Territoriality refers to the monopolization of space by an individual or group. While territories have been defined variously as any defended space, areas of site-specific dominance, or sites of exclusive monopolization of space, they can be quite fluid and short-term. For example, sanderlings (Calidris alba) may defend feeding territories involving a short stretch of beach during high tides, while individual male white-tailed skimmers (family Libellulidae) defend small sections of ponds as mating territories for only a few hours, effectively “time-sharing” the same area with several other males within a day. Consequently, the current approach is to view territoriality as a fluid space-use system. In this system, a resource or area is defended to varying degrees and with varying success, depending on the costs and benefits of defense.

The tendency to hold territories varies among closely related species, within species, and through time. The same individual may blink in and out of territorial behaviour as the distribution of resources, the competitive environment, or the individual’s internal physiological state changes. Biologists believe that territoriality is favoured where resources are economically defendable (that is, where the benefits of restricting access outweigh the costs of defense). Costs of territoriality depend upon the energy required to keep out intruders and the potential costs of direct combat. These costs are balanced by benefits that include exclusive access to food, mates, breeding sites, and shelter.

A territory’s extent varies among species. Typically, territories include sites of egg deposition, burrow entrances, nest sites, food plants, feeding space, advertisement perches or display sites, roosting sites, shelters, grazing areas, food stores or communal caches, foraging space, and even patches of sunlight in the forest. Territories may contain a single critical resource, such as the bee nests defended by male orange-rumped honey guides (Indicator xanthonotus) in the Himalayas. In other cases, as in many territorial songbirds, males defend multipurpose territories for which it is difficult to identify a single key resource.

The costs and benefits of competing for space, and ultimately resources, depend on the density of competitors and on how resources are distributed. When resources are clumped, they are more easily managed and defended. In contrast, as they become increasingly spread out or as their relative quality declines, the benefits and ease of defense are reduced. Conversely, when resources are too high in quality, competition may be so intense that exclusivity is impossible or simply too costly to maintain. Consequently, territoriality is generally expected when resources are of intermediate quality.

If the quality of a resource varies by season, there may be periods when the resource no longer provides enough benefits to warrant defense. If this is true, territoriality should correspond to the period of greatest benefit. For example, Yarrow’s spiny lizards (Sceloporus jarrovii) appear to maintain mating territories only when the majority of females are receptive to mating. As more preferred areas are taken, some individuals forgo territoriality. In rufous-collared sparrows (Zonotrichia capensis), for example, males without access to high-quality territories live on the fringes of the territories of older, more dominant males.

Dominance

Territoriality is one way that animals compete for and partition resources. Within groups, individuals may compete for resources and space by means of social dominance. Dominance interactions refer to the behaviours occurring within or between social groups that result in hierarchical access to resources or mates; they do not refer to the use of space. Dominant individuals are characterized as being more aggressive and successful in winning competitive interactions than other group members. Dominance may be established through direct or indirect aggression or by mutual display, where the dominant individual usually assumes a higher stature and the subordinate often bows or mimics juvenile behaviour.

As with many other aspects of social behaviour, an economic argument is used to explain why dominance is sometimes resolved by display rather than fighting. Because symmetrical contests involve contestants that by definition have an equal chance of winning, contests involving individuals close in dominance status should involve the most fighting. In contrast, when one individual is clearly superior, the lesser individual will gain little by challenging and may even suffer injury in the process of trying. Thus, clearly established dominance hierarchies are thought to be advantageous to both dominants and subordinates due to a reduction in the frequency of energetically expensive and dangerous fighting. Often, life is smooth within social groups not because of a lack of competition, but because dominance is established and the hierarchy is clear.

Dominance hierarchies have been shown to play a critical role in mating patterns in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), where more dominant males tend to mate with more dominant females. Higher-status pairs then experience greater overwinter survival, presumably compete more effectively for high-quality breeding space, and produce more offspring.

Dominance often correlates with mating success in polygynous societies. In some cases, dominant males gain preferred positions in mating arenas and are more likely to be chosen by females. An understanding of why subordinates should accept their lower-status can be gained by examining the options available to lower status individuals. A subordinate has a finite number of choices: remain in its social group, join another group where its chances are better, or become solitary. Solitary individuals will lose the benefit of being in a group, and individuals that emigrate will face the difficulties of locating and joining a new group. If the new group offers greater opportunities for achieving high status, emigration will be favoured. Familiarity with group members and with foraging and shelter sites will favour remaining with the group. The future opportunities of young animals may be enhanced by the skills they learn as subordinates, and, when groups comprise relatives, nepotism may also favour staying. Often, subordinates are willing to bear the costs of reduced access to mates and resources when the alternatives available to them are even worse.

Subordinates often exhibit an array of tactics or behaviours that help them make the best of their low status. These alternative strategies include the sneaky mating tactics of subordinate male bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) and the specialized group of small male (“jack”) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), which act as “satellites” and try to intercept females as they are attracted to the territories of large males. Other examples include the female-mimicking behaviour of subordinate male rove beetles (family Staphylinidae) and the satellite behaviour of horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) males. In the former example, mimicks benefit from reduced aggression and thus increased access to matings; in the latter, subordinate male horseshoe crabs may fertilize some of a female’s eggs while she is mating with a more dominant male. Such alternative reproductive tactics enable males to circumvent the constraints of low status. In some cases, these activities may allow subordinate males to achieve fitness benefits comparable to those of more dominant individuals.