Male guppies (Poecilia reticulata) adjust their mate choice behaviour to the presence of an audience

Behaviour

Volumn 147, Issue 13-14, 2010, Pages 1657-1674

  Makowicz, Amber M ^a   Plath, Martin ^b   Schlupp, Ingo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

communication networks; mate choice copying; mate competition; mate preference; sperm competition

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; CYPRINODONTIFORMES; POECILIA RETICULATA;

EID: 78649601453     PISSN: 00057959     EISSN: 1568539X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/000579510X528206     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Abrahams, M. (1993). The trade-off between foraging and courting in male guppies. Anim. Behav. 45: 673-681.
2. Aquiloni, L., Buric, M. & Gherardi, F. (2008). Crayfish females eavesdrop on fighting males before choosing the dominant mate. Curr. Biol. 18: R462-R463.
3. Aspbury, A.S. (2007). Sperm competition effects on sperm production and expenditure in sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna. Behav. Ecol. 18: 776-780.
4. Baerends, G.P., Brouwer, R. & Waterbolk, H.T. (1955). Ethological studies on Lebistes retic-ulatus (Peters), I. An analysis of male courtship patterns. Behaviour 8: 149-334.
5. Bisazza, A., Marconato, A. & Marin, G. (1989a). Male competition and female choice in Padogobius martensi (Pisces, Gobiidae). Anim. Behav. 38: 406-413.
6. Bisazza, A., Marconato, A. & Marin, G. (1989b). Male mate preference in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology 83: 335-343.
7. Bonnie, K.E. & Earley, R.L. (2007). Expanding the scope for social information use. Anim. Behav. 74: 171-181.
8. Breden, F. (2006). Guppies. Curr. Biol. 16: R865-R866.
9. Brooks, R. & Postma, E. (2011). Genetics of male guppy color patterns. In: Ecology and evolution of Poeciliid fishes (Evans, J., Pilastro, A. & Schlupp, I., eds). Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, in press.
10. Brown, C. & Laland, K.N. (2003). Social learning in fishes: a review. Fish. Fisheries 4: 280-288.
11. Constanz, G.D. (1984). Sperm competition in poeciliid fishes. In: Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (Smith, R.L., ed.). Academic Press, Orlando, FL, p. 465-485.
12. Cotton, S., Small, J. & Pomiankowski, A. (2006). Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr. Biol. 16: 755-765.
13. Dabelsteen, T. (2005). Public, private or anonymous: facilitating and countering eavesdropping. In: Animal communication networks (McGregor, P.K., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 38-62.
14. Danchin, E., Giraldeau, L.A., Valone, T.J. & Wagner, R.H. (2004). Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305: 487-491.
15. Dosen, L.D. & Montgomerie, R. (2004). Mate preferences by male guppies (Poecilia retic-ulata) in relation to the risk of sperm competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55: 266-271.
16. Doutrelant, C. & McGregor, P.K. (2000). Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 137: 1655-1669.
17. Doutrelant, C., McGregor, P.K. & Oliveira, R.F. (2001). The effect of an audience on intra-sexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav. Ecol. 12: 283-286.
18. Druen, M. & Dugatkin, A.L. (2011). Information societies: communication networks and sexual selection. In: Ecology and evolution of Poeciliid fishes (Evans, J., Pilastro, A. & Schlupp, I., eds). Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, in press.
19. Dugatkin, L.A. (1992). Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am. Nat. 139: 1384-1389.
20. Dugatkin, L.A. & Godin, J.-G.J. (1992). Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 249: 179-184.
21. Dzieweczynski, T.L., Bessler, A.M., Shelton, D.S. & Rowland, W.J. (2006). Effect of a dummy audience on male-male interactions in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens.- Ethology 112: 127-133.
22. Dzieweczynski, T.L., Earley, R.L., Green, T.M. & Rowland, W.J. (2005). Audience effect is context dependent in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav. Ecol. 16: 1025-1030.
23. Dzieweczynski, T.L. & Rowland, W.L. (2004). Behind closed doors: use of visual cove by courting male three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim. Behav. 68: 465-471.
24. Earley, R.L., Druen, M. & Dugatkin, L.A. (2005). Watching fights does not alter a bystander's response towards naïve conspecifics in male green swordtail fish, Xiphophorus helleri.- Anim. Behav. 69: 1139-1145.
25. Earley, R.L. & Dugatkin, L.A. (2002). Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtails (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 269: 943-952.
26. Earley, R.L. & Dugatkin, L.A. (2005). Fighting, mating and networking: pillars of poeciliid sociality. In: Animal communication networks (McGregor, P.K., ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 84-113.
27. Evans, J.P., Kelley, J.L., Bisazza, A., Finazzo, E. & Pilastro, A. (2004). Sire attractiveness influences offspring performance in guppies. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 271: 2035-2042.
