No sibling odor preference in juvenile three-spined sticklebacks

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 493-497

  Steck, Nicole ^a   Wedekind, Claus ^a   Milinski, Manfred ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Gasterosteus aculeatus; Kin preference; Odor; Shoaling behavior; Sticklebacks

Indexed keywords

FISH; GROUP BEHAVIOR; OLFACTORY CUE; RECOGNITION;

ANIMALIA; GASTEROSTEIFORMES; GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS;

EID: 0032740913     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/10.5.493     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Avise JC, Shapiro DY, 1986. Evaluating kinship of newly settled juveniles within social groups of the coral reef fish Anthias Squampinnis. Evolution 40:1051-1059.
2. Barnard CJ, 1990. Kin recognition: problems, prospects, and the evolution of discrimination systems. Adv Study Behav 19:29-81.
3. Blaustein AR, Bekoff M, ByersJA, Daniels TJ, 1991. Kin recognition in vertebrates: what do we really know about adaptive value? Anim Behav 41:1079-1083.
4. Brown GE, Brown JA, Crosbie AM, 1993. Phenotype matching in juvenile rainbow trout. Anim Behav 46:1223-1225.
5. Brown GE, Smith RJF, 1994. Fathead minnows use chemical cues to discriminate natural shoalmates from unfamiliar conspecifics. J Chem Ecol 20:3051-3061.
6. Chivers DP, Brown GE, Smith RJF, 1995. Familiarity and shoal cohesion in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas): implications for antipredator behaviour. Can J Zool 73:955-960.
7. Cohen J, 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. FitzGerald GJ, MorrissetteJ, 1992. Kin recognition and choice of shoal mates by threespine sticklebacks. Ethol Ecol Evol 4:273-283.
9. Gelowitz CM, Mathis A, Smith RJF, 1993. Chemosensory recognition of northern pike (esox Indus) by brook stickleback (culaea iticonstans): Population differences and the influence of predator diet. Behaviour 127:105-117.
10. Giraldeau L-A, Caracao T, 1993. Genetic relatedness and group size in an aggregation economy. Evol Ecol 7:429-438.
11. Grafen A, 1990. Do animals really recognize kin? Anim Behav 39:4254.
12. Grafen A, 1992. Of mice and the MHC. Nature 360:530.
13. Griffiths SW, 1997. Preferences for familiar fish do not vary with pré dation risk in the European minnow. J Fish Biol 51:489-495.
14. Griffiths SW, Magurran AE, 1997. Familiarity in schooling fish: how long does it take to acquire? Anim Behav 53:945-949.
15. Griffiths SW, Magurran AE, 1999. Schooling decisions in guppies (Poecilia reticulata) are based on familiarity rather than kin recognition by phenotype matching. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:437-443.
16. Hisashi M, Yamamura N, 1993. WTiat determines animal group size? Insider-outsider conflict and its resolution. Am Nat 142:553-563.
17. Hoglund LB, 1961. The reaction offish in concentration gradients. Rep Inst Freshw Res Drottingholm 43:1-147.
18. Keenleyside MI LA, 1955. Some aspects of the schooling behaviour of fish. Behaviour 8:183-248.
19. Krause J, Godin J-GJ, Rubenstein D, 1998. Group choice as a function of group size differences and assessment time in fish: the influence of species vulnerability to prédation. Ethology 104:68-74.
20. Milinski M, 1977. Do all members of a swarm suffer the same pré dation? Z Tierpsychol 45:373-388.
21. Milinski M, Bakker TCM, 1992. Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosleus aculeatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 250:229-233.
22. Mitchell SE, De Meester L, Weider LJ, Carvalho GR, 1995. No evidence for kin-preferential swarming in a Daphnia magna population coexisting with fish. J Anim Ecol 64:777-779.
23. Naish K-A, Carvalho GR, Pitcher TJ, 1993. The genetic structure and microdistribution of shoals of Phoxinus phoxinus, the European minnow. J Fish Biol 43:75-89.
24. Ohguchi O, 1981. Prey density and selection against oddity by threespined sticklebacks. Z Tierpsychol 23:1-79.
25. Olsén KH, Winberg S, 1996. Learning and sibling odor preference in juvenile Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (L.). J Chem Ecol 22:773-786.
26. Penn D, Potts W, 1998. How do major histocompatibility complex genes influence odor and mating preferences? Adv Immunol 69: 411-136.
27. Penn D, Potts W, 1999. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am Nat 153:145-164.
28. Peuhkuri N, Ranta E, Seppä P, 1997. Size-assortative schooling in freeranging sticklebacks. Ethology 103:318-324.
29. Peuhkuri N, Seppä P, 1998. Do three-spined sticklebacks group with kin? Ann Zool Fenn 35:21-27.
30. Pitcher TJ, Parrish J, 1993. The function of shoaling behaviour. In: The behaviour of teleost fishes, 2nd ed (Pitcher TJ, ed). London: Chapmann and Hall; 363-439.
31. Rannala BH, Brown CR, 1994. Relatedness and conflict over optimal group size. Trends Ecol Evol 9:117-119.
32. Ranta E, Lindström K, Peuhkuri N, 1992. Size matters when threespined sticklebacks go to school. Anim Behav 43:160-162.
33. Sato A, Figueroa F, O'h Uigin C, Steck N, Klein J, 1998. Cloning of major histocompability complex genes (Mhc) from threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculealus. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 7:221-231.
34. Singer AG, Beauchamp GK, Yamazaki K, 1997. Volatile signals of the major histocompatibility complex in mouse urine. Proc Nail Acad Sei USA 94:2210-2214.
35. Systat, 1992. Statistics, version 5.2. Evanston, Illinois: SYSTAT.
36. Van Havre N, FitzGerald GJ, 1988. Shoaling and kin recognition in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Biol Behav 13: 190-201.
37. Waldman B, Frumhoff PC, Sherman PW, 1988. Problems of kin recognition. Trends Ecol Evol 3:8-13.
38. Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Ecorov IK, Bard J, Thomas L, Boyse EA, 1983. Sensory distinction between H-2b and H-2bml mutant mice. Proc Natl Acad Sei USA 80:5685-5688.