Sex and the public Social eavesdropping, sperm competition risk and male mate choice

Communicative and Integrative Biology

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 276-280

  Plath, Martin ^a   Bierbach, David ^a  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Audience effect; Communication networks; Mate choice copying; Non independent mate choice; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA;

EID: 79960099654     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19420889     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4161/cib.4.3.14916     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. Princeton, Princeton University Press 1994.
2. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK. Alternative mechanisms of non-independent mate choice. Anim Behav 2000, 59, 467-6
3. Bonnie KE, Earley RL. Expanding the scope for social information use. Anim Behav 2007, 74, 171-81.
4. Earley RL. Social eavesdropping and the evolution of conditional cooperation and cheating strategies. Phil Trans R Soc B 2010, 365, 2675-86.
5. Krause J, Ruxton GD. Living in groups. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2002.
6. Valone TJ, Templeton JJ. Public information for the assessment of quality, a widespread social phenomenon. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 2002, 357, 549-57.
7. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH. Public information, from noisy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 2004, 305, 487-91.
8. Dabelsteen T. Public, private or anonymous? Facilitating and countering eavesdropping. In, McGregor PK, Ed. Animal communication networks. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2005, 38-62.
9. Grosenick L, Clement TS, Fernald RD. Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature 2007, 445, 429-32.
10. Valone TJ. From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others, a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2007, 2, 1-14.
11. Druen M, Dugatkin LA. Communication networks. In, Evans J, Pilastro A, Schlupp I, Eds. Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae). Chicago University Press 2011.
12. McGregor PK, Peake T. Communication networks, social environments for receiving and signaling behaviour. Acta Ethol 2000, 2, 71-81.
13. Earley RL, Dugatkin LA. Fighting, mating and networking, pillars of poeciliid sociality. In, McGregor PK, Ed. Animal communication networks. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2005, 84-113.
14. Matos R, Schlupp I. Performing in front of an audience, signallers and the social environment. In, McGregor PK, Ed. Animal communication networks. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2005, 63-83.
15. Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP. Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors, communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol 2004, 15, 1011-5.
16. Peake TM. Eavesdropping in communication networks. In, McGregor PK, Ed. Animal communication networks. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2005, 13-37.
17. Fitzsimmons LP, Foote JR, Ratcliffe LM, Mennill DJ. Eavesdropping and communication networks revealed through playback and an acoustic location system. Behav Ecol 2008, 19, 824-9.
18. Pruett-Jones S. Independent versus non-independent mate-choice, do females copy each other? Am Nat 1992, 140, 1000-9.
19. Dugatkin LA. Sexual selection and imitation, females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 1992, 139, 1384-9.
20. Nordell SE, Valone TJ. Mate choice copying as public information. Ecol Letters 1998, 1, 74-6.
21. Witte K. Learning and mate choice. In, Brown C, Laland KN, Krause J, Eds. Fish cognition and behavior. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing 2006, 70-5.
22. Marler P, Dufty A, Pickert R. Vocal communication in the domestic chicken II. Is a sender sensitive to the presence and nature of a receiver? Anim Behav 1986, 34, 194-8.
23. Plath M, Schlupp I. Misleading mollies-the effect of an audience on the expression of mating preferences. Comm Integr Biol 2008, 1, 199-203.
24. Zuberbühler K. Audience effects. Curr Biol 2008, 11, 189-90.
25. Evans JP, Magurran AE. Multiple benefits of multiple mating in guppies. Proc Nat Ac Sci USA 2000, 97, 10074-6.
26. Becher SA, Magurran AE. Multiple mating and reproductive skew in Trinidadian guppies. Proc R Soc Lond B 2004, 271, 1009-14.
27. Bierbach D, Kronmarck C, Hennige-Schulz C, Stadler S, Plath M. Sperm competition risk affects male mate choice copying. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2011, In press.
28. Plath M, Richter S, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I. Male fish deceive competitors about mating preferences. Curr Biol 2008, 18, 1138-41.
29. Bierbach D, Girndt A, Hamfler S, Klein M, Mücksch F, Penshorn M, et al. Male fish use prior knowledge about rivals to adjust their mate choice. Biol Lett 2011, In press.
30. Bakker TMC. The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 1999, 136, 1237-65.
31. Pierotti MER, Knight ME, Immler S, Barson NJ, Turner GF, Seehausen O. Individual variation in male mating preferences for female coloration in a polymorphic cichlid fish. Behav Ecol 2008, 19, 483-8.
32. Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference, are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proc R Soc Lond B 2001, 269, 475-81.
33. Endler JA, Houde AE. Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 1995, 49, 456-68.
34. Brooks R, Endler JA. Female guppies agree to differ, phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behaviour and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 2001, 55, 1644-55.
35. Dugatkin LA. Copying and mate choice. In, Heyes CM, Galef BG Jr, Eds. Social learning in animals, the roots of culture. New York, Academic ress 1996, 85-105.
36. Jennions MD, Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences, a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 1997, 72, 283-327.
37. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 2006, 16, 755-65.
38. Ryan MJ. Sexual selection and mate choice. In, Krebs JR, Davies NB, Eds. Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach. Fourth edition. Oxford, Blackwell 1997, 179-202.
39. Houde AE. Sex, Color and Mate Choice in Guppies. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press 1997.
40. Clutton-Brock TH, McAuliffe K. Female mate choice in mammals. Quat Rev Biol 2009, 84, 1-27.
41. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects, a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 2001, 76, 305-39.
42. Sæthers SA, Fiske P, Kalas JA. Male mate choice, sexual conflict and strategic allocation of copulations in a lekking bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 2001, 68, 2097-102.
43. Wong BBM, Jennions MD, Keogh JS. Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil signifer. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2004, 56, 53-6.
44. Plath M, Seggel U, Burmeister H, Heubel KU, Schlupp I. Choosy males from the underground, male mate choice in surface- and cave dwelling Atlantic mollies, Poecilia mexicana (Poeciliidae, Teleostei). Naturwissenschaften 2006, 93, 103-9.
45. Plath M, Kromuszczynski K, Tiedemann R. Audience effect alters male but not female mating preferences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2009, 63, 381-90.
46. Milinski M, Bakker TCM. Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 1992, 250, 229-33.
47. Bro-Jørgensen J. Reversed sexual conflict in a promiscuous antelope. Curr Biol 2007, 17, 2157-61.
48. Kokko H, Jennions MD. Sexual conflict, The battle of the sexes reversed. Curr Biol 2008, 18, 121-3.
49. Amundsen T, Forsgren E. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001, 98, 13155-60.
50. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behavioral Ecology 2001, 12, 402-6.
51. Parker GA. Mate quality and mating decisions. In, Bateson P, Ed. Mate Choice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1983, 141-66.
52. Pélabon C, Borg ÅA, Bjelvenmark J, Forsgren E, Barber I, Amundsen T. Do male two-spotted gobies prefer large fecund females? Behav Ecol 2003, 4, 787-92.
53. Herdman EJ, Kelley CD, Godin JGJ. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata), Do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology 2004, 10, 97-111.
54. Riesch R, Plath M, Schlupp I. Toxic hydrogen sulfide and dark caves, life history adaptations in a livebearing fish (Poecilia mexicana, Poeciliidae). Ecology 2010, 91, 1494-505.
55. Werner NY, Lotem A. Choosy males in a hamplochromine cichlid, first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Ethology 2003, 112, 657-63.
56. Kolm N. Female courtship in the Banggai cardinalfish, Honest signals of egg maturity and reproductive output? Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 2004, 361, 19-34.
57. Pierotti MER, Martín-Fernández JA, Seehausen O. Mapping individual variation in male mating preference space, Multiple choice in a color polymorphic cichlid fish. Evolution 2009, 63, 2372-88.
58. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 2002, 17, 313-20.
59. Aspbury AS. Sperm competition effects on sperm production and expenditure in sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna. Behav Ecol 2007, 18, 776-80.
60. Wong BBM, McCarthy M. Prudent male mate choice under perceived sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquito fish. Behav Ecol 2009, 20, 278-2.
61. Ziege M, Mahlow K, Hennige-Schulze C, Kronmarck C, Tiedemann R, Streit B, et al. Audience effects in the Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana)-prudent male mate choice in response to perceived sperm competition risk? Front Zool 2009, 6, 17.
62. Largiadér CR, Fries V, Bakker TCM. Genetic analysis of sneaking and egg-thievery in a natural population of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Heredity 2001, 86, 459-68.
63. Eizaguirre C, Yeates SE, Lenz TL, Kalbe M, Milinski M. MHC-based mate choice combines good genes and maintenance of MHC polymorphism. Mol Ecol 2009, 18, 3316-29.
