Pinto Nelson Silva, Peixoto Paulo Enrique Cardoso
Graduate Program in Ecology, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA), Av. Adhemar de Barros, s/n° - Ondina, Salvador, BA, 40170-110, Brazil.
Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Faculdade Araguaia (FARA, Goiânia-GO), Goiânia, GO, 74223-060, Brazil.
Naturwissenschaften. 2019 Jun 10;106(7-8):32. doi: 10.1007/s00114-019-1632-y.
Animals frequently use agonistic contests as a way to solve disputes over indivisible resources. Such agonistic contests often represent interactions between an owner and a non-owner of a resource. However, some behaviors adopted by rivals during agonistic interactions are similar to behaviors adopted in other types of interactions. Thus, the possibility exists that some interactions between individuals can be misinterpreted as actual agonistic contests. Herein, we synthesize information from prior studies that present interactions that may be confounded with actual agonistic contests. We also point potential problems when different types of confoundment occur and provide suggestions of how to distinguish between agonistic contests and alternative interactions. For this, we made a distinction between completely non-agonistic interactions and quasi-agonistic interactions (i.e., interactions in which at least one rival is not motivated to fight). We also show potential biases in the understanding of how rivals decide who is the winner of a contest for studies that consider non- or quasi-agonistic interactions as actual agonistic contests.
动物经常通过争斗性竞争来解决对不可分割资源的争端。这种争斗性竞争通常表现为资源所有者和非所有者之间的互动。然而，竞争对手在争斗性互动中采取的一些行为与其他类型互动中采取的行为相似。因此，个体之间的某些互动有可能被误解为实际的争斗性竞争。在此，我们综合了先前研究中的信息，这些研究呈现了可能与实际争斗性竞争相混淆的互动。我们还指出了不同类型混淆出现时的潜在问题，并提供了区分争斗性竞争和其他互动的建议。为此，我们区分了完全非争斗性互动和准争斗性互动（即至少有一个竞争对手没有争斗动机的互动）。我们还展示了对于将非争斗性或准争斗性互动视为实际争斗性竞争的研究，在理解竞争对手如何决定谁是竞争获胜者方面存在的潜在偏差。
