The ecological and evolutionary stability of interspecific territoriality

Losin, Neil; Drury, Jonathan P.; Peiman, Kathryn S.; Storch, Chaya; Grether, Gregory F.

doi:10.1111/ele.12561

Cited by 54 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In North American wood warblers (Parulidae), a young radiation of ecologically similar species, hybridization and interspecific territoriality primarily occur between closely related species [70,71]. After accounting for shared ancestry, the only significant predictors of interspecific territoriality were similarity in territorial signals and degree of syntopy [71]. Interspecific territoriality was positively related to syntopy, and was not related to habitat complexity, casting doubt on the longstanding hypothesis that interspecific territoriality only persists when species rarely encounter each other or when niche divergence is restricted [71].…”

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…comparative analyses to directly test for effects of behavioral interference on character evolution [71,83].…”

Section: Outstanding Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After accounting for shared ancestry, the only significant predictors of interspecific territoriality were similarity in territorial signals and degree of syntopy [71]. Interspecific territoriality was positively related to syntopy, and was not related to habitat complexity, casting doubt on the longstanding hypothesis that interspecific territoriality only persists when species rarely encounter each other or when niche divergence is restricted [71]. However, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that territorial signals converge (or are under selection not to diverge) between strong ecological competitors following secondary contact [1].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

Grether

Peiman

Tobias

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

133

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral interference between species, such as territorial aggression, courtship, and mating, is widespread in animals. While aggressive and reproductive forms of interspecific interference have generally been studied separately, their many parallels and connections warrant a unified conceptual approach. Substantial evidence exists that aggressive and reproductive interference have pervasive effects on species coexistence, range limits, and evolutionary processes, including divergent and convergent forms of character displacement. Alien species invasions and climate change-induced range shifts result in novel interspecific interactions, heightening the importance of predicting the consequences of species interactions, and behavioral interference is a fundamental but neglected part of the equation. Here, we outline priorities for further theoretical and empirical research on the ecological and evolutionary consequences of behavioral interference. Interspecific Aggression and Reproductive InterferenceFew subjects in animal behavior have attracted more attention than aggression and sex, yet research tends to stop at species boundaries even when the behaviors themselves do not. Aggressive and sexual interactions between species are surprisingly common and share many parallels in their causes and ecological and evolutionary effects [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Both types of behavioral interference (Box 1) have been hypothesized to: (i) arise as a byproduct of intraspecific interactions (Box 2); (ii) cause local extinction as well as temporal and spatial habitat partitioning; (iii) prevent species from coexisting that otherwise would be expected to coexist; (iv) enable coexistence between species that otherwise would not be expected to coexist; (v) promote or prevent species range shifts and the spread of invasive species; (vi) cause sympatric species to diverge or converge through character displacement processes; (vii) cause populations within a species to diverge from each other due to character displacement in areas of sympatry; and (viii) contribute to reproductive isolation and speciation ( Figure 1).Despite their connections, aggressive interference and reproductive interference (see Glossary) have largely been studied by different researchers in relation to different theoretical frameworks [2,4,7] and in different study systems [3], even though many closely related species interfere with each other in both ways (see Table S1 in [8]). We do not believe that these two categories of interspecific interactions should be synonymized, because this would obscure important differences between them. Instead, we propose that their similarities and interrelationships merit a common conceptual framework, which we introduce here ( Figure 1). TrendsAggressive and reproductive forms of behavioral interference between species are widespread in animals and share many parallels in their underlying causes and their ecological and evolutionary effects.Behavioral interference can determine whether species coexist and, thus, affects speci...

show abstract

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Behavioral Interference In Competition Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…comparative analyses to directly test for effects of behavioral interference on character evolution [71,83].…”