28. Evans, J.P., Pierotti, M. & Pilastro, A. (2003a). Male mating behavior and ejaculate expenditure under sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquitofish. Behav. Ecol. 14: 268-273.
29. Evans, J.P. & Pilastro, A. (2011). Postcopulatory sexual selection. In: Ecology and evolution of Poeciliid fishes (Evans, J., Pilastro, A. & Schlupp, I., eds). Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, in press.
30. Evans, J.P., Zane, L., Francescato, S. & Pilastro, A. (2003b). Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421: 360-363.
31. Farr, J.A. (1989). Sexual selection and secondary sexual differentiation in poeciliids: determinants of male mating success and the evolution of female choice. In: Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae) (Meffe, G.K. & Snelson, F.F., eds). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 91-123.
32. Fisher, H.S. & Rosenthal, G.G. (2006a). Hungry females show stronger mating preferences.- Behav. Ecol. 17: 979-981.
33. Fisher, H.S. & Rosenthal, G.G. (2006b). Male swordtails court with an audience in mind. Biol. Lett. 3: 5-7.
34. Galef, B.G. & White, D.J. (1998). Mate choice copying in Japanese quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Anim. Behav. 55: 545-552.
35. Godin, J.-G.J., Herdman, E.J.E. & Dugatkin, L.A. (2005). Social influences on female mate choice in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata: generalized and repeatable trait-copying behaviour. Anim. Behav. 69: 999-1005.
36. Gorlick, D.L. (1976). Dominance hierarchies and factors influencing dominance in the guppy Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 24: 336-346.
37. Grether, G. & Kolluru, G. (2011). Evolutionary and plastic responses to resource availability.- In: Ecology and evolution of Poeciliid fishes (Evans, J., Pilastro, A. & Schlupp, I.,eds). Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, in press.
38. Grosenick, L., Clement, T.S. & Fernald, R.D. (2007). Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature 445: 429-432.
39. Gumm, J.M. & Gabor, C.R. (2005). Asexuals looking for sex: conflict between species and mate-quality recognition in sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58: 558-565.
40. Herdman, E.J.E., Kelly, C.D. & Godin, J.-G.J. (2004). Male mate choice in the guppy (Poe -cilia reticulata): do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology 110: 97-111.
41. Houde, A.E. (1997). Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
42. Houde, A.E. (1988). The effects of female choice and male-male competition on the mating success of male guppies. Anim. Behav. 36: 888-896.
43. Hubbs, C. (1982). Occurrence of exotic fishes in Texas waters. Pearce-Sellards Series,Texas Memorial Museum 36: 1-19.
44. Hubbs, C., Lucier, T., Garrett, G.P., Edwards, R.J., Dean, S.M. & Marsh, E. (1978). Survivaland abundance of introduced fishes near San Antonio, Texas. Texas J. Sci. 30: 369-376.
45. Johnson, J.B. & Basolo, A.L. (2003). Predator exposure alters female mate choice in thegreen swordtail. Behav. Ecol. 14: 619-625.
46. Johnstone, R.A. (2001). Eavesdropping and animal conflict. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA98: 9177-9180.
47. Kim, T.W., Christy, J.H., Dennenmoser, S. & Choe, J.C. (2009). The strength of a femalemate preference increases with predation risk. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 276:775-780.
48. Kodric-Brown, A. (1992). Male dominance can enhance mating success in guppies. Anim.Behav. 44: 165-167.
49. Kodric-Brown, A. (1993). Female choice of multiple criteria in guppies: interacting effectsof dominance, coloration and courtship. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 415-420.
50. Magurran, A.E. (2005). Evolutionary ecology: the Trinidadian guppy. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.
51. Makowicz, A.M., Plath, M. & Schlupp, I. (2010). Using video playback to study the effectof an audience on male mating behavior in the Sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna). -Behav. Process. 85: 36-41.
52. Marler, P., Dufty, A. & Pickert, R. (1986). Vocal communication in the domestic chicken.II. Is a sender sensitive to the presence and nature of a receiver? Anim. Behav. 34:194-198.
53. Matos, R.J. & McGregor, P.K. (2002). The effect of the sex of an audience on male-maledisplays of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). Behaviour 139: 1211-1222.
54. Matos, R.J., Peake, T.M. & McGregor, P.K. (2003). Timing of presentation of an audience:aggressive priming and audience effects in male displays of Siamese fighting fish (Bettasplendens). Behav. Proc. 63: 53-61.
55. Matos, R.J. & Schlupp, I. (2005). Performing in front of an audience - signalers and thesocial environment. In: Animal communication networks (McGregor, P.K., ed.).Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 63-83.
56. McGregor, P.K., Peake, T.M. & Lampe, H.M. (2001). Fighting fish Betta splendens extractrelative information from apparent interactions: what happens when what you see isn'twhat you get. Anim. Behav. 62: 1059-1065.
