"Armpit effect" in an African cichlid fish: Self-referent kin recognition in mating decisions of male Pelvicachromis taeniatus

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 99-104

  Thünken, Timo ^a   Bakker, Theo C M ^a   Baldauf, Sebastian A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computer animation; Inbreeding avoidance; Inclusive fitness; Kin selection; Phenotype matching

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; CICHLID; COMPUTER; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; INBREEDING AVOIDANCE; KIN SELECTION; MALE BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; OLFACTORY CUE; PHENOTYPE;

WEST AFRICA;

AFRICAN CICHLIDS; ANIMALIA; CICHLIDAE; PELVICACHROMIS TAENIATUS;

EID: 84891555918     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-013-1626-2     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Baldauf SA, Bakker TCM, Herder F, Kullmann H, Thünken T (2010) Male mate choice scales female ornament allometry in a cichlid fish. BMC Evol Biol 10: 301.
2. Baldauf SA, Bakker TCM, Kullmann H, Thünken T (2011) Female nuptial coloration and its adaptive significance in a mutual mate choice system. Behav Ecol 22: 478-485.
3. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Bakker TCM (2008) Technical restrictions of computer-manipulated visual stimuli and display units for studying animal behaviour. Ethology 114: 737-751.
4. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Schroth SH, Thünken T, Bakker TCM (2009a) You can't always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict. BMC Evol Biol 9: 129.
5. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Thünken T, Winter S, Bakker TCM (2009b) Computer animation as a tool to study preferences in the cichlid Pelvicachromis taeniatus. J Fish Biol 75: 738-746.
6. Baldauf SA, Engqvist L, Ottenheym T, Bakker TCM, Thünken T (2013) Sex-specific conditional mating preferences in a cichlid fish: implications for sexual conflict. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67: 1179-1186.
7. Barata EN, Hubbard PC, Almeida OG, Miranda A, Canario AVM (2007) Male urine signals social rank in the Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus). BMC Biol 5: 54.
8. Bressan P, Zucchi G (2009) Human kin recognition is self-rather than family-referential. Biol Lett 5: 336-338.
9. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1987) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 18: 237-268.
10. Couldridge VCK, Alexander GJ (2001) Does the time spent near a male predict female mate choice in a Malawian cichlid? J Fish Biol 59: 667-672.
11. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2006) Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 16: 755-765.
12. Crnokrak P, Barrett SCH (2002) Purging the genetic load: a review of the experimental evidence. Evolution 56: 2347-2358.
13. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
14. Dechaume-Moncharmont FX, Cornuau JH, Keddar I, Ihle M, Motreuil S, Cezilly F (2011) Rapid assessment of female preference for male size predicts subsequent choice of spawning partner in a socially monogamous cichlid fish. C R Biol 334: 906-910.
15. Frommen JG, Luz C, Bakker TCM (2007) Kin discrimination in sticklebacks is mediated by social learning rather than innate recognition. Ethology 113: 276-282.
16. Gerlach G, Hodgins-Davis A, Avolio C, Schunter C (2008) Kin recognition in zebrafish: A 24-hour window for olfactory imprinting. Proc R Soc Lond B 275: 2165-2170.
17. Glemin S (2003) How are deleterious mutations purged? Drift versus nonrandom mating. Evolution 57: 2678-2687.
18. Hain TJA, Neff BD (2006) Promiscuity drives self-referent kin recognition. Curr Biol 16: 1807-1811.
19. Hare JF, Sealy SG, Underwood TJ, Ellison KS, Stewart RLM (2003) Evidence of self-referent phenotype matching revisited: airing out the armpit effect. Anim Cogn 6: 65-68.
20. Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci 24: 609-616.
21. Hesse S, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Thünken T (2012) Kin recognition by phenotype matching is rather family- than self-referential in juvenile cichlid fish. Anim Behav 84: 451-457.
22. Holmes WG, Sherman PW (1982) The Ontogeny of kin recognition in two species of ground squirrels. Am Zool 22: 491-517.
23. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 72: 283-327.
24. Johnstone KA, Lubieniecki KP, Koop BF, Davidson WS (2011) Expression of olfactory receptors in different life stages and life histories of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Mol Ecol 20: 4059-4069.
25. Kempenaers B (2007) Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Adv Stud Behav 37: 189-278.
26. Kokko H, Ots I (2006) When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60: 467-475.
27. Langen K, Schwarzer J, Kullmann H, Bakker TCM, Thünken T (2011) Microsatellite support for active inbreeding in a cichlid fish. PLoS One 6: e24689.
28. Lehmann L, Perrin N (2002) Altruism, dispersal, and phenotype-matching kin recognition. Am Nat 159: 451-468.
29. Mateo JM (2004) Recognition systems and biological organization: the perception component of social recognition. Ann Zool Fenn 41: 729-745.
30. Mateo JM (2010) Self-referent phenotype matching and long-term maintenance of kin recognition. Anim Behav 80: 929-935.
31. Mateo JM, Johnston RE (2000) Kin recognition and the 'armpit effect': evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267: 695-700.
32. Milinski M, Griffiths SW, Reusch TBH, Boehm T (2010) Costly major histocompatibility complex signals produced only by reproductively active males, but not females, must be validated by a 'maleness signal' in three-spined sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 277: 391-398.
33. Olsen KH, Winberg S (1996) Learning and sibling odor preference in juvenile arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (L.). J Chem Ecol 22: 773-786.
34. Penn DJ, Frommen JG (2010) Kin recognition: an overview of conceptional issues, mechanisms and evolutionary theory. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behavior: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 55-85.
35. Pusey A, Wolf M (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 201-206.
36. Development Core Team R (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www. R-project. org.
37. Schielzeth H, Burger C, Bolund E, Forstmeier W (2008) Assortative versus disassortative mating preferences of female zebra finches based on self-referent phenotype matching. Anim Behav 76: 1927-1934.
38. Stiver KA, Fitzpatrick JL, Desjardins JK, Neff BD, Quinn JS, Balshine S (2008) The role of genetic relatedness among social mates in a cooperative breeder. Behav Ecol 19: 816-823.
39. Szulkin M, Stopher KV, Pemberton JM, Reid JM (2013) Inbreeding avoidance, tolerance, or preference in animals? Trends Ecol Evol 28: 205-211.
40. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H (2007a) Active inbreeding in a cichlid fish and its adaptive significance. Curr Biol 17: 225-229.
41. Thünken T, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H (2007b) Direct familiarity does not alter mating preference for sisters in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Ethology 113: 1107-1112.
42. Thünken T, Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Schuld J, Hesse S, Bakker TCM (2011) Size-related inbreeding preference and competitiveness in male Pelvicachromis taeniatus (Cichlidae). Behav Ecol 22: 358-362.
43. Thünken T, Meuthen D, Bakker TCM, Baldauf SA (2012) A sex-specific trade-off between mating preferences for genetic compatibility and body size in a cichlid fish with mutual mate choice. Proc R Soc Lond B 279: 2959-2964.
44. Thünken T, Meuthen D, Bakker TCM, Kullmann H (2010) Parental investment in relation to offspring quality in the biparental cichlid fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus. Anim Behav 80: 69-74.
45. Thünken T, Waltschyk N, Bakker TCM, Kullmann H (2009) Olfactory self-recognition in a cichlid fish. Anim Cogn 12: 717-724.
46. Wagner WE (1998) Measuring female mating preferences. Anim Behav 55: 1029-1042.
47. Widemo F, Saether SA (1999) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14: 26-31.