Resource Defense

Author(s):  
Eric Alden Smith ◽  
Benjamin Hanowell
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
R. Ethan Pride ◽  
Dina Felantsoa ◽  
Tahirihasina M. Randriamboavonjy ◽  
R. Randriambelona

2018 ◽  
pp. 258-279
Author(s):  
Melissa Hughes ◽  
Whitney L. Heuring

Territoriality is a special case of resource defense, in which space is actively defended for exclusive use. As active defense is likely to be costly, territoriality is expected only when the benefits of exclusivity outweigh these costs. In most territorial species of noncrustacean taxa, the defended space includes resources critical for reproduction or food. These resources are not only critical for reproductive success, but also are vulnerable to “looting”, that is, the value of these resources may be reduced through short-term intrusions, even without loss of ownership, thus providing an advantage for active defense of exclusive space. Many crustaceans defend space, particularly burrows or other shelters that are refuges from predation or environmental stressors. While protection is obviously a critical resource, it is not a resource that necessarily requires exclusivity; indeed, many crustaceans that depend upon shelters for protection do not defend them for exclusive use. Nonetheless, many crustacean taxa aggressively defend exclusive access to their shelters. Crustaceans, then, may be especially suitable for testing alternative hypotheses of territoriality, including the potential benefits of interindividual spacing rather than defense of space per se. It is also worth considering a null hypothesis for territoriality: aggressive defense of space in crustaceans may be an artifact of relatively sedentary species with high intraspecific aggression favored in other contexts, rather than aggression favored for defense of particular resources. In addition to these questions, much remains to be learned about territorial behaviors in crustaceans. Most notably, the boundaries of defended space are unknown in many taxa. Understanding the boundaries of defended space is important for understanding the ecological consequences of territoriality, as well as aspects of territory acquisition and the roles of neighbor relationships and territorial advertisement signals in territory defense. Many crustacean territories appear to differ from those described for other animals, especially terrestrial species; it is not clear, however, whether these differences are due to differences in function or habitat, or rather result from our incomplete knowledge of crustacean territoriality.


The Auk ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 120 (2) ◽  
pp. 446-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda M. Hale ◽  
Dean A. Williams ◽  
Kerry N. Rabenold

Abstract Defense of group-held resources is a common and widely accepted function of territorial interactions between neighboring groups. In addition, territorial interactions could provide opportunities to assess members of neighboring groups and reproductive opportunities there, or to solidify status in the home group. We studied group-level characteristics and individual participation in territorial encounters in the cooperatively breeding Brown Jay (Cyanocorax morio). Intergroup encounters at stable territory boundaries include both aggressive and affiliative behavior, which suggests that a territorial encounter could function as both a resource defense mechanism and as an arena for social interactions. Territory characteristics that increase the probability of contact between groups (long boundaries, large combined group size, and home range overlap) explain much of the variation in frequency of territorial encounters. Male-biased dispersal was more common to neighboring groups with long boundaries, supporting the idea that frequent interactions between neighbors facilitate dispersal. Females usually inherit breeding positions on their natal territories, and participation in intergroup encounters by females does not vary with age or breeding status. In addition to defending group resources, females on their natal territories could be defending their positions in the breeding queue. Immigrant females are not likely to breed successfully, or to disperse again, and they participated less than expected. Participation by both natal and immigrant males varied by age; young males, at the ages when dispersal and intergroup forays are most likely, participated more than expected, whereas older males (≥4 years) participated less. That is consistent with the hypothesis that participation in intergroup encounters facilitates dispersal and improves integration into social groups. Because extragroup matings occur in this population, both breeding females and males could be assessing neighboring individuals for mating opportunities. Resource defense and social facilitation are not mutually exclusive hypotheses, and our observations suggest that both are important components of territorial encounters in Brown Jays.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. e01289
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C. Braun de Torrez ◽  
Jeffery A. Gore ◽  
Holly K. Ober

1984 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Stamps ◽  
K. Tollestrup
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document