Overestimating resource value and its effects on fighting decisions.

Much work in behavioral ecology has shown that animals fight over resources such as food, and that they make strategic decisions about when to engage in such fights. Here, we examine the evolution of one, heretofore unexamined, component of that strategic decision about whether to fight for a resource. We present the results of a computer simulation that examined the evolution of over- or underestimating the value of a resource (food) as a function of an individual's current hunger level. In our model, animals fought for food when they perceived their current food level to be below the mean for the environment. We considered seven strategies for estimating food value: 1) always underestimate food value, 2) always overestimate food value, 3) never over- or underestimate food value, 4) overestimate food value when hungry, 5) underestimate food value when hungry, 6) overestimate food value when relatively satiated, and 7) underestimate food value when relatively satiated. We first competed all seven strategies against each other when they began at approximately equal frequencies. In such a competition, two strategies--"always overestimate food value," and "overestimate food value when hungry"--were very successful. We next competed each of these strategies against the default strategy of "never over- or underestimate," when the default strategy was set at 99% of the population. Again, the strategies of "always overestimate food value" and "overestimate food value when hungry" fared well. Our results suggest that overestimating food value when deciding whether to fight should be favored by natural selection.

Extrinsic effects, estimating opponents' RHP, and the structure of dominance hierarchies.

We examined the impact of winner and loser effects on dominance hierarchy formation when individuals are capable of estimating their opponent's resource holding power (RHP). The accuracy of such estimates was a variable in our simulations, and we considered cases in which all individuals err within the same bounds, as well as cases in which some individuals consistently overestimate, while others consistently underestimate their opponent's fighting RHP. In all cases, we found a clearly defined linear hierarchy. In most simulations, the vast majority of interactions were 'attack-retreats', and the remainder of interactions were almost all 'fights'. Error rates had no effect on the linearity of the hierarchy or the basic attack-retreat nature of interactions, and consistent over and underestimation did not affect the ultimate position of an individual in a hierarchy.