Wild animal fights can harm a species for generations

Animals are constantly fighting over food, shelter, mates, or space. Most studies judge those clashes in the moment – by who won, who lost, and who got hurt. Two behavioral ecologists argue that this snapshot view misses the bigger evolutionary picture.

To understand why, when, and how animals choose to fight or flee, the researchers say we have to track the long arc of costs and payoffs across an individual’s whole life. That includes how conflict shapes survival and the number of offspring left behind.

The study, led by Paulo Enrique Cardoso Peixoto from the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil, lays out a path for linking contest behavior to fitness.

“By linking individual contests to lifetime reproductive success, we can understand how different contexts and environmental situations could favor the evolution of decision strategies in different species,” Peixoto said.

Why animals fight often

Displays, jousts, and all‑out fights occur across the animal kingdom. Sometimes they are ritualized shows of strength; sometimes they involve real blows, wounds, and death.

Even symbolic standoffs drain energy reserves. Because conflicts can bring both rewards and risks, natural selection should shape decision rules: when to escalate, when to back off, and when to never engage.

Value matters. A top‑tier resource – prime territory, a critical shelter site, or a receptive mate – might justify bigger risks. Lesser resources may not. The type of damage matters, too.

“If snapping shrimp lose a claw during a fight, it can regrow, so it’s not a total loss because they can recover and fight subsequent contests,” Peixoto said.

“If a beetle breaks a horn during a fight, it will not regrow, so that individual will be unable to fight again. Since they often fight for female access, this means they will be unable to reproduce anymore.”

A recoverable cost and an irreversible cost have very different consequences for lifetime breeding success.

Gaps in animal conflict research

To see how biologists have been scoring these bouts, the authors reviewed 73 field and lab studies covering 62 species.

They tallied 24 types of contest cost and folded them into six broader themes. These included elevated metabolic expenditure, stress responses tied to weakened immunity, and risks like injury or death.

Other costs were lost foraging time, reduced vigilance to predators, and cutbacks in parental care.

Different research traditions focus on different angles. Work on crustaceans and fishes often zeroes in on metabolism. Insect studies tend to document broken body parts. That patchwork makes cross‑species comparisons tough.

“There is huge variation in the measurements researchers take,” Peixoto said. Variation itself is fine; the trouble is that without some common yardsticks, we cannot ask whether, say, crabs and beetles pay similar average prices for fighting.

Expanding our view of animal conflict

Short‑term metrics also dominate. Many experiments measure what happens minutes or hours after a contest and stop there.

Yet the most meaningful cost might unfold weeks later if an injured animal skips a breeding season, or years later if chronic stress cuts lifespan.

So what should come next? “We need to link the average cost in a single contest to the individual’s longevity or lifetime reproductive success,” Peixoto said.

“For example, are there contexts that favor individuals that always fight and are more aggressive, and other situations that favor more cautious individuals that only fight weaker rivals to increase their chances of winning?”

The answer likely differs by species, habitat, and the reliability of signals about opponent strength.

Tracking fights across lifetimes

The researchers propose starting by identifying the cost that matters most for the focal species – irreparable injury, energy drain, or lost breeding time.

Next, measure how that cost accumulates within a contest relative to baseline. Finally, scale up: track how often individuals engage in fights over a lifetime and tally their reproductive output.

“By knowing the average number of fights that different individuals are involved in and their lifespans, we can estimate whether individuals who fight more or less have better lifetime reproductive success,” Peixoto said.

“This connection would allow us to gain deeper insights into the evolutionary dynamics of animal contests and the trade-offs individuals face.”

Broader implications of the research

Wildlife managers, conservation biologists, and evolutionary theorists all stand to benefit from a better understanding of animal conflict.

If escalating human disturbance changes how often animals must fight for shrinking resources, the lifetime toll could ripple through populations.

Standardizing how we track contest costs – and extending those measures over years – will reveal when aggression pays and when it backfires. It will also show how natural selection calibrates the will to fight across the tree of life.

The study is published in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–