Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T21:34:59.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Communication and the evolution of alternative reproductive tactics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2009

By
David M. Gonçalves ,
Rui F. Oliveira  and
Peter K. McGregor
Edited by
Rui F. Oliveira ,
Michael Taborsky  and
H. Jane Brockmann
David M. Gonçalves
Affiliation:
Unidade de Investigação em Eco-Etologia Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada Rua Jardim do Tabaco 34 1149–041 Lisboa Portugal
Rui F. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Unidade de Investigação em Eco-Etologia Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada Rua Jardim do Tabaco 34 1149–041 Lisboa Portugal
Peter K. McGregor
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Behaviour Zoological Institute Copenhagen University Tagensvej 16 DK 2200, Copenhagen N Denmark
Rui F. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Instituto Superior Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon
Michael Taborsky
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
H. Jane Brockmann
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter, concepts derived from communication network theory are applied to the understanding of the evolution of signals in species with alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs). These species are particularly interesting to consider from the perspective of communicating in a network because the signaling and receiving behavior of different reproductive phenotypes can be expected to be subject to diverse selection pressures. We begin by briefly introducing ARTs and communication networks. Then the consequences of communicating in a network are considered from the perspective of the several reproductive phenotypes occurring in species with ARTs, both as signalers and receivers. Finally, the evolutionary outcome of conflict and cooperation between these reproductive phenotypes is predicted in an integrative approach, and new directions are proposed to test some of the hypotheses derived.

INTRODUCTION

Alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs) is the term used to refer to variation in mating behavior found within a species. As the topic is the subject of this book, we will only briefly introduce ARTs in relation to signaling. More detailed information on ARTs can be found in several chapters in this book and recent reviews (e.g., Brockmann 2001, Shuster and Wade 2003).