57. Mennill, D.J., Boag, P.T. & Ratcliffe, L.M. (2003). The reproductive choices of eavesdropping female black-capped chickadees, Poecile atricapillus. Naturwissenschaften 90:577-582.
58. Nordell, S.E. & Valone, T.J. (1998). Mate choice copying as public information. Ecol.Lett. 1: 74-76.
59. Ojanguren, A.F. & Magurran, A.E. (2004). Uncoupling the links between male mating tacticsand female attractiveness. Biol. Lett. 271: 427-429.
60. Oliveira, R.F., Lopes, M., Carneiro, L.A. & Canário, A.V.M. (2001). Watching fights raisesfish hormone levels. Nature 409: 475.
61. Oliveira, R.F., McGregor, P.K. & Latruffe, C. (1998). Know thine enemy: fighting fish gatherinformation from observing conspecific interactions. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol.265: 1045-1049.
62. Ophir, A. & Galef, B.G. (2003). Female Japanese quail that "eavesdrop" on fighting malesprefer losers to winners. Anim. Behav. 66: 399-407.
63. Otter, K., McGregor, P.K., Terry, A.M.R., Burford, F.R.L., Peake, T.M. & Dabelsteen, T.(1999). Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? A field studyusing interactive song playback. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. 266: 1305-1309.
64. Padur, L., Wedekind, J., Öztürk, Ö., Streit, B., Tiedemann, R. & Plath, M. (2009). Do audience effects lead to relaxed male sexual harassment? Behaviour 146: 1739-1758.
65. Parker, G.A. (1970). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol.Rev. 45: 525-567.
66. Pilastro, A., Gasparinia, C., Boschettoa, C. & Evans, J.P. (2008). Colorful male guppies donot provide females with fecundity benefits. Behav. Ecol. 19: 374-381.
67. Pilastro, A., Scaggiante, M. & Rasotto, M.B. (2002). Individual adjustment of sperm expenditure accords with sperm competition theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:9913-9915.
68. Plath, M., Blum, D., Schlupp, I. & Tiedemann, R. (2008a). Audience effect alters matingpreferences in Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana) males. Anim. Behav. 75: 21-29.
69. Plath, M., Blum, D., Tiedemann, R. & Schlupp, I. (2008b). A visual audience effect in acavefish. Behaviour 145: 931-947.
70. Plath, M., Kromuszczynski, K. & Tiedemann, R. (2009). Audience effect alters male but notfemale mating preferences. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 381-390.
71. Plath, M., Richter, S., Tiedemann, R. & Schlupp, I. (2008c). Male fish deceive competitorsabout mating preferences. Curr. Biol. 18: 1138-1141.
72. Plath, M. & Schlupp, I. (2008). Misleading mollies - the effect of an audience on theexpression of mating preferences. Commun. Integr. Biol. 1: 199-203.
73. Price, A.C. & Rodd, H. (2006). The effect of social environment on male-male competitionin Guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 112: 22-32.
74. Pruett-Jones, S. (1992). Independent versus nonindependent mate choice: do females copyeach other? Am. Nat. 140: 1000-1009.
75. Ptacek, M. & Travis, J. (1997). Mate choice in the sailfin molly. Evolution 51: 1217-1231.
76. Qvarnström, A. & Forsgren, E. (1998). Should females prefer dominant males? TrendsEcol. Evol. 13: 498-501.
77. Schlupp, I. & Ryan, M.J. (1997). Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the matechoice of other males. Behav. Ecol. 8: 104-107.
78. Townsend, S. & Zuberbühler, K. (2009). Audience effects in chimpanzee copulation calls. -Commun. Integr. Biol. 2: 155-157.
79. Valone, T.J. (2007). From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others:a review of public information use. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62: 1-14.
80. Valone, T.J. & Templeton, J.J. (2002). Public information for the assessment of quality: awidespread social phenomenon. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 357: 1549-1557.
81. Vignal, C., Mathevon, N. & Mottin, S. (2004). Audience drives male songbird response topartner's voice. Nature 430: 448-451.
82. Westneat, D.F., Walters, A., McCarthy, T.M., Hatch, M.I. & Hein, W.K. (2000). Alternativemechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim. Behav. 59: 467-476.
83. White, D.J. (2004). Influences of social learning on mate-choice decisions. Learn. Behav.32: 105-113.
84. Witte, K. & Ryan, M.J. (2002). Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna,in the wild. Anim. Behav. 63: 943-949.
85. Wong, B.B.M. & McCarthy, M. (2009). Prudent male mate choice under perceived spermcompetition risk in the eastern mosquito fish. Behav. Ecol. 20: 278-282.
86. Ziege, M., Mahlow, K., Hennige-Schulz, C., Kronmarck, C., Tiedemann, R., Streit, B. &Plath, M. (2009). Audience effects in the Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana) - prudentmale mate choice in response to perceived sperm competition risk? Front. Zool. E6:17.
87. Ziege, M., Padur, L., Duwe, V., Ramm, A., Scharnweber, K., Riesch, R. & Plath, M. (2008).Audience effect alters mate choice in male Heterophallus milleri (Poeciliidae). Bull.Fish Biol. 10: 87-92.