動物經常為了競爭有限的資源而打鬥，許多研究發現，當擁有資源之個體與未擁有資源的入侵者打鬥時，資源擁有者的攻擊傾向以及獲勝機率往往高於入侵者。這些結果可能是(1)擁有資源使個體的攻擊性提高，(2)入侵者在面對資源擁有者時攻擊性下降，或是(3)兩者同時發生所造成。本研究利用紅樹林鱂魚(Kryptolebias marmoratus)喜好躲藏於遮蔽物中且具有高攻擊性的特性，探討資源(遮蔽物)如何影響打鬥雙方的行為。實驗分為三個處理組：(1)單方資源組－提供遮蔽物給打鬥雙方其中一方，(2)雙方無資源組－不提供遮蔽物給打鬥任一方，(3)雙方資源組－分別提供遮蔽物給打鬥雙方。實驗結果顯示，打鬥雙方攻擊性的差異會因為資源擁有者於打鬥開始時是否在遮蔽物內而有所不同。只提供遮蔽物給打鬥雙方其中一方時(單方資源組)，若打鬥開始時擁有者在遮蔽物內，則其攻擊性與獲勝機率皆較無資源的入侵對手來的高；但若擁有者在遮蔽物外，擁有者與入侵者之行為差異則不顯著。進一步分析顯示，在遮蔽物內與在遮蔽物外的擁有者之攻擊性無顯著差異；然而，入侵者在面對遮蔽物內之擁有者時，攻擊性顯著較低。這些結果顯示擁有者的攻擊性與其打鬥開始時所在的位置無關，但是其所在位置卻會影響對手的攻擊性。此外，比較單方資源組與雙方無資源組則發現，(1)不論是否於打鬥開始時剛好在遮蔽物內，資源擁有者的攻擊性皆顯著上升；(2)入侵者只有在面對在遮蔽物內的資源擁有者時，攻擊性才會顯著下降。而雙方資源組之打鬥顯示，當打鬥雙方皆為資源擁有者時，雙方之攻擊性不受對手是否在遮蔽物內的影響。此研究之結果顯示遮蔽物會提升資源擁有者的攻擊性，而且在特定的狀況(打鬥開始時擁有者正好在遮蔽物內)並會降低入侵者對手的攻擊性。這些結果顯示紅樹林鱂魚可能藉由觀察對手是否由遮蔽物游出來判斷其是否真為遮蔽物擁有者，以決定打鬥決策。

Animals often fight with each other to compete for limited resources. Numerous studies have shown that resource owners tend to behave more aggressively and win more contests than intruders. These trends could result from (1) resources causing owners to behave more aggressively, (2) intruders behaving less aggressively when fighting owners or (3) a combination of both. Here, I used an aggressive mangrove killifish, Kryptolebias marmoratus to examine the importance of individuals’ ownership status to the contest decisions of the individual and its opponent. I provided a shelter to one of the contestants of a pair (type I: owner vs. intruder), neither contestant (type II: non-owner vs. non-owner) or both contestants (type III: owner vs. owner), and then staged a contest between them. The contest interactions between owners and non-owners (in type I contests) were influenced by whether or not the shelter owner was inside the shelter at the contest start. Owners that were in their shelters at the contest start showed a greater tendency to fight and won more contests than their opponents; those outside the shelter at the start did not. Further analyses showed that owners’ position at the start of the contest (inside or outside the shelter) did not affect the owners’ own aggressiveness, but did affect that of their non-owner opponents: non-owners were less aggressive when faced with owners inside shelters. Analyses of the contestants’ behavior in type I and II contests showed that (1) shelter owners had a higher tendency to fight than non- owners whether or not they were in their shelters at the start, and (2) intruder had a lower tendency to fight than non-owners only against owners that were inside the shelter at the start. Furthermore, contestants’ behavior in type III contests showed that shelter owners’ tendency to fight never decrease, even though they against another shelter owner that were inside the shelter at the start. Overall, these results demonstrate (1) that ownership status influences both owners’ and intruders’ contest decisions (in opposite directions), producing a detectable ownership advantage and (2) that intruders require confirmation of their opponents’ ownership status before retreating without challenging them. Ownership status per se is therefore important to the fish’s contest decisions.

Alcock, J. & Bailey, W. J. (1997). Success in territorial defence by male tarantula hawk wasps Hemipepsis ustulata: the role of residency. Ecological Entomology, 22, 377–383.
Archer, J. (1987). The Behavioral Biology of Aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnott, G. & Elwood, R. W. (2008). Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 76, 529–542.
Arnott, G. & Elwood, R. W. (2009). Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests.Animal Behaviour, 77, 991–1004.
Austad, S. N. (1983). A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela). Animal Behaviour, 31, 59–73.
Bergman, M., Gotthard, K., Berger, D., Olofsson, M., Kemp, D. J. & Wiklund, C. (2007). Mating success of resident versus non-resident in a territorial butterfly. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 1659–1665.
