Is Difference in Body Weight, Antler Length, Age or Dominance Rank related to the Number of Fights between Fallow Deer (Dama dama)?

Abstract

Competitive interactions between mature male fallow deer were investigated to determine whether antler length, body weight, age or dominance rank were related to the number of fights between individuals. Four different hypotheses were tested; the first predicted that body weight and antler length indicate individual quality and, therefore, as the difference between competitors in body weight and antler length increases, there should be a corresponding decrease in fight rate. The second and third hypotheses predicted that, as difference in dominance rank increased there would be a decrease in fight rate between males either, as a risk reduction measure or because of inhibitory control by dominant males. A fourth hypothesis predicted that, where dominance rank does not mediate fight rate, that similarity between contestants based on age might be important. If this is the case, then as the difference in age between competitors increased there should be a decrease in fight rate. Our results show that when dominance rank is controlled for, there was no relation between body weight, antler length or age with fight rate. There was a negative relation between dominance rank difference and fight rate, a result that supports both the risk reduction and inhibitory hypotheses. There was an increasing tendency to fight with closely ranked males as cohorts reached peak reproductive age; males aged 5 yr fought with other 5‐yr‐old males based on rank difference and males aged 6 yr fought with other males aged six and across all age groups based on rank difference. This trend was not observed in 4 or 7‐yr‐old males. Our results suggest that males in prime breeding condition limit potential costs of fighting (such as time and energy) by only interacting with other males of similar rank.

Effect of Harvesting Time and Area on Carcass Weight of the European Fallow Deer (Dama damaL.)

“…Ninov (2003) also noted that the body weight of bucks dwelling in Bulgaria reached the highest point just before the rutting season, after which it rapidly decreased (even by 22.8%), and then slowly recovered to the normal level. Certainly, the body weight of males before mating may determine their social status in the herd (Jennings et al 2006). This fact was confirmed by McElligott et al (2001), who demonstrated that both the body size and measurements of males before the rutting season play the key role in shaping relationships among them.…”

The Use of Theory in Behavioural Research

“…When empiricists base their research firmly on a theoretical framework, most commonly either (1) predictions are derived from a general model and tested with a data set from a natural population providing the required information (Jennings et al. 2006; Porkert & Spinka 2006; Sergio et al.…”

“…Empirical research in this field is based on formal evolutionary concepts, for instance on optimal foraging theory (Beauchamp 2006, 2007; Sanderson et al. 2006; Willisch & Ingold 2007) life history and contest theory (Jennings et al. 2006; Kemp et al.…”

“…When empiricists base their research firmly on a theoretical framework, most commonly either (1) predictions are derived from a general model and tested with a data set from a natural population providing the required information (Jennings et al 2006;Porkert & Spinka 2006;Sergio et al 2007;Stone 2007); or (2) predictions derived from heuristic models are tested by an experiment (Leitner et al 2006;Mariette et al 2006;Blanchet et al 2007;Dyrcz & Halupka 2007). Sometimes, both approaches are applied in a study in parallel (Schwartz et al 2007).…”

“…The firm theoretical basis of behavioural ecology is its major power. Empirical research in this field is based on formal evolutionary concepts, for instance on optimal foraging theory (Beauchamp 2006(Beauchamp , 2007Sanderson et al 2006;Willisch & Ingold 2007) life history and contest theory (Jennings et al 2006;Kemp et al 2006;Takeuchi 2006;Brown et al 2007), or sexual selection and sex allocation theory (Arnqvist & Andres 2006;Bellemain et al 2006;Jawor & Breitwisch 2006;Fairn et al 2007). However, we should be aware that the majority of empirical papers in behavioural ecology is not strongly rooted in formal theory.…”