The importance of animal weapons and fighting style in animal contests

ABSTRACT

In many species that fight over resources, individuals use specialized structures to gain mechanical advantage over their rivals during contests (i.e., weapons). Although weapons are widespread across animals, how they affect the probability of winning contests is still debated. According to theory, understanding the weapons’ function in contests depends on identifying differences in how weapons are measured (e.g., weapon length versus shape), and in how weapons are used during fights. Here, we developed a meta-analysis spanning 1,138 studies, from which were drawn 52 species and 107 effect sizes to identify: (1) what aspects of animal weapons are measured in the literature, and how these measures bias our knowledge; (2) how animals use their weapons during fights - i.e., weapon function; and (3) if weapon function correlates to the magnitude of how weapons influence contest resolution. First, we found that most of the literature focuses on linear measures of weapons, such as length. The few reports on weapon performance (e.g., biting force) were found only for Crustacea and Squamata. This bias highlights that measuring performance of weapons such as horns and spines might increase the breadth of our knowledge on weapons. Furthermore, we also found that linear measures showed stronger effects on contest success than performance measures. Second, we divided weapon function into displays and fighting style (i.e., how the weapon is used during fights). Regarding displays, most species displayed their weapons before contests (59.61%), rather than the body (34.61%). A minority (three species, 5.76%) engaged in fights without any type of display. Thus, species that bear weapons almost always perform displays before engaging in physical contact, a common hypothesis in contest theory that was never tested across taxa until now. Regarding fighting style, we found that most weapons were used for more than one behaviour during fights (e.g., squeezing and pushing). Further, pushing seems to be the most common behaviour among species, but it is usually accompanied by another behaviour, such as lifting or squeezing. Thus, oversimplifying fighting style can bias results because some styles might impose contrasting biomechanical pressures (e.g., pushing vs squeezing). Third, we found that display type did not influence the importance of weapon size on contests. Fighting style, on the other hand, influenced the effect of weapon size on contest outcome significantly. Species that used their weapons to impact, pierce or squeeze showed smaller differences between winners and losers when compared to pushing or lifting (and multifunctional weapons). Thus, pushing and lifting seem important for selecting larger weapons – even though some of them might also be used for squeezing, piercing or impacting. Overall, our results show that we have a biased understanding of animal weapons, built mostly on weapon size alone. Further, our analyses show that the importance of weapon size differs depending on the fighting style. If we lessen those biases, we will have a better and broader understanding of how weapons evolve and diversify.