與攻擊性相關的生理機制

第三節 與攻擊性相關的生理機制

動物的攻擊行為與動物體內的許多神經傳導物質具有相關性 (Huber &

Delago 1998; Stevenson et al. 2005 )，而動物體內與攻擊性相關的神經傳導物質濃 度可能會受到資源擁有權的影響，進而改變動物的打鬥意願(Peeke et al. 2000;

Rillich et al. 2011)。以黃斑黑蟋蟀(Gryllus bimaculatus)的打鬥為例，在競爭雙方 分出勝負後，若提供落敗個體一個遮蔽物 15 分鐘，接著讓落敗個體再次面對相

同的對手，其攻擊性會高於沒有給予遮蔽物的落敗個體，且甚至反轉打鬥結果；

但若落敗個體於打鬥前曾被注射抑制羥苯乙醇胺(Octopamine)的藥劑，在獲得遮 蔽物之後，攻擊性則不會提高(Rillich et al. 2011)。因此該研究作者推測，資源擁 有權造成個體的高攻擊性可能與羥苯乙醇胺的生成有關。此外，在龍蝦(Homarus americanus)的研究發現，體重相近且背甲寬度相似的兩競爭者，其打鬥獲勝並且

成功佔據遮蔽物的機率並不會有顯著差異，但若於打鬥前對個體強制注射血清素，

那麼被注射血清素的個體會較晚開始探索遮蔽物，且獲勝機率以及成功佔據遮蔽 物的機率都會顯著低於未被注射血清素的個體(Peeke et al. 2000)，顯示龍蝦的攻 擊性可能受到了體內血清素濃度的調控，進而影響了個體的競爭優勢。

過去探討紅樹林鱂魚攻擊性以及生理機制之間的相關性之研究顯示，個體的 攻擊性與自身體內賀爾蒙濃度有很高的相關性(Earley & Hsu 2008)。紅樹林鱂魚 打鬥前的體內睪固酮(testosterone)濃度與個體率先攻擊對手的時間以及其獲勝機 率呈顯著正相關(Earley & Hsu 2008)。另外，個體的打鬥行為會受到過去打鬥經 驗的影響而呈現明顯的勝敗者效應(Hsu & Wolf 1999, 2001)，且體內皮質醇 (cortisol)、睪固酮(testosterone)、睪丸硬甾硐(11-ketotestosterone)等荷爾蒙濃度較 低之個體，會更容易受到打鬥輸贏經驗的影響，而顯著的改變後續打鬥時的攻擊 性 (Earley et al. 2013)。至於在紅樹林鱂魚中，神經傳導物質與個體攻擊性的關 聯，以及神經傳導物質是否會受到資源擁有權的影響而改變，進而改變個體的競 爭優勢，則要待未來的研究做更進一步的探討。

參考文獻

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.

圖

圖一

三種資源處理之示意圖：(1)單方資源組：提供遮蔽物給打鬥雙方其中一方(隨機 挑選)，遮蔽物隨機選定放置魚缸中之左方或右方空間；(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。

圖二

單方資源組中資，資源擁有者以及入侵者的(1)攻擊性以及(2)獲勝機率。資源擁有者在 遮蔽物外以及遮蔽物內之打鬥組別分別分析。□：入侵者， ：擁有者於遮蔽物外，

■：擁有者於遮蔽物內，＊表示 P＜0.05。

圖三

打鬥雙方之攻擊性如何受到(1)自己的資源擁有權狀態，與(2)對手資源擁有權狀 態的影響。統計分析皆以雙方無資源組的非擁有者為比較基準群。□：雙方無 資源組， ：單方資源組(擁有者於遮蔽物外)，■：單方資源組(擁有者於遮蔽 物內)，＊表示 P＜0.05。

圖四

雙方資源組中依據打鬥雙方是否在遮蔽物內分成三個類群，並比較各類群之間 擁有者攻擊性的差異。□：兩擁有者皆不在遮蔽物內， ：兩擁有者一方在遮 蔽物內，另一方則否，■：兩擁有者皆在遮蔽物內，(外)/(內)：擁有者在遮蔽物 外或在遮蔽物內。