Bergman, M., Olofsson, M. & Wiklund, C. (2010). Contest outcome in a territorial butterfly: the role of motivation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 3027–3033.
Bonnie, K. E. & Earley, R. L. (2007). Expanding the scope for social information use.Animal Behaviour, 74, 171–181.
Brick, O. (1999). A test of the sequential assessment game: the effect of increased cost of sampling. Behavioral Ecology 10,726–732.
Buena, F. J. & Walker, S. E. (2007). Information asymmetry and aggressive behaviour in male house crickets, Acheta domesticus. Animal Behaviour, 75, 199–204.
Chaine, A. S., Roth, A. M., Shizuka, D. & Lyon, B. E. (2013). Experimental confirmation that avian plumage traits function as multiple status signals in winter contests. Animal Behaviour 86, 409–415.
Davies, N.B. (1978). Territorial defence in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria): the resident always wins. Animal Behaviour, 26, 138–147.
Earley, R. L. & Dugatkin, L. A. (2002). Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 943–952.
Earley, R. L. & Hsu, Y. (2008). Reciprocity between endocrine state and contest behavior in the killifish, Kryptolebias marmoratus. Hormones and Behavior, 53, 442–451.
Earley, R. L., Lu, C. K., Lee, I. H., Wong, S. C., Hsu, Y. (2013). Winner and loser
effects are modulated by hormonal states. Frontiers in Zoology. 10:6.
Earley, R. L., Tinsley, M. & Dugatkin, L. A. (2003). To see or not to see: does previewing a future opponent affect the contest behavior of green swordtail males (Xiphophorus helleri)? Naturwissenschaften, 90, 226–230.
Fayed, S.A., Jennion, M.D. & Backwell, P.R.Y. (2008). What factors contribute to an ownership advantage? Biology Letters. 4, 143–145.
Fuxjager, M. J., Mast, G., Becker, E. A. & Marler, C. A. (2009). The ‘home advantage’ is necessary for a full winner effect and changes in post-encounter testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 56, 214–219.
Fuxjager, M. J., Montgomery, J. L., Becker, E. A. & Marler, C. A. (2010). Deciding to win: interactive effects of residency, resources, and ‘boldness’ on contest outcome in white-footed mice. Animal Behaviour, 80, 921–927.
Gherardi, F. (2006). Fighting behavior in hermit crabs: the combined effect of resource-holding potential and resource value in Pagurus longicarpus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 59, 500—510.
Goubault, M., Scott, D. & Hardy, I. C. W. (2007). The importance of offspring value: maternal defence in parasitoid contests. Animal Behaviour, 74, 437–446.
Harrington, R. W., Jr. (1961). Oviparous hermaphroditic fish with internal self-fertilization. Science, 134, 1749–1750.
Hsu, Y. & Wolf, L. L. (1999). The winner and loser effect:integrating multiple experiences. Animal Behaviour, 57, 903–910.
Hsu, Y. & Wolf, L. L. (2001). The winner and loser effect: what fighting behaviours are influenced? Animal Behaviour, 61, 777–786.
Hsu, Y. & Wolf, L. L. (2006). Modulation of aggressive behavior by fighting experience: Mechanisms and contest outcome. Biological reviews, 80, 1–40.
Hsu, Y., Lee, S. P., Chen, M. H., Yang, S. Y. & Cheng, K.C. (2008). Switching assessment strategy during a contest: fighting in killifish Kryptolebias marmoratus. Animal Behaviour, 75, 1641–1649
Huber, J. H. (1992). Review of Rivulus, ecobiogeography, relationships. Paris: Soc. Franc. d’Ichtyol. 585.
Huber, R., Delago, A. (1998) Serotonin alters decision to withdraw in fighting crayfish, Astacus astacus: the motivation concept revisited. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 182, 573–583.
Jenssen, T. A., Decourcy, K. R. & Congdon, J. D. (2005). Assessment in contests of male lizards (Anolis carolinensis): how smaller males should respond when size matters? Animal Behaviour, 69, 1325–1336.
Kasumovic, M. M., Mason, A. C., Andrade, M. C. B. & Elias, D. O. (2011). The relative importance of RHP and resource quality in contests with ownership asymmetries. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 39–45.
Kemp, D. J. & Wiklund, C. (2004). Residency effects in animal contests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271,1707–1711.
Kitchen, D. M., Cheney, D. L., Engh, A. L., Fischer, J., Moscovice, L. R. & Seyfarth, R. M. (2013). Male baboon responses to experimental manipulations of loud “ wahoo calls ” : testing an honest signal of fighting ability. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67,1825–1835.
Kokko, H., Lopez-Sepulcre, A. & Morrell, L. J. (2006). From hawks and doves to self-consistent games of territorial behavior. American Naturalist, 167, 901–912.