Section: Outstanding Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

Grether

Peiman

Tobias

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

133

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these cases, interspecific aggression that leads to the spatial or temporal exclusion of prey or host species (i.e., individuals of the subordinate species) could reduce the overall density of prey or hosts, and thus reduce predation or infection rates of the dominant species (Martin & Martin, 2001b). Other hypotheses proposed to explain aggressive interactions among species include misplaced aggression (Murray, 1976; Murray, 1981; Murray, 1988; Jones et al, 2016), sexual selection for aggressive displays (Nuechterlein & Storer, 1985), and practice for intraspecific contests (Nuechterlein & Storer, 1985); however, evidence to date suggests that many aggressive interactions reflect adaptive responses to reduce ecological costs for one or both species (Robinson & Terborgh, 1995; Martin & Martin, 2001b; Leisler, 1988; Palomares & Caro, 1999; Peiman & Robinson, 2010; Blowes, Pratchett & Connolly, 2013; Losin et al, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The outcomes of most aggressive interactions among closely related bird species are asymmetric

Martin

Freshwater

Ghalambor

2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aggressive interactions among closely related species are common, and can play an important role as a selective pressure shaping species traits and assemblages. The nature of this selective pressure depends on whether the outcomes of aggressive contests are asymmetric between species (i.e., one species is consistently dominant), yet few studies have estimated the prevalence of asymmetric versus symmetric outcomes to aggressive contests. Here we use previously published data involving 26,212 interactions between 270 species pairs of birds from 26 taxonomic families to address the question: How often are aggressive interactions among closely related bird species asymmetric? We define asymmetry using (i) the proportion of contests won by one species, and (ii) statistical tests for asymmetric outcomes of aggressive contests. We calculate these asymmetries using data summed across different sites for each species pair, and compare results to asymmetries calculated using data separated by location. We find that 80% of species pairs had aggressive outcomes where one species won 80% or more of aggressive contests. We also find that the majority of aggressive interactions among closely related species show statistically significant asymmetries, and above a sample size of 52 interactions, all outcomes are asymmetric following binomial tests. Species pairs with dominance data from multiple sites showed the same dominance relationship across locations in 93% of the species pairs. Overall, our results suggest that the outcome of aggressive interactions among closely related species are usually consistent and asymmetric, and should thus favor ecological and evolutionary strategies specific to the position of a species within a dominance hierarchy.

show abstract

Species partitioning in a temperate mountain chain: Segregation by habitat vs. interspecific competition

Bastianelli

Wintle

Martin

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disentangling the relative influence of the environment and biotic interactions in determining species coexistence patterns is a major challenge in ecology. The zonation occurring along elevation gradients, or at bioclimatic contact zones, offers a good opportunity to improve such understanding because the small scale at which the partitioning occurs facilitates inference based on experiments and ecological modelling. We studied the influence of abiotic gradients, habitat types, and interspecific competition in determining the spatial turnover between two pipit and two bunting species in NW Spain. We explored two independent lines of evidence to draw inference about the relative importance of environment and biotic interactions in driving range partitioning along elevation, latitude, and longitude. We combined occurrence data with environmental data to develop joint species distribution models (JSDM), in order to attribute co‐occurrence (or exclusion) to shared (or divergent) environmental responses and to interactions (attraction or exclusion). In the same region, we tested for interference competition by means of playback experiments in the contact zone. The JSDMs highlighted different responses for the two species pairs, although we did not find direct evidence of interspecific aggressiveness in our playback experiments. In pipits, partitioning was explained by divergent climate and habitat requirements and also by the negative correlations between species not explained by the environment. This significant residual correlation may reflect forms of competition others than direct interference, although we could not completely exclude the influence of unmeasured environmental predictors. When bunting species co‐occurred, it was because of shared habitat preferences, and a possible limitation to dispersal might cause their partitioning. Our results indicate that no single mechanism dominates in driving the distribution of our study species, but rather distributions are determined by the combination of many small forces including biotic and abiotic determinants of niche, whose relative strengths varied among species.

show abstract

The ecological and evolutionary stability of interspecific territoriality

Cited by 54 publications

References 40 publications

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

Causes and Consequences of Behavioral Interference between Species

The outcomes of most aggressive interactions among closely related bird species are asymmetric

Species partitioning in a temperate mountain chain: Segregation by habitat vs. interspecific competition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About