EAVESDROPPING AND MATE CHOICE IN FEMALE FIGHTING FISH

Despite the fact that most communication occurs in the context of networks of several individuals, the consequences of considering communication as a network on individuals' capacity for gathering information on congeners has been little investigated. Eavesdropping is the behaviour of a receiver extracting information from an interaction in which it is taking no part. Due to the fact that signals used in aggressive interactions are assumed to be reliable, eavesdropping could be an effective way of evaluating the quality of potential mates. We conducted two experiments designed to discover if female fighting fish (Betta splendens) monitor aggressive interactions between two males and if information gained by eavesdropping is used in the initial stages of subsequent mate choice. We found that females that had seen the interaction visited the winner first more often and spent significantly more time near, looking at and displaying to the winner of the interaction. By contrast females that had not seen the interaction visited the loser first more often and did not behave significantly differently to winner and loser. Overall these results are consistent with the idea that in the initial stages of mate choice females eavesdrop, i.e. use information gathered from male-male displays.

[1]  R. Wagner,et al.  Condition-dependent control of paternity by female purple martins: implications for coloniality , 1996, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[2]  R. Meldola.  Sexual Selection , 1871, Nature.

[3]  Alberto Leon-Garcia,et al.  Communication Networks , 2000 .

[4]  C. Evans.  Display vigour and subsequent fight performance in the siamese fighting fish, betta splendens , 1985, Behavioural Processes.

[5]  M. Milinski,et al.  Costs influences sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus , 1992, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  C. M. Robertson.  Aspects of Sexual Discrimination By Female Siamese Fighting Fish (Bet Ta Splendens Regan) , 1979 .

[7]  P. Trail.  Courtship Disruption Modifies Mate Choice in a Lek-Breeding Bird , 1985, Science.

[8]  P. Nicoletto,et al.  Consensus among females in their choice of males in the guppy Poecilia reticulata , 1996, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[9]  A. Kodric‐Brown.  Determinants of male reproductive success in pupfish (Cyprinodon pecosensis) , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  C. Wiklund,et al.  Mating system evolution in response to search costs in the speckled wood butterfly, Pararge aegeria , 1999, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[11]  D. Kroodsma,et al.  Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .

[12]  A. Møller,et al.  Paternity and Multiple Signaling: Effects of a Secondary Sexual Character and Song on Paternity in the Barn Swallow , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[13]  M. Naguib,et al.  Effects of dyadic vocal interactions on other conspecific receivers in nightingales , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  G. Turner.  Teleost mating behaviour , 1993 .

[15]  Manfred Milinski,et al.  Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males , 1990, Nature.

[16]  M. Simpson.  The Display of the Siamese Fighting Fish, Betta splendens , 1968 .

[17]  B. L. Le Boeuf,et al.  Female Incitation of Male Competition: A Mechanism in Sexual Selection , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[18]  P. Sikkel.  Competitor intrusions and mate-search tactics in a territorial marine fish , 1998 .

[19]  P. Sale,et al.  Sexual Discrimination in the Siamese Fighting Fish (Betta Splendens Regan) , 1975 .

[20]  Ken Otter,et al.  Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? A field study using interactive song playback , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  A. Pilastro,et al.  Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility , 1996 .

[22]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  E. Danchin,et al.  The evolution of coloniality: the emergence of new perspectives. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[24]  R. Poulin.  Mate choice decisions by parasitized female upland bullies, Gobiomorphus breviceps , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  Know thine enemy : ® ghting ® sh gather information from observing conspeci ® c interactions , 1998 .

[26]  P. K. McGregor,et al.  Communication networks: social environments for receiving and signalling behaviour , 2000, acta ethologica.

[27]  R. Gibson,et al.  How do animals choose their mates? , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[28]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens , 2001 .

[29]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Signalling in Territorial Systems: A Context for Individual Identification, Ranging and Eavesdropping , 1993 .