Author
Listed:
- Olle Brick
- Sven Jakobsson
Abstract
The nature of fights in a species depends on the asymmetry in fighting ability of the contestants and the value of the contested resource. Animals of a population may also differ in their assessment of how dangerous it is to fight in relation to the risk of predation. To address this issue, we classified 36 males of the small South American cichlid fish, Nannacara anomala, according to how much each individual inspected a model predator in the presence of its own mirror image. We assigned each fish to either of two groups: bold (prone to inspecting) or cautious (averse to inspecting). We allowed bold and cautious dyads, matched for equal body weight within each dyad, to fight in the presence of the model predator. During these fights, there was no significant difference between the groups in inspection of the model predator, but bold dyads escalated significantly faster to mouth wrestling than cautious dyads. Bold dyads also performed significantly more low-intensity behavior (i.e., visual assessment and tail beating) compared to cautious dyads. Only two fights (22%) in the bold group and one fight (11%) in the cautious group had a clear winner. About 3 months later, the same dyads fought again without the model predator present. Both groups then decreased the time to reach mouth wrestling, but bold dyads still escalated significantly faster than cautious dyads to mouth wrestling. There was no significant difference in the use of low-intensity behaviors between groups. The results suggest that there are individual differences in the response toward predators among male N. anomala, which also correlates with the performance of fighting behavior when the animals' perceived risk of predation increases. Copyright 2002.
Suggested Citation
Olle Brick & Sven Jakobsson, 2002.
"Individual variation in risk taking: the effect of a predatory threat on fighting behavior in Nannacara anomala,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 13(4), pages 439-442, July.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:4:p:439-442
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:4:p:439-442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.