For simplicity, we have only considered male ARTs. This choice reflects the facts that male ARTs are more common than female ARTs (but see Alonzo, Chapter 18, this volume) and that many more examples of male ARTs have been described. Nevertheless, the ideas presented here extend directly to female ARTs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Alternative Reproductive Tactics
An Integrative Approach
 , pp. 401 - 420
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almada, V. C., Gonçalves, E. J., Oliveira, R. F., and Santos, E. J. 1995. Courting females: ecological constraints affect sex roles in a natural population of the blenniid fish Salaria pavo. Animal Behaviour 49, 1125–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, S. H. and Warner, R. R. 1999. A trade-off generated by sexual conflict: Mediterranean wrasse males refuse present mates to increase future success. Behavioral Ecology 10, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, S. H. and Warner, R. R. 2000. Dynamic games and field experiments examining intra- and intersexual conflict: explaining counterintuitive mating behavior in a Mediterranean wrasse, Symphodus ocellatus. Behavioral Ecology 11, 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balshine-Earn, S., Neat, F., Reid, H., and Taborsky, M. 1998. Paying to stay or paying to breed? Field evidence for direct benefits of helping in a cooperatively breeding fish. Behavioral Ecology 9, 432–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, A. H. and McKibben, J. R. 2003. Neural mechanisms and behaviors for acoustic communication in teleost fish. Progress in Neurobiology 69, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergmüller, R. and Taborsky, M. 2005. Experimental manipulation of helping in a cooperative breeder: helpers “pay to stay” by pre-emptive appeasement. Animal Behaviour 69, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmüller, R., Heg, D., and Taborsky, M. 2005. Helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid stay and pay or disperse and breed, depending on ecological constraints. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkhead, T. R. and Möller, A. P. 1992. Sperm Competition in Birds: Evolutionary Causes and Consequences. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brantley, R. K. and Bass, A. H. 1994. Alternative male spawning tactics and acoustic signals in the plainfin midshipman fish Porichthys notatus Girard (Teleostei, Batrachoididae). Ethology 96, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockmann, H. J. 2001. The evolution of alternative strategies and tactics. Advances in the Study of Behavior 30, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, L., Heg, D., and Taborsky, M. 2005. Experimental evidence for helper effects in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behavioral Ecology 16, 667–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Brotherton, P. N. M., Russell, A. F., et al. 2001. Cooperation, control, and concession in meerkat groups. Science 291, 478–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, C. R. and Boeuf, J. B. 1977. Female incitation of male–male competition: a mechanism in sexual selection. American Naturalist 111, 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B., Hartley, I. R., Hatchwell, B. J., and Langmore, N. E. 1996. Female control of copulations to maximize male help: a comparison of polygynandrous alpine accentors, Prunella collaris, and dunnocks, P. modularis. Animal Behaviour 51, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. and Krebs, J. R. 1978. Animal signals: information or manipulation? In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds.) Behavioural Ecology, pp. 282–304. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Dierkes, P., Taborsky, M., and Kohler, U. 1999. Reproductive parasitism of broodcare helpers in a cooperatively breeding fish. Behavioral Ecology 10, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominey, W. J. 1981. Maintenance of female mimicry as a reproductive strategy in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Environmental Biology of Fishes 6, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donelson, N. C. and Staaden, M. J. 2005. Alternate tactics in male bladder grasshoppers Bullacris membracioides (Orthoptera: Pneumoridae). Behaviour 142, 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutrelant, C., McGregor, P. K., and Oliveira, R. F. 2001. The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behavioral Ecology 12, 283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugatkin, L. A. and Godin, J. G. 1992. Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 249, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzieweczynski, T. L., Earley, R. L., Green, T. M., and Rowland, W. J. 2005. Audience effect is context dependent in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behavioral Ecology 16, 1025–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emlen, S. T., Reeve, H. K., and Keller, L. 1998. Reproductive skew: disentangling concessions from control. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 458–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endler, J. A. 1977. Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34, 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1978. A predator's eye view of animal colors. Evolutionary Biology 11, 319–364.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1980. Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 34, 76–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endler, J. A. 1987. Predation, light intensity and courtship behaviour in Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Animal Behaviour 35, 1376–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. S. and Marler, P. 1984. Food calling and audience effects in male chickens, Gallus gallus: their relationships to food availability, courtship and social facilitation. Animal Behaviour 47, 1159–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishelson, L. 1963. Observation on littoral fishes of Israel. 1. Behaviour of Blennius pavo Risso (Teleostei: Blenniidae). Israel Journal of Zoology 12, 67–80.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. and Berglund, A. 1996. Behavioral responses of a sex-role reversed pipefish to a gradient of perceived predation risk. Behavioral Ecology 7, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garant, D., Fontaine, P.-M., Good, S. P., Dodson, J. J., and Bernatchez, L. 2002. Influence of male parental identity on growth and survival of offspring in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Evolutionary Ecology Research 4, 537–549.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, D., Simões, P. C., Chumbinho, A. C., et al. 2002. Fluctuating asymmetries and reproductive success in the peacock blenny. Journal of Fish Biology 60, 810–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, D., Fagundes, T., and Oliveira, R. F. 2003a. Field reproductive behaviour of sneaker males of the peacock blenny. Journal of Fish Biology 63, 528–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, D., Oliveira, R. F., Körner, K., and Schlupp, I. 2003b. Intersexual copying by sneaker males of the peacock blenny. Animal Behaviour 65, 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, D., Matos, M., Fagundes, T., and Oliveira, R. F. 2005. Bourgeois males of the peacock blenny, Salaria pavo, discriminate females from female-mimicking males. Ethology 111, 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, E. J., Almada, V. C., Oliveira, R. F., and Santos, A. J. 1996. Female mimicry as a mating tactic in males of the blenniid fish Salaria pavo. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 76, 529–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. R. 1991. Evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: frequency-dependent selection in male bluegill sunfish. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 332, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. R. and Charnov, E. L. 1980. Alternative male life histories in bluegill sunfish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 77, 6937–6940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gyger, M., Karakashian, S. J., and Marler, P. 1986. Avian alarm calling: is there an audience effect?Animal Behaviour 34, 1570–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, T. J. and Bailey, W. J. 2003. Eavesdropping and defensive auditory masking in an Australian bushcricket, Caedicia (Phaneropterinae: Tettigoniidae: Orthoptera). Behaviour 140, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, I. R. and Davies, N. B. 1994. Limits to cooperative polyandry in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 257, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchwell, B. J., Ross, D. J., Chaline, N., Fowlie, M. K., and Burke, T. 2002. Parentage in cooperatively breeding long-tailed tits. Animal Behaviour 64, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hector, A. C. K., Seyfarth, R. M., and Raleigh, M. 1989. Male parental care, female choice and the effect of an audience in vervet monkeys. Animal Behaviour 38, 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, S. A. and Warner, R. R. 1997. Male and female alternative reproductive behaviors in fishes: a new approach using intersexual dynamics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28, 571–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan-Warburg, A. L. 1966. Social behaviour of the ruff, Philomachus pugnax (L.). Ardea 54, 109–229.Google Scholar
Hogan-Warburg, A. L. 1993. Female choice and the evolution of mating strategies in the ruff Philomachus pugnax (L.). Ardea 80, 395–403.Google Scholar
Höglund, J. and Alatalo, R. 1995. Leks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höglund, J., Montgomerie, R., and Widemo, F. 1993. Costs and consequences of variation in the size of ruff leks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höjesjö, J., Johnsson, J. I., Petersson, E., and Järvi, T. 1998. The importance of being familiar: individual recognition and social behavior in sea trout (Salmo trutta). Behavioral Ecology 9, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugie, D. M. and Lank, D. B. 1997. The resident's dilemma: a female-choice model for the evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies in lekking male Ruffs (Philomachus pugnax). Behavioral Ecology 8, 218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. and Simmons, L. W. 2002. Confidence of paternity and paternal care: covariation revealed through the experimental manipulation of the mating system in the beetle Onthophagus taurus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15, 784–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, R. A. 2000. Conflicts of interest in signal evolution. In Espmark, Y., Amundsen, T., and Rosenqvist, G. (eds.) Animal Signals: Signalling and Signal Design in Animal Communication, pp. 465–485. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R. A. 2001. Eavesdropