1. What is game theory and how is it applied in ecology?

• Game theory is a branch of math devoted to the study of strategy where

players seek to maximize their individual returns. This can be applied to
ecology due to each individual wanting to maximize their fitness. It relates
to two main types of behaviours: aggressive and non-aggressive.

2. Which behavioural phenotype had the highest fitness when it was on its own?
• Doves - no cost
• Comparing the hawk only and dove only graphs, the dove only graph lies
further to the right with more number of cards in hand therefore on their
own, doves had the behavioural phenotype with the highest fitness.

3. Which behavioural phenotype was able to invade the other? Could the hawk
strategy invade the dove strategy? Vice versa
• The aggressive (hawk) behaviour was able to invade the other.
• Yes the hawk could invade the dove, but the dove cannot invade the
hawk. This is because looking at the number of doves and hawks table,
the hawks increased in number and the doves significantly decreased in
population.

4. When the frequency of hawks and doves was allowed to evolve, how did the
frequency of hawk vs dove change over time
• We started off with a high dove population and a low hawk population. As
they were allowed to evolve, the hawk population surpassed the dove
population. However, once we reached a high hawk population they
began to decrease due to cost and injury while the dove population began
to increase again.

5. What was the evolutionarily stable strategy?

• Evolutionary stable strategy (google) = a behavioural strategy if adopted
by all individuals in a population that cannot be replaced or invaded by a
different strategy through natural selection.
• We expect to see an evolutionary stable state (ESS) at 50% hawks,
however we saw the ESS at 67% hawks. This was due to not enough
time for individuals to move freely throughout the room; were a bit slow at
reproduction(reviving individuals) and decomposition (redistributing
resources)
6. Was the hawk and doves games an example of positive or negative frequency
dependent selection?
• This was an example of negative frequency-dependent selection. The
minority have an advantage (being a single hawk is great)

7. Was the equilibrium reached stable or unstable? How do you determine stability?
• Stability is determined by looking at a graph at the point where two lines of
data intersect.
• “The intersection represents the point in which both behaviours have the
same average payoff”
• “In theory, if we had played long enough, we should have reached an
equilibrium” - I record the prof and this is what she said so idk…
• Evolutionary stable state represents a population's state, so in our
explanation a point on the graph corresponding to one combination
of hawk and dove proportions, it is a stable equilibrium if a
disturbance from that point pushes the population back toward that
equilibrium (stable state).

8. Support or refute the statement: if natural selection is survival of the fittest, then
the individuals should engage in conflict for resources.
The hawk strategy does not always lead to the highest payoff, so
depending on the situation (what is the reward vs cost, and what is the
proportion of hawks vs doves) it might be more advantageous to not
engage in conflict. If the cost is higher than the reward, then it is not
advantageous to be aggressive, same thing if you are above the
equilibrium value and the dove strategy leads to a higher payoff.

9. Use this payoff matrix to determine the expected frequency of hawks (p) based
on the relative value of resources R and cost of fighting C. How does the expected
frequency compare to what we observed in lecture?
Yes, you would use 1 and 2 or 50/100 like in the plot (it's the same ratio). You will
want to find when (at what relative frequency of hawks - p) the average payoff of
the hawks is equal to the average payoff of the doves. You would set it as:

p(0.5*R - 0.5*C) + (1-p)R = p*0 + (1-p) * (0.5 * R)

you fill in with your values of C and R and isolate p to get the proportion of hawks
at equilibrium. You can also do it graphically by drawing both lines and seeing
where they intersect (see graph in slides and calculations and graphs in posted
Excel spreadsheet).

10. Explain how coexistence of multiple behavioural strategies in a population is

possible.
• Aggressive and non-aggressive strategies can coexist because the dove
was observed to take over again and increase in population.

We saw in the life history lectures that there are many different ways for
individuals to invest their limited energy, some might more successful in certain
contexts, but you can imagine situations where two different strategies might lead
to a similar fitness at the moment or over time, then both those strategies would
persist.

In our Game Theory Case Study where we saw the hawk and dove behavioural
strategies, we saw that the strategy that provided higher reward (hawk) also
came with more cost. In that situation, the cost of the behavioural strategy is
leading to coexistence of the two. If the hawks had no cost and just rewards, they
would have always had a higher payoff than the doves and they would always
take over.

To bring it all back together, we come back to the idea of trade-offs, a bolder
strategy (like the hawk) will often have a downside in terms of energy allocation
or of consequences (injury cost for example) which explains why we see different
behavioural strategies coexisting.