Audience effects in the Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana)-prudent male mate choice in response to perceived sperm competition risk?

Frontiers in Zoology

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Ziege, Madlen ^a,b   Mahlow, Kristin ^a,b   Hennige Schulz, Carmen ^a,b   Kronmarck, Claudia ^a   Tiedemann, Ralph ^b   Streit, Bruno ^a   Plath, Martin ^a  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYPRINODONTIFORMES; POECILIA MEXICANA;

EID: 70349236166     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17429994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-6-17     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Pruett-Jones S: Independent versus nonindependent matechoice: Do females copy each other? Am Nat 1992,140:1000-1009.
2. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK: Alternativemechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. AnimBehav 2000, 59:467-476.
3. Johnstone RA: Eavesdropping and animal conflict. Proc Natl AcadSci USA 2001, 98:9177-9180.
4. White DJ: Influences of social learning on mate-choice decisions.Learn Behav 2004, 32:105-113.
5. Earley RL, Dugatkin LA: Fighting, mating and networking: pillarsof poeciliid sociality. In Animal communication networks Edited by: McGregor PK. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA;2005:84-113.
6. Bonnie KE, Earley RL: Expanding the scope for social informationuse. Anim Behav 2007, 74:171-181.
7. Druen M, Dugatkin AL: Communication networks. In Ecology andEvolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) Edited by: Evans J, Pilastro A,Schlupp I. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL; 2009 in press.
8. Nordell SE, Valone TJ: Mate choice copying as public information.Ecol Lett 1998, 1:74-76.
9. Matos R, Schlupp I: Performing in front of an audience - signalersand the social environment. In Animal communication networksEdited by: McGregor PK. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMA; 2005:63-83.
10. Plath M, Blum D, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R: Audience effect altersmating preferences in Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana)males. Anim Behav 2008, 75:21-29.
11. Plath M, Blum D, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I: A visual audience effectin a cavefish. Behaviour 2008, 145:931-947.
12. Plath M, Richter S, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I: Male fish deceive competitorsabout mating preferences. Curr Biol 2008,18:1138-1141.
13. Plath M, Kromuszczynski K, Tiedemann R: Audience effect altersmale but not female mating preferences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol2009, 63:381-390.
14. Valone TJ: From eavesdropping on performance to copyingthe behavior of others: a review of public information use.Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2007, 62:1-14.
15. Valone TJ, Templeton JJ: Public information for the assessmentof quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Phil Trans R SocLond Biol Sci 2002, 357:1549-1557.
16. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH: Public information:From nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 2004,305:487-491.
17. Dabelsteen T: Public, private or anonymous: Facilitating andcountering eavesdropping. In Animal Communication NetworksEdited by: McGregor PK. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;2005:38-62.
18. Grosenick L, Clement TS, Fernald RD: Fish can infer social rankby observation alone. Nature 2007, 445:429-432.
19. Oliveira RF, McGregor PK, Latruffe C: Know thine enemy: fightingfish gather information from observing conspecific interactions.Proc R Soc Lond B 1998, 265:1045-1049.
20. Doutrelant C, McGregor PK, Oliveira RF: The effect of an audienceon intrasexual communication in male Siamese fightingfish, Betta splendens. Behav Ecol 2001, 12:283-286.
21. McGregor PK, Peake TM, Lampe HM: Fighting fish Betta splendensextract relative information from apparent interactions:what happens when what you see isn't what you get. AnimBehav 2001, 62:1059-1065.
22. Oliveira RF, Lopes M, Carneiro LA, Canario AVM: Watching fightsraises fish hormone levels. Nature 2001:409-475.
23. Brown C, Laland KN: Social learning in fishes: a review. Fish Fisheries2003, 4:280-288.
24. Earley RL, Dugatkin LA: Eavesdropping on visual cues in greenswordtails (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking.Proc R Soc Lond B 2002, 269:943-952.
25. Earley RL, Druen M, Dugatkin LA: Watching fights does not altera bystander's response towards naive conspecifics in malegreen swordtail fish, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim Behav 2005,69:1139-1145.
26. Otter K, McGregor PK, Terry AMR, Burford FRL, Peake TM, DabelsteenT: Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males byeavesdropping? A field study using interactive song playback.Proc R Soc Lond B 1999, 266:1305-1309.
27. Doutrelant C, McGregor PK: Eavesdropping and mate choice infemale fighting fish. Behaviour 2000, 137:1655-1669.
28. Ophir A, Galef BG: Female Japanese quail that "eavesdrop" onfighting males prefer losers to winners. Anim Behav 2003,66:399-407.
29. Dugatkin LA: Sexual selection and imitation: females copy themate choice of others. Am Nat 1992, 139:1384-1389.
