Habitat alteration influences male signalling effort in the Australian desert goby

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 1164-1169

  Michelangeli, Marcus ^a   Tuomainen, Ulla ^a,b   Candolin, Ulrika ^b   Wong, Bob B M ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Anthropogenic change; Courtship; Mate choice; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; COURTSHIP; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; INVASIVE SPECIES; PERCIFORM; PRIMARY PRODUCTION; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SIGNALING;

AUSTRALIA;

ALGAE; CALLOGOBIUS ATRATUS; GOBIIDAE; TYPHA;

EID: 84941649886     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arv060     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allen GR, Midgley SH, Allen M. 2002. Field guide to freshwater fishes of Australia. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.
2. Anderson O. 1984. Optimal foraging by largemouth bass in structured environments. Ecology. 65:851-861.
3. Candolin U. 1997. Predation risk affects courtship and attractiveness of competing threespine stickleback males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 41:81-87.
4. Candolin U. 2004. Effects of algae cover on egg acquisition in male threespined stickleback. Behaviour. 141:1389-1399.
5. Candolin U. 2009. Population responses to anthropogenic disturbance: lessons from three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus, in eutrophic habitats. J Fish Biol. 75:2108-2121.
6. Candolin U, Salesto T, Evers M. 2007. Changed environmental conditions weaken sexual selection in sticklebacks. J Evol Biol. 20:233-239.
7. Candolin U, Voigt HR. 1998. Predator-induced nest site preference: safe nests allow courtship in sticklebacks. Anim Behav. 56:1205-1211.
8. Candolin U, Wong BBM. 2012. Behavioural responses to a changing world: mechanisms and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Chapman BB, Morrell L, Krause J. 2009. Plasticity in male courtship behaviour as a function of light intensity in guppies. Behav Ecol Sociol. 63:1757-1763.
10. Davis J, Pavlova A, Thompson R, Sunnucks P. 2013. Evolutionary refugia and ecological refuges: key concepts for conserving Australian arid zone freshwater biodiversity under climate change. Glob Chang Biol. 19:1970-1984.
11. Dugas MB, Franssen NR. 2011. Nuptial coloration of red shiners (Cyprinella lutrensis) is more intense in turbid habitats. Naturwissenschaften. 98:247-251.
12. Eaton L, Sloman K. 2011. Subordinate brown trout exaggerate social signalling in turbid conditions. Anim Behav. 81:603-608
13. Endler JA. 1987. Predation, light intensity and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav. 35:1376-1385.
14. Endler JA. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat. 139:S125-S153.
15. Engström-Öst J, Candolin U. 2007. Human-induced water turbidity alters selection on sexual displays in sticklebacks. Behav Ecol. 18:393-398.
16. Godin JGJ, McDonough HE. 2003. Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: A viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol. 14:194-200.
17. Head ML, Wong BB, Brooks R. 2010. Sexual display and mate choice in an energetically costly environment. PLoS One. 5:e15279.
18. Heubel K, Schlupp I. 2006. Turbidity affects association behaviour in male Poecilia latipinna. J Fish Biol. 68:555-568.
19. Heuschele J, Mannerla M, Gienapp P, Candolin U. 2009. Environmentdependent use of mate choice cues in sticklebacks. Behav Ecol. 20:1223-1227.
20. Hoefler CD, Persons MH, Rypstra AL. 2008. Evolutionarily costly courtship displays in a wolf spider: A test of viability indicator theory. Behav Ecol. 19:974-979.
21. Hougaard P. 2000. Analysis of multivariate survival data. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
22. Husak JF, Macedonia JM, Fox SF, Sauceda RC. 2006. Predation cost of conspicuous male coloration in collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris): An experimental test using clay-covered model lizards. Ethology. 112:572-580.
23. Järvenpää M, Lindström K. 2004. Water turbidity by algal blooms causes mating system breakdown in a shallow-water fish, the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus. Proc Biol Sci. 271:2361-2365.
24. Kodric-Brown A, Wilcox C, Bragg JG, Brown JH. 2007. Dynamics of fish in Australian desert springs: Role of large-mammal disturbance. Divers Distrib. 13:789-798.
25. Kraak SB, Bakker, TC, Mundwiler B. 1999. Sexual selection in sticklebacks in the field: correlates of reproductive, mating, and paternal success. Behav Ecol. 10:696-706.
26. Lengagne T. 2008. Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Biol Cons. 141:2023-2031.
27. Long K, Rosenqvist G. 1998. Changes in male guppy courting distance in response to a fluctuating light environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 44:77-83.
28. Lucas SD, Jones DL. 2009. Urine enhances the leaching and persistence of estrogens in soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 41:236-242.
29. Michelangeli M, Wong BBM. 2014. A recent predatory encounter influences male courtship in a desert-dwelling fish. Behav Ecol. 25:928-932.
30. Moyaho A, Garcia C, Ávila-Luna E. 2004. Mate choice and visibility in the expression of a sexually dimorphic trait in a goodeid fish (Xenotoca variatus). Can J Zool. 82:1917-1922.
31. Olsson KH, Kvarnemo C, Svensson O. 2009. Relative costs of courtship behaviours in nest-building sand gobies. Anim Behav. 77:541-546.
32. Pentecost A. 1984. Introduction to freshwater algae. Surrey: Richmond Publishing.
33. R Development Core Team. 2010. R version 2. 9. 1. Vienna: Foundation of Statistical Computing.
34. Rodewald AD, Shustack DP, Jones TM. 2011. Dynamic selective environments and evolutionary traps in human-dominated landscapes. Ecology. 92:1781-1788.
35. Seehausen O, Alphen J, Witte F. 1997. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science. 277:1808-1811.
36. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M. 2003. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267.
37. Stuart-Fox DM, Moussalli A, Marshall NJ, Owens IP. 2003. Conspicuous males suffer higher predation risk: visual modelling and experimental evidence from lizards. Anim Behav. 66:541-550.
38. Sundin J, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. 2010. Turbidity hampers mate choice in a pipefish. Ethology. 116:713-721.
39. Svensson PA, Lehtonen, TK, Wong BBM. 2010. The interval between sexual encounters affects male courtship tactics in a desert-dwelling fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64:1967-1970.
40. Symons N, Svensson PA, Wong BB. 2011. Do male desert gobies compromise offspring care to attract additional mating opportunities? PLoS One. 6:e20576.
41. Tuomainen U, Candolin U. 2011. Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biol Rev. 86:640-657.
42. Utne-Palm A. 2002. Visual feeding of fish in a turbid environment: physical and behavioural aspects. Mar Freshwater Behav Physiol. 35:111-128.
43. Wilgers D, Hebets E. 2011. Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments. Curr Zool. 57:175-186.
44. Wong BBM, Candolin U. 2014. Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behav Ecol. Advance Access published October 15, 2014doi: 10. 1093/beheco/aru183
45. Wong BB, Candolin U, Lindström K. 2007. Environmental deterioration compromises socially enforced signals of male quality in three-spined sticklebacks. Am Nat. 170:184-189.
46. Wong BBM, Svensson PA. 2009. Strategic male signalling effort in a desertdwelling fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 63:543-549.
47. Woods WA Jr, Hendrickson H, Mason J, Lewis SM. 2007. Energy and predation costs of firefly courtship signals. Am Nat. 170:702-708.