Literature DB >> 21700572

The neuroecology of competitor recognition.

Gregory F Grether1.   

Abstract

Territorial animals can be expected to distinguish among the types of competitors and noncompetitors that they encounter on a regular basis, including prospective mates and rivals of their own species, but they may not correctly classify individuals of other species. Closely related species often have similar phenotypes and this can cause confusion when formerly allopatric populations first come into contact. Errors in recognizing competitors can have important ecological and evolutionary effects. I review what is known about the mechanisms of competitor recognition in animals generally, focusing on cases in which the targets of recognition include other species. Case studies include damselflies, ants, skinks, salamanders, reef fishes, and birds. In general, recognition systems consist of a phenotypic cue (e.g., chemical, color, song), a neural template against which cues are compared, a motor response (e.g., aggression), and sensory integration circuits for context dependency of the response (if any). Little is known about how competitor recognition systems work at the neural level, but inferences about specificity of cues and about sensory integration can be drawn from the responses of territory residents to simulated intruders. Competitor recognition often involves multiple cues in the same, or different, sensory modalities. The same cues and templates are often, but not always, used for intraspecific and interspecific recognition. Experiments have shown that imprinting on local cues is common, which may enable templates to track evolved changes in cues automatically. The dependence of aggression and tolerance on context is important even in the simplest systems. Species in which mechanisms of competitor recognition are best known offer untapped opportunities to examine how competitor-recognition systems evolve (e.g., by comparing allopatric and sympatric populations). Cues that are gene products (peptides, proteins) may provide insights into rates of evolution. There are many avenues for further research on the important but understudied question of how animals recognize competitors.
© The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21700572     DOI: 10.1093/icb/icr060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Integr Comp Biol        ISSN: 1540-7063            Impact factor:   3.326


  7 in total

1.  Phylogenetic clustering among aggressive competitors: evidence from odonate assemblages along a riverine gradient.

Authors:  Victor S Saito; Francisco Valente-Neto; Marciel Elio Rodrigues; Fabio de Oliveira Roque; Tadeu Siqueira
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Strategy changes in subsequent fights as consequences of winning and losing in fruit fly fights.

Authors:  Séverine Trannoy; Edward A Kravitz
Journal:  Fly (Austin)       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 2.160

3.  Assessment of rival males through the use of multiple sensory cues in the fruitfly Drosophila pseudoobscura.

Authors:  Chris P Maguire; Anne Lizé; Tom A R Price
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Allopatry, competitor recognition and heterospecific aggression in crater lake cichlids.

Authors:  Topi K Lehtonen; Karine Gagnon; Will Sowersby; Bob B M Wong
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 3.260

5.  The role of species-specific sensory cues in male responses to mating rivals in Drosophila melanogaster fruitflies.

Authors:  Amanda Bretman; James Rouse; James D Westmancoat; Tracey Chapman
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Effects of classical PKC activation on hippocampal neurogenesis and cognitive performance: mechanism of action.

Authors:  Samuel Domínguez-García; Ricardo Gómez-Oliva; Noelia Geribaldi-Doldán; Carmen Hierro-Bujalance; Marta Sendra; Félix A Ruiz; Livia Carrascal; Antonio J Macías-Sánchez; Cristina Verástegui; Rosario Hernández-Galán; Mónica García-Alloza; Pedro Nunez-Abades; Carmen Castro
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 7.853

7.  Contrasting impacts of competition on ecological and social trait evolution in songbirds.

Authors:  Jonathan P Drury; Joseph A Tobias; Kevin J Burns; Nicholas A Mason; Allison J Shultz; Hélène Morlon
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 8.029

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.