|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In [[biology]], '''resource holding potential''' (RHP) is the ability of an animal to win an all-out fight if one were to take place.
| | Oscar is what my wife enjoys to call me and I totally dig that title. California is our beginning place. He used to be unemployed but now he is a meter reader. Doing ceramics is what adore doing.<br><br>my site [http://ghaziabadmart.com/oxwall/blogs/post/5933 ghaziabadmart.com] |
| | |
| The term was coined by [[Geoff Parker]] to disambiguate physical fighting ability from the motivation to persevere in a fight (Parker, 1974<ref name="Parker74">[[Geoff Parker|Parker, GA.]] (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of theoretical Biology 47, 223-243</ref>). Originally the term used was 'Resource Holding Power', but 'Resource Holding Potential' has come to be preferred. The latter emphasis on 'potential' serves as a reminder that the individual with greater RHP does not always prevail. An individual with more RHP may lose a fight if, for example, it is less motivated (has less to gain by winning) than its opponent. [[Mathematical models]] of RHP and motivation (aka resource value or V) have traditionally been based on the [[hawk-dove]] game (e.g. Hammerstein, 1981)<ref>Hammerstein, P. (1981). The role of asymmetries in animal contests. Animal Behaviour 29, 193-205.</ref> in which subjective resource value is represented by the variable 'V'. In addition to RHP and V, George Barlow (Barlow et al., 1986<ref name="Barlow_etal86">Barlow, GW., Rogers, W., Fraley, N. (1986). Do Midas cichlids win through prowess or daring? It depends. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 19, 1-8.</ref>) proposed that a third variable, which he termed 'daring', played a role in determining fight outcome. Daring (aka aggressiveness) represents an individual's tendency to initiate or escalate a contest independent of the effects of RHP and V.
| |
| | |
| ==Examples of the term in use==
| |
| *"[...] RHP is a measure of the absolute fighting ability of the individual" (Parker, 1974).<ref name="Parker74">Parker again</ref>
| |
| | |
| *"Assuming the RHP of the combatants to be equal, there are many instances of fitness pay-off imbalances between holder and attacker which should weight the dispute outcome in favour of one or other opponent by allowing it a greater expendable fitness budget. Usually the weighting favours the holder; the attacker therefore needs a correspondingly higher RHP before it may be expected to win." (Parker, 1974).<ref name="Parker74">Parker again</ref>
| |
| | |
| *"Each combatant assesses relative RHP; this correlates with an absolute probability of winning the next bout (<math>C_{abs}</math>)." (Parker, 1974).<ref name="Parker74">Parker again</ref>
| |
| | |
| *"The essential point is to distinguish two cases (i) information about `motivation' or `intentions' [...] (ii) information about `Resource Holding Power', or RHP (Parker, 1974b); RHP is a measure of the size, strength, weapons, etc. which would enable an animal to win an escalated contest" ([[John Maynard Smith|Maynard Smith]] 1982<ref name="JMS82">[[John Maynard Smith|Maynard Smith, J.]] (1982) ''[[Evolution and the Theory of Games]]''</ref>).
| |
| | |
| *"In practice, however, the two opponents are rarely equal in fighting ability, or resource holding potential" (Bradbury & Vehrencamp, 1998<ref>Bradbury, JW. & Vehrencamp, SL. (1998). ''Principles of animal communication'' Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.</ref>).
| |
| | |
| *"Motivational and physical components are assumed to be separable. [...] The motivation depends upon V, the value of the resource, and the perceived prowess and motivation of the opponent. [...] but there is an additional component. It is the readiness of the individual to risk an encounter, to dare to escalate, measured when the contest is otherwise symmetrical. It differs from V in that daring appears to be an inherent property of the individual rather than a variable motivational state that is tuned to the value of the resource" (Barlow ''et al.'' 1986).<ref name="Barlow_etal86">Barlow et al. again</ref>
| |
| | |
| <!--
| |
| ==Examples of other definitions==
| |
| Some researchers appear to use the term to mean "whatever it is that determines fight outcome". The use of the term in this way clearly runs against the original motivation in developing the term in the first place, which was to disambiguate ability to win from motivation to persevere in a contest. Some examples include:
| |
| | |
| /*not a very clear example*/ | |
| *"According to Parker (1974)<ref name="Parker74">Parker again</ref> the particular strategies exhibited by contestants in a bout (basically, escalate or withdraw) depend on the result of mutual assessment of the relative holding power of the contestants (the probability of winning)." Riechert, 1978<ref>Riechert, S.E. (1978). Games Spiders Play: Behavioral Variability in Territorial Disputes ''Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology'' '''3''':135--162.</ref>
| |
| -->
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| * [[Social defeat]]
| |
| * [[Aggression]]
| |
| * [[Game theory]]
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{reflist|2}}
| |
| | |
| {{evolution}}
| |
| {{Game_theory}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Evolutionary biology terminology]]
| |
Oscar is what my wife enjoys to call me and I totally dig that title. California is our beginning place. He used to be unemployed but now he is a meter reader. Doing ceramics is what adore doing.
my site ghaziabadmart.com