Abstract. The relative contribution of prior experience and of size asymmetries to the determination of dyadic dominance between unfamiliar individuals was examined using pairs of green swordtail fish, Xiphophorus helleri. Three experiments were conducted to assess the extent to which superiority in size could override potential handicaps resulting from prior experience. These results indicated that prior experience accounted for dyadic dominance when the size advantage of a previously subordinate over a previously dominant opponent was less than 25 mm 2 . However, as the lateral surface of the subordinate fish increased, neither previous experience nor size differences clearly accounted for the outcome of dyadic conflict. Even when the size advantage of subordinate opponents was in the 126-150 mm 2 range, size differences did not adequately explain the outcome. In conflicts between large previously subordinate and smaller dominant fish, there was evidence for an inverse linear relation between the effects of size and the likelihood of establishing dyadic dominance. In general, males with prior experience as subordinates had to be at least 40% larger than a previously dominant fish to win a significant proportion of conflicts. These results indicate that prior agonistic experience and body size effects can be additive when at the advantage of one opponent. These factors can also cancel each other out when in opposition, at least when size differences are not extreme. The results also confirm the main effect of both factors as well as their interaction in the determination of conflict outcomes for X. helleri.

This work was funded by an operating grant from the NSERC of Canada to JPB. SummaryThe relative contribution of asymmetries in prior experience, size, and prior residency to the determination of dyadic dominance between unacquainted individuals was examined using pairs of green swordtail fish, Xiphophorus helleri. Four types of encounters were staged between an intruder and a smaller resident: (1) both had experienced prior victory; (2) both had experienced prior defeat; (3) the intruder had experienced prior victory and the resident prior defeat; and (4) the intruder had experienced prior defeat and the resident prior victory. In a fifth condition in which two intruders met, one was a prior subordinate and the other a prior dominant smaller in size than its opponent. In all these encounters, the superiority in lateral surface of one fish varied between 0 to 30% over that of its opponent. Results showed that (1) when size differences between contestants were within the range of 0-10% and there was an asymmetry in prior social experience, conflicts were essentially resolved according to prior experience with prior winners systematically defeating prior losers; (2) prior residency of 3 hours was an advantage only when both opponents had experienced prior defeat before meeting and when size asymmetries were small (e.g. <20%). It was not an advantage between prior winners or between a prior winner and a prior loser; (3) when large size asymmetries existed (e.g. 20-30%), size uniquely determined dominance outcome and nullified other advantages or disadvantages due to prior social experience and prior residency; and (4) at intermediate levels of size asymmetries (e.g. 10-20%), size partially cancelled any advantage due to a prior victory, and gradually beacme the most important factor in accounting for victories.

No abstract

This study examines the role of observation during the formation of triads in female domestic hens. Results indicate that during hierarchy formation, a hen observing agonistic interactions and conflict settlement between its former dominant and a stranger uses this information when in turn confronted by the latter. Under a first condition (E, N=15 triads), bystanders witnessed their prior dominant being defeated by a stranger before being introduced to them. In a second condition (C1, N=16 triads), bystanders witnessed the victory of their prior dominant over a stranger. In a third condition (C2, N=15 triads), bystanders witnessed two strangers establishing a dominance relationship before being introduced to their prior dominant and to a stranger the former had just defeated. The behavioural strategies of bystanders depended on the issue of the conflict they had witnessed. Bystanders of the E condition behaved as having no chance of defeating the stranger. They never initiated an attack against it, and upon being attacked, readily submitted in turn to the stranger. On the contrary, bystanders of the C1 condition behaved as having some chances against the stranger. They initiated attacks in 50% of cases, and won 50% of conflicts against the stranger. Under condition C2, bystanders first initiated contact with the strangers in only 27% of cases, which approximates the average of their chances for defeating the stranger. However, bystanders finally defeated the strangers in 40% of cases. These results suggest that bystanders of conditions E and C1 gained some information on the relationship existing between their prior dominant and the stranger and that they used it coherently, perhaps through transitive inference, thus Hogue et al. 1996 file:///C|/Documents and Settings/Administrator/My...uments/publications/Hogue-Beaugrand-Lague-1996.htm (1 of 15) [11/30/2001 21:50:03] contributing to the existence of transitive relationships within the triads. Alternate explanations are examined.

No abstract