Transition from a random to an ideal free to an ideal despotic distribution: the effect of individual difference in growth

Emergence of size-structured dominance hierarchies through size-dependent feedback

Size-based dominance hierarchies influence fitness, group size and population dynamics and link dominance structure to evolutionary and ecological outcomes. While larger individuals often gain dominance, social status may influence growth and size in return, resulting in feedbacks among status, growth and size. Here, we present two models evaluating how these feedbacks influence the emergence of size structure in a dominance hierarchy. In the first, size influences competition for food and investment in suppressing growth of groupmates. Stable size differences emerged when suppression was greatest for similarly sized individuals and size had little effect on competition for food. The model predicted size divergence when size strongly affected competition for food. In the second model, we used a dynamic game to solve for optimal investment in growth suppression as a function of size structure. Investment in growth suppression was favoured only when dominants and subordinates were similar in size, generating size ratios different than those expected by chance. Variation in the feedbacks among growth, size and status can explain variation in emergent size structure of dominance hierarchies and its consequences for conflict within groups. This article is part of the theme issue 'The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies'.

Social competition as a driver of phenotype-environment correlations: implications for ecology and evolution

While it is universally recognised that environmental factors can cause phenotypic trait variation via phenotypic plasticity, the extent to which causal processes operate in the reverse direction has received less consideration. In fact individuals are often active agents in determining the environments, and hence the selective regimes, they experience. There are several important mechanisms by which this can occur, including habitat selection and niche construction, that are expected to result in phenotype–environment correlations (i.e. non‐random assortment of phenotypes across heterogeneous environments). Here we highlight an additional mechanism – intraspecific competition for preferred environments – that may be widespread, and has implications for phenotypic evolution that are currently underappreciated. Under this mechanism, variation among individuals in traits determining their competitive ability leads to phenotype–environment correlation; more competitive phenotypes are able to acquire better patches. Based on a concise review of the empirical evidence we argue that competition‐induced phenotype–environment correlations are likely to be common in natural populations before highlighting the major implications of this for studies of natural selection and microevolution. We focus particularly on two central issues. First, competition‐induced phenotype–environment correlation leads to the expectation that positive feedback loops will amplify phenotypic and fitness variation among competing individuals. As a result of being able to acquire a better environment, winners gain more resources and even better phenotypes – at the expense of losers. The distinction between individual quality and environmental quality that is commonly made by researchers in evolutionary ecology thus becomes untenable. Second, if differences among individuals in competitive ability are underpinned by heritable traits, competition results in both genotype–environment correlations and an expectation of indirect genetic effects (IGEs) on resource‐dependent life‐history traits. Theory tells us that these IGEs will act as (partial) constraints, reducing the amount of genetic variance available to facilitate evolutionary adaptation. Failure to recognise this will lead to systematic overestimation of the adaptive potential of populations. To understand the importance of these issues for ecological and evolutionary processes in natural populations we therefore need to identify and quantify competition‐induced phenotype–environment correlations in our study systems. We conclude that both fundamental and applied research will benefit from an improved understanding of when and how social competition causes non‐random distribution of phenotypes, and genotypes, across heterogeneous environments.

Body size, habitat quality, and territory defense in Bachman’s sparrow

Many wild populations of animals conform to the ideal despotic distribution (IDD) in which more competitive individuals exclude less competitive individuals from high quality resources. Body size and aggressiveness are two important traits for resource defense, and they positively covary so that larger individuals are usually more aggressive. Using Bachman’s sparrows, we tested the hypothesis that larger birds are more aggressive and are thus able to compete for the best quality territories. We found that larger males were more aggressive, and more aggressive birds fledged at least one young. However, we did not find consistent relationships between aggressiveness and habitat characteristics. Our results suggest that Bachman’s sparrows meet most of the predictions of the IDD. Frequent ecological disturbances, such as fires, might disrupt the IDD or make it difficult to detect. Additional studies are needed to test for relationships between ecological disturbances and territorial behaviour.

Breakdown of the ideal free distribution under conditions of severe and low competition

Abstract

Under the ideal free distribution (IFD), the number of organisms competing for a resource at different sites is proportional to the resource distribution among sites. The ideal free distribution of competitors in a heterogeneous environment often predicts habitat matching, where the relative number of individuals using any two patches matches the relative availability of resources in those same two patches. If a resource is scarce, access might be restricted to individuals with high resource holding potential, resulting in deviation from the IFD. The distribution of animals may also deviate from the IFD in the case of resource abundance, when social attraction or preference for specific locations rather than competition may determine distribution. While it was originally developed to explain habitat choice, we apply the habitat matching rule to microscale foraging decisions. We show that chickens feeding from two nondepleting feeders distribute proportionally to feeder space under intermediate levels of competition. However, chicken distribution between the feeders deviates from the IFD when feeder space is limited and competition high. Further, despite decreasing aggression with increasing feeder space, deviation from IFD is also observed under an excess supply of feeder space, indicating different mechanisms responsible for deviations from the IFD. Besides demonstrating IFD sensitivity to competition, these findings highlight IFD’s potential as a biological basis for determining minimal resource requirements in animal housing.

Significance statement

The ideal free distribution (IFD) predicts how animals ought to distribute themselves within a habitat in order to maximize their payoff. Recent studies, however, have questioned the validity of the IFD concept following anomalous results. We studied the IFD in chickens by systematically varying the amount and distribution of space at two feed troughs. We show that when tested over a sufficiently large range, the distribution of birds depends on the overall resource availability. Furthermore, behavioral data suggest that distinctly different mechanisms account for deviations from the IFD at shortage and excess supply of feeder space, respectively.