64. Parker GA. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol Rev 1970, 45, 525-67.
65. Constanz GD. Sperm competition in poeciliid fishes. In, Smith RL, Ed. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems Orlando, Academic Press 1984, 465-85.
66. Haskins CP, Haskins EF, McLaughlin JJA, Hewitt RE. Polymorphism and population structure in Lebistes reticulatus, an ecological study. Austin, University of Texas Press 1961.
67. Rosenthal HL. Observations of reproduction of the poeciliid Lebistes reticulatus (Peters). Biological Bulletin 1952, 102, 30-8.
68. Magurran AE. Evolutionary ecology, the Trinidadian guppy. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2005.
69. Neff BD, Pitcher TE, Ramnarine IW. Inter-population variation in multiple paternity and reproductive skew in the guppy. Mol Ecol 2008, 17, 2975-84.
70. Travis J, Trexler JC, Mulvey M. Multiple paternity and its correlates in female Poecilia latipinna (Poeciliidae). Copeia 1990, 3.
71. Trexler JC, Travis J, Dinep A. Variation among populations of the sailfin molly in the rate of concurrent multiple paternity and its implications for mating-system evolution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1997, 40, 297-305.
72. Tatarenkov A, Healey CIM, Grether GF, Avise JC. Pronounced reproductive skew in a natural population of green swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri. Mol Ecol 2008, 17, 4522-34.
73. Evans JP, Pilastro A, Ramnarine IW. Sperm transfer through forced matings and its evolutionary implications in natural guppy (Poecilia reticulata) populations. Biol J Linn Soc 2003, 78, 605-12.
74. Plath M, Makowicz AM, Schlupp I, Tobler M. Sexual harassment in live-bearing fishes, comparing courting and non-courting species. Behav Ecol 007, 18, 680-8.
75. Plath M. Male mating behavior and costs of sexual harassment for females in cavernicolous and extremophile populations of Atlantic mollies (Poecilia mexicana). Behaviour 2008, 145, 73-89.
76. Köhler A, Hildenbrand P, Schleucher E, Riesch R, Arias-Rodriguez L, Streit B, et al. Effects of male sexual harassment on female time budgets, feeding behavior and metabolic rates in a tropical livebearing fish (Poecilia mexicana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2011, In press.
77. Dosen LD, Montgomerie R. Mate preferences by male guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in relation to the risk of sperm competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 004, 55, 266-71.
78. Bretman A, Fricke C, Chapman T. Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive fitness. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2009, 276, 1705-11.
79. Schlupp I, Ryan MJ. Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males. Behav Ecol 1997, 8, 104-7.
80. Witte K, Ryan MJ. Mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) in the wild. Anim Behav 2002, 63, 943-9.
81. Widemo MS. Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. Behav Ecol 2006, 17, 255-9.
82. Frommen JG, Rahn AK, Schroth SH, Waltschyk N, Bakker TCM. Mate-choice copying when both sexes face high costs of reproduction. Evol Ecol 008, 23, 435-46.
83. Liley NR. Ethological isolating mechanisms in four sympatric species of Poeciliid fishes. Behav Suppl 1966, 13, 1-197.
84. Parzefall J. Zur vergleichenden Ethologie verschiedener Mollienesia-Arten einschließlich einer Höhlenform von Mollienesia sphenops. Behaviour 1969, 3, 1-37.
85. Fisher H, Rosenthal GG. Male swordtails court with an audience in mind. Biol Lett 2007, 3, 5-7.
86. Doutrelant C, McGregor PK, Oliveira RF. The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav Ecol 2001, 12, 283-6.
87. Plath M, Blum D, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R. Audience effect alters mating preferences in Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana) males. Anim Behav 2008, 5, 21-9.90
88. Plath M, Blum D, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I. A visual audience effect in a cavefish. Behaviour 2008, 145, 931-47
89. Plath M, Richter S, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R. Misleading mollies, surface- but not cave-dwelling Poecilia mexicana males deceive competitors about mating preferences. Acta Ethol 2010, 13, 49-56.
90. Doutrelant C, McGregor PK. Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 2000, 137, 1655-69.
91. Ophir AG, Galef BG Jr. Female Japanese quail that "eavesdrop" on fighting males prefer losers to winners. Anim Behav 2003, 66, 399-407.