IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v15y2004i1p102-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Female and male Texas cichlids (Herichthys cyanoguttatum) do not fight by the same rules

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Draud
  • Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez
  • Jack Verga
  • Murray Itzkowitz

Abstract

Selection usually acts differently on males and females during intrasexual competition for resources and/or mates. Nevertheless, agonistic behavior has been examined both theoretically and empirically mostly in males. Our research questions whether males and females follow the same rules of engagement in intrasexual contests as predicted by the sequential assessment model (SAM). The SAM predicts negative correlations between contest intensity and duration and the magnitude of asymmetry in resource holding power (RHP) between the contestants, such that the most escalated contests are those between similarly endowed individuals. We staged male and female intrasexual contests with varying degrees of body size asymmetry under a round robin design using the monogamous Texas cichlid fish (Herichthys cyanoguttatum) as a study case. We used Mantel's matrix analysis to compare how the behavioral content, duration, structure, and outcome of male and female contests were affected by the relative body size of the contestants. In the case of males, relative size in each contest predicted outcome, duration, and frequency of conventional and escalated behaviors according to prevailing theory. Female contest structure and outcome, however, were not predicted by the relative size of contestants. We discuss our results in terms of other asymmetries that might be important in structuring female contests, and we propose potential approaches to study female--female aggression. Copyright 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Draud & Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez & Jack Verga & Murray Itzkowitz, 2004. "Female and male Texas cichlids (Herichthys cyanoguttatum) do not fight by the same rules," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(1), pages 102-108, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:15:y:2004:i:1:p:102-108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arg081
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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:15:y:2004:i:1:p:102-108. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.