All by myself? Meta-analysis of animal contests shows stronger support for self than for mutual assessment models.

ABSTRACT

Since the 1970's, models based on evolutionary game theory, such as war of attrition (WOA), energetic war of attrition (E-WOA), cumulative assessment model (CAM) and sequential assessment model (SAM), have been widely applied to understand how animals settle contests. Despite the important theoretical advances provided by these models, empirical evidence indicates that rules adopted by animals to settle contests vary among species. This stimulated recent discussions about the generality and applicability of models of contest. A meta-analysis may be helpful to answer questions such as (i) is there a common contest rule to settle contests; (ii) do contest characteristics, such as the occurrence of physical contact during the fight, influence the use of specific contest rules; and (iii) is there a phylogenetic signal behind contest rules? To answer these questions, we gathered information on the relationship between contest duration and traits linked to contestants' resource holding potential (RHP) for randomly paired rivals and RHP-matched rivals. We also gathered behavioural data about contest escalation and RHP asymmetry. In contests between randomly paired rivals, we found a positive relationship between contest duration and loser RHP but did not find any pattern for winners. We also found a low phylogenetic signal and a similar response for species that fight with and without physical contact. In RHP-matched rivals, we found a positive relationship between contest duration and the mean RHP of the pair. Finally, we found a negative relation between contest escalation and RHP asymmetry, even though it was more variable than the other results. Our results thus indicate that rivals settle contests following the rules predicted by WOA and E-WOA in most species. However, we also found inconsistencies between the behaviours exhibited during contests and the assumptions of WOA models in most species. We discuss additional (and relatively untested) theoretical possibilities that may be explored to resolve the existing inconsistencies.