Kristensen, I. (1970). Competition in three cyprinodont fish species in the Netherlands Antilles. Stud Fauna Curacao Carib Isl, 119, 82–101.
Lailvaux, S. P., Reaney, L. T. & Backwell, P. R. Y. (2009). Dishonest signalling of fighting ability and multiple performance traits in the fiddler crab Uca mjoebergi. Functional Ecology, 23, 359–366.
Leimar, O. & Enquist, M. (1984). Effects of asymmetries in owner e intruder conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 111, 475–491.
Lim, M. L. M. & Li, D. (2013). UV-Green Iridescence Predicts Male Quality during Jumping Spider Contests. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e59774.
López, P. & Martín, J. (2011). Male Iberian rock lizards may reduce the costs of fighting by scent-matching of the resource holders. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 1891–1898.
Luque-Larena, J. J., Lo´pez, P. & GosA´ lbez, J. (2001). Scent matching modulates space use and agonistic behaviour between male snow voles, Chionomys nivalis. Animal Behaviour, 62, 1089–1095.
Maynard Smith, J. & Parker, G. A. (1976). The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour, 24, 159–175.
McGregor, P. K. & Dabelsteen, T. (1996). Communication networks. In: Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds (Ed. by D. E. Kroodsma & E. H. Miller), pp. 409–425. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Molloy, P.P., Nyboer E.A. & Cote I. M. (2011): Male-male competition in a mixed-mating fish. Ethology, 117:586–596.
Neat, F. C., Taylor, A. C. & H untingford, F. A. (1998). Proximate costs of fighting in male cichlid fish: the role of injuries and energy metabolism. Animal Behaviour, 55, 875–882.
Peeke, H. V. S., Blank, G. S., Figler, M. H., and Chang, E. S. (2000). Effects of exogenous serotonin on a motor behavior and shelter competition in juvenile lobsters (Homarus americanus). Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 186, 575–582.
Peixoto, P.E.C. & Benson, W.W. (2011) Fat and body mass predict residency status in two tropical satyrine butterflies. Ethology, 117, 722–730.
Reaney, L. T. & Backwell, P. R. Y. (2007). Temporal constraints and female preference for burrow width in the fiddler crab, Uca mjoebergi. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 1515–1521.
Rillich, J., K. Schildberger. & Stevenson, P. A. (2011). Octopamine and occupancy: an aminergic mechanism for intruder-resident aggression in crickets. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278 (1713), 1873–1880.
Stapley, J. & Whiting, M. J. (2006). Ultraviolet signals fighting ability in a lizard. Biology Letters, 2, 169–172.
Stevenson, P. A., Dyakonova, V., Rillich, J. & Schildberger, K. (2005). Octopamine and experience-dependent modulation of aggression in crickets. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 1431–1441.
Takahashi, M., Suzuki, N. & Koga, T. (2001) Burrow defense behaviors in a sand-bubbler crab, Scopimera globosa, in relation to body size and prior residence. Journal of Ethology, 19, 93–96.
Tanner, C. J., Salat, G. D. & Jackson, A. L. (2011). Feeding and non-feeding aggression can be induced in invasive shore crabs by altering food distribution. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 65, 249–256.
Taylor, D. S. (1992). Diet of the killifish Rivulus marmoratzu collected from land crab burrows, with further ecological notes. Environmental Biology of fish, 33, 389–393.
Taylor, D. S. (1999). Rivulus marmoratus status review: consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Final Report for NMFS. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL.
Taylor, D. S., Turner, B.J., Davids, W. P. & Chapman, B. B. (2008). A Novel Terrestrial Fish Habitat inside Emergent Logs. American Naturalist, 171, 263–266.
Tibbetts, E. A. & Dale, J. (2007). Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22, 529–537.
Tibbetts, E.A., Shorter, J.R. (2009). How do fighting ability and nest value influence usurpation contests in Polistes wasps? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63, 1377–1385.
Tinnesand, H. V., Jojola, S., & Zedrosser, A. & Rosell, F. (2013). The smell of desperadoes? Beavers distinguish between dominant and subordinate intruders. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67,895–904.
Tricarico, E. & Gherardi, F. (2010). Past ownership makes crayfish more aggressive. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 64, 575–581.
Tringali, A. & Bowman, R. (2012). Plumage reflectance signals dominance in Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma coerulescens, juveniles. Animal Behaviour. 84,1527–1522.
Wells, M. S. (1988). Effects of body size and resource value on fighting behaviour in a jumping spider. Animal Behaviour, 36, 321–326.
Whitehouse, M. A. (1997). Experience influence male-male contests in the spider Argyrodes antipodiana (Theridiidae: Araneae).Animal Behaviour, 53, 913–923.
Whiting, M. J., Stuart-Fox, D. M., O’Connor, D., Firth, D., Bennett, N. C. & Blomberg, S. P. (2006). Ultraviolet signals ultra-aggression in a lizard. Animal Behaviour, 72, 353–363.