scholarly journals Minimal Intraspecific Aggression among Tawny Crazy Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Florida

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Katy J. Lawson ◽  
David H. Oi
1984 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 1548-1555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Magnan ◽  
Gérard J. FitzGerald

When brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis Mitchill, are in allopatry in oligotrophic Québec lakes, they feed largely on macrobenthic invertebrates. However, when brook charr cooccur with creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus Mitchill, they feed largely on zooplankton. In the present study, laboratory experiments showed that creek chub were more effective than brook charr in searching for hidden, patchily distributed prey. The searching efficiency of an individual chub feeding in a group was improved through social facilitation. In contrast, the high level of intraspecific aggression observed in brook charr prevents the formation of such feeding groups. In the laboratory, brook charr were able to displace creek chub from the food source because of interspecific aggression. Data are presented showing that chub are morphologically better adapted than charr to feed on benthos (subterminal orientation of the mouth and protrusible premaxillae), while the charr are better adapted than chub to feed on zooplankton (gill raker structure). Differences in feeding behaviour, morphology, and relative abundance between these species appear to be important in the observed niche shift of brook charr in nature.


Behaviour ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Ángel Hernández

Abstract This study provides novel information about gregariousness and intraspecific aggression in Iberian bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula iberiae) in northwestern Spain. Small monospecific parties never exceeding 10 individuals were seen throughout the year, larger in winter on average. Males considerably outnumbered females within the groups. Adult flocks were frequent only in winter. In spring, many of the adult groups were mixed-sex assemblages composed of pairs plus supernumerary males. Sightings of juvenile groups, up to seven individuals, were common in summer–autumn. The vigilance role in mixed-sex assemblages, including pairs, appeared to be the responsibility of males based on sex-specific vigilance rates. The highest frequency of aggressive encounters, mainly male against male, occurred during the breeding season, associated with mate defence. Females attacked males, not the contrary, which supports reversed sexual dominance in bullfinches. Gregariousness probably acted as an anti-predatory and foraging strategy.


Behaviour ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 76 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 207-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Burger

AbstractThe aggressive behaviour of skimmers was studied in a mixed species colony of black skimmers and common terns located on a sandy beach in New York. The levels and intensity of intraspecific aggression varied according to sex, season, and time of day. Males engaged in more intraspecific aggression, whereas females engaged in more interspecific defense. These differences suggest that interspecific defense is an appropriate response to the real threat of chick loss due to other birds (of both species). In general, females were defending space and their chicks, whereas males seemed to defend space, their chicks, and females. The aggression observed at any point in the reproductive cycle correlates with the magnitude of the threat.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document