30. Mennill DJ, Boag PT, Ratcliffe LM: The reproductive choices ofeavesdropping female black-capped chickadees, Poecile atricapillus. Naturwissenschaften 2003, 90:577-582.
31. Aquiloni L, Buøié M, Gherardi F: Crayfish females eavesdrop onfighting males before choosing the dominant mate. Curr Biol2008, 18:R462-R463.
32. Schlupp I, Ryan MJ: Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copythe mate choice of other males. Behav Ecol 1997, 8:104-107.
33. Galef BG, White DJ: Mate choice copying in Japanese quail,Coturnix coturnix japonica. Anim Behav 1998, 55:545-552.
34. Witte K, Ryan MJ: Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilialatipinna, in the wild. Anim Behav 2002, 63:943-949.
35. Godin J-GJ, Herdman EJE, Dugatkin LA: Social influences onfemale mate choice in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata: generalizedand repeatable trait-copying behaviour. Anim Behav 2005,69:999-1005.
36. Marler P, Dufty A, Pickert R: Vocal communication in thedomestic chicken. II. Is a sender sensitive to the presenceand nature of a receiver? Anim Behav 1986, 34:194-198.
37. Matos RJ, McGregor PK: The effect of the sex of an audience onmale-male displays of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens).Behaviour 2002, 139:1211-1222.
38. Matos RJ, Peake TM, McGregor PK: Timing of presentation of anaudience: aggressive priming and audience effects in maledisplays of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). Behav Proc2003, 63:53-61.
39. Vignal C, Mathevon N, Mottin S: Audience drives male songbirdresponse to partner's voice. Nature 2004, 430:448-451.
40. Dzieweczynski TL, Earley RL, Green TM, Rowland WJ: Audienceeffect is context dependent in Siamese fighting fish, Bettasplendens. Behav Ecol 2005, 16:1025-1030.
41. Dzieweczynski TL, Bessler AM, Shelton DS, Rowland WJ: Effect of adummy audience on male-male interactions in Siamesefighting fish, Betta splendens. Ethology 2006, 112:127-133.
42. Plath M, Schlupp I: Misleading mollies - the effect of an audienceon the expression of mating preferences. Comm IntegrBiol 2008, 1:199-203.
43. Townsend S, Zuberbuhler K: Audience effects in chimpanzeecopulation calls. Comm Integr Biol 2009, 2:155-157.
44. Fisher HS, Rosenthal GG: Male swordtails court with an audiencein mind. Biol Lett 2006, 3:5-7.
45. Dzieweczynski TL, Rowland WL: Behind closed doors: use of visualcove by courting male three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteusaculeatus. Anim Behav 2004, 68:465-471.
46. Dosen LD, Montgomerie R: Mate preferences by male guppies(Poecilia reticulata) in relation to the risk of sperm competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2004, 55:266-271.
47. Wong BBM, McCarthy M: Prudent male mate choice under perceivedsperm competition risk in the eastern mosquito fish.Behav Ecol 2009, 20:278-282.
48. Constanz GD: Sperm competition in poeciliid fishes. In Spermcompetition and the evolution of animal mating systems Edited by: SmithRL. Academic Press, New York; 1984:465-485.
49. Parzefall J: Zur vergleichenden Ethologie verschiedener Mollienesia-Arten einschlielich einer Hohlenform von Mollienesiasphenops. Behaviour 1969, 33:1-37.
50. Plath M, Parzefall J, Schlupp I: The role of sexual harassment incave- and surface-dwelling populations of the Atlantic molly,Poecilia mexicana (Poeciliidae, Teleostei). Behav Ecol Sociobiol2003, 54:303-309.
51. Plath M, Makowicz AM, Schlupp I, Tobler M: Sexual harassment inlive-bearing fishes: comparing courting and non-courtingspecies. Behav Ecol 2007, 18:680-688.
52. McGregor PK, Peake TM: Communication networks: socialenvironments for receiving and signaling behaviour. ActaEtholog 2000, 2:71-81.
53. Griffiths SW, Magurran AE: Sex and schooling behaviour in theTrinidadian guppy. Anim Behav 1998, 56:689-693.
54. Russell ST, Kelley JL, Graves JA, Magurran AE: Kin structure andshoal composition dynamics in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata.Oikos 2004, 106:520-526.
55. Croft DP, James R, Thomas POR, Hathaway C, Mawdsley D, LalandKN, Krause J: Social structure and co-operative interactions ina wild population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behav EcolSociobiol 2006, 59:644-650.
56. Darren P, Croft DP, Albanese B, Arrowsmith BJ, Botham M, WebsterM, Krause J: Sex-biased movemant in the Guppy (Poeciliareticulata). Oecologia 2003, 137:62-68.
57. Evans JP, Pilastro A: Postcopulatory sexual selection in poeciliidfishes. Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) 2009 inpress.
58. Greven H: Gonads, genitals and reproductive biology. In Ecologyand Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) Edited by: Evans J,Pilastro A, Schlupp I. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL; 2009 inpress.
59. Evans JP, Pierotti M, Pilastro A: Male mating behavior and ejaculateexpenditure under sperm competition risk in the easternmosquitofish. Behav Ecol 2003, 14:268-273.
60. Aspbury AS: Sperm competition effects on sperm productionand expenditure in sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna. Behav Ecol2007, 18:776-780.
61. Bisazza A, Marconato A, Marin G: Male mate preference in themosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology 1989, 83:335-343.
62. Herdman EJE, Kelly CD, Godin J-GJ: Male mate choice in theguppy (Poecilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females asmates? Ethology 2004, 110:97-111.