Search for: All records

Abstract When individuals engage in fights with conspecifics over access to resources, injuries can occur. Most theoretical models suggest that the costs associated with these injuries should influence an individual’s decision to retreat from a fight. Thus, damage from intraspecific combat is frequently noted and quantified. However, the fitness-related costs associated with this damage are not. Quantifying the cost of fighting-related damage is important because most theoretical models assume that it is the cost associated with the damage (not the damage itself) that should influence an individual’s decision to retreat. Here, we quantified the cost of fighting-related injuries in the giant mesquite bug, Thasus neocalifornicus. We demonstrate that experimentally simulated fighting injuries result in metabolic costs and costs to flight performance. We also show that flight costs are more severe when the injuries are larger. Overall, our results provide empirical support for the fundamental assumption that damage acquired during intraspecific combat is costly. 

Abstract In many animal species, individuals engage in fights with conspecifics over access to limited resources (e.g. mates, food, or shelter). Most theory about these intraspecific fights assumes that damage has an important role in determining the contest winner. Thus, defensive structures that reduce the amount of damage an individual accrues during intraspecific competition should provide a fighting advantage.Examples of such damage‐reducing structures include the dermal shields of goats, the dorsal osteoderms of crocodiles, and the armoured telsons of mantis shrimps. Although numerous studies have identified these defensive structures, no study has investigated whether they influence the outcomes of intraspecific fights.Here we investigated whether inhibiting damage by enhancing an individual's armour influenced fighting behaviour and success in the giant mesquite bug,Thasus neocalifornicus(Insecta: Hemiptera: Coreidae).We found that experimentally manipulated individuals (i.e. those provided with additional armour) were 1.6 times more likely to win a fight when compared to the control. These results demonstrate that damage, and damage‐reducing structures, can influence fighting success.The implications of these results are twofold. First, our results experimentally support a fundamental assumption of most theoretical fighting models: that damage is a fighting cost that can influence contest outcomes. Second, these results highlight the importance of an individual's defensive capacity, and why defence should not be ignored. A freePlain Language Summarycan be found within the Supporting Information of this article. 

Many sexually selected traits function as weapons, and these weapons can be incredibly diverse. However, the factors underlying weapon diversity among species remain poorly understood, and a fundamental hypothesis to explain this diversity remains untested. Although weapons can serve multiple functions, an undeniably important function is their role in fights. Thus, a crucial hypothesis is that weapon diversification is driven by the evolution of weapon modifications that provide an advantage in combat (e.g. causing more damage). Here, we test this fighting-advantage hypothesis using data from 17 species of coreid bugs. We utilize the fact that male–male combat in coreids often results in detectable damage, allowing us to link different weapon morphologies to different levels of damage among species. We find that certain weapon morphologies inflict much more damage than others, strongly supporting the fighting-advantage hypothesis. Moreover, very different weapon morphologies can inflict similarly severe amounts of damage, leading to a weapon performance landscape with multiple performance peaks. This multi-peak pattern could potentially drive different lineages towards divergent weapon forms, further increasing weapon diversity among species. Overall, our results may help explain how sexually selected weapons have evolved into the diversity of forms seen today. 

Abstract Antipredatory displays that incorporate hidden contrasting coloration are found in a variety of different animals. These displays are seen in organisms that have drab coloration at rest, but when disturbed reveal conspicuous coloration. Examples include the bright abdomens of mountain katydids and the colorful underwings of hawk moths. Such hidden displays can function as secondary defenses, enabling evasion of a pursuant predator. To begin to understand why some species have these displays while others do not, we conducted phylogenetic comparative analyses to investigate factors associated with the evolution of hidden contrasting coloration in leaf‐footed bugs. First, we investigated whether hidden contrasting coloration was associated with body size because these displays are considered to be more effective in larger organisms. We then investigated whether hidden contrasting coloration was associated with an alternative antipredatory defense, in this case rapid autotomy. We found that leaf‐footed bugs with hidden contrasting coloration tended to autotomize more slowly, but this result was not statistically significant. We also found that the presence of a body size association was dependent upon the form of the hidden color display. Leaf‐footed bugs that reveal red/orange coloration were the same size, on average, as species without a hidden color display. However, species that reveal white patches on a black background were significantly larger than species without a hidden color display. These results highlight the diversity of forms that hidden contrasting color signal can take, upon which selection may act differently.