare.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - In many animal species, individuals engage in fights with conspecifics over access to limited resources (e.g. mates, food, or shelter). Most theory about these intraspecific fights assumes that damage has an important role in determining the contest winner. Thus, defensive structures that reduce the amount of damage an individual accrues during intraspecific competition should provide a fighting advantage. Examples of such damage-reducing structures include the dermal shields of goats, the dorsal osteoderms of crocodiles, and the armoured telsons of mantis shrimps. Although numerous studies have identified these defensive structures, no study has investigated whether they influence the outcomes of intraspecific fights. Here we investigated whether inhibiting damage by enhancing an individual's armour influenced fighting behaviour and success in the giant mesquite bug, Thasus neocalifornicus (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coreidae). We found that experimentally manipulated individuals (i.e. those provided with additional armour) were 1.6 times more likely to win a fight when compared to the control. These results demonstrate that damage, and damage-reducing structures, can influence fighting success. The implications of these results are twofold. First, our results experimentally support a fundamental assumption of most theoretical fighting models: that damage is a fighting cost that can influence contest outcomes. Second, these results highlight the importance of an individual's defensive capacity, and why defence should not be ignored. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
AB - In many animal species, individuals engage in fights with conspecifics over access to limited resources (e.g. mates, food, or shelter). Most theory about these intraspecific fights assumes that damage has an important role in determining the contest winner. Thus, defensive structures that reduce the amount of damage an individual accrues during intraspecific competition should provide a fighting advantage. Examples of such damage-reducing structures include the dermal shields of goats, the dorsal osteoderms of crocodiles, and the armoured telsons of mantis shrimps. Although numerous studies have identified these defensive structures, no study has investigated whether they influence the outcomes of intraspecific fights. Here we investigated whether inhibiting damage by enhancing an individual's armour influenced fighting behaviour and success in the giant mesquite bug, Thasus neocalifornicus (Insecta: Hemiptera: Coreidae). We found that experimentally manipulated individuals (i.e. those provided with additional armour) were 1.6 times more likely to win a fight when compared to the control. These results demonstrate that damage, and damage-reducing structures, can influence fighting success. The implications of these results are twofold. First, our results experimentally support a fundamental assumption of most theoretical fighting models: that damage is a fighting cost that can influence contest outcomes. Second, these results highlight the importance of an individual's defensive capacity, and why defence should not be ignored. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
KW - armour
KW - cumulative-assessment model
KW - damage
KW - defence
KW - intraspecific competition
KW - mutual-assessment model
KW - sexually selected weapons
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097597117&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85097597117&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1365-2435.13730
DO - 10.1111/1365-2435.13730
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85097597117
JO - Functional Ecology
JF - Functional Ecology
SN - 0269-8463
ER -