Body size has long been recognized to play a key role in shaping species interactions. For example, while small species thrive in a diversity of environments, they typically lose aggressive contests for resources with larger species. However, numerous examples exist of smaller species dominating larger species during aggressive interactions, suggesting that the evolution of traits can allow species to overcome the competitive disadvantage of small size. If these traits accumulate as lineages diverge, then the advantage of large size in interspecific aggressive interactions should decline with increased evolutionary distance. We tested this hypothesis using data on the outcomes of 23,362 aggressive interactions among 246 bird species pairs involving vultures at carcasses, hummingbirds at nectar sources, and antbirds and woodcreepers at army ant swarms. We found the advantage of large size declined as species became more evolutionarily divergent, and smaller species were more likely to dominate aggressive contests when interacting with more distantly-related species. These results appear to be caused by both the evolution of traits in smaller species that enhanced their abilities in aggressive contests, and the evolution of traits in larger species that were adaptive for other functions, but compromised their abilities to compete aggressively. Specific traits that may provide advantages to small species in aggressive interactions included well-developed leg musculature and talons, enhanced flight acceleration and maneuverability, novel fighting behaviors, and traits associated with aggression, such as testosterone and muscle development. Traits that may have hindered larger species in aggressive interactions included the evolution of morphologies for tree trunk foraging that compromised performance in aggressive contests away from trunks, and the evolution of migration. Overall, our results suggest that fundamental trade-offs, such as those associated with body size, are more likely to break down over evolutionary time, changing the rules that govern species interactions and structure ecological communities.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177554 | PMC |
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0108741 | PLOS |
Heliyon
November 2024
Soil Science, Geography & Environmental Studies' Dep't, Arba-Minch University, Ethiopia.
Proc Biol Sci
October 2024
Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyoku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
Social interaction is a prime driver for the evolution of animal behaviour. Dyadic interaction, in particular, has been the focus of intensive research on the evolution of mutualistic, altruistic, selfish or spiteful behaviours. Meanwhile, triadic interaction has been the minimal framework for the study of animal coalition as observed in some species of primates, as well as in carnivores and cetaceans, where two or more individuals act jointly against a third party in a competitive context.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEvol Lett
August 2024
Institute of Biology I, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Competition over resources is often decided via aggressive interactions, which may or may not escalate to all-out fights. Weapons and body size play important roles in such interactions, as they often provide reliable cues of an individual's fighting ability. In contrast, traits like nonfunctional display "weapons" may dishonestly exaggerate fighting ability in order to intimidate opponents into retreating.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNat Commun
October 2024
Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
When defending against hostile enemies, individual group members can benefit from others staying in the group and fighting. However, individuals themselves may be better off by leaving the group and avoiding the personal risks associated with fighting. While fleeing is indeed commonly observed, when and why defenders fight or flee remains poorly understood and is addressed here with three incentivized and preregistered experiments (total n = 602).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAbstractIndividuals with similar biological requirements frequently compete for resources. Males and females have evolved different reproductive strategies in which females invest more in fecundity and males in intrasexual competition for mates. Although less common than within-sex competition, intersexual contests may occur to obtain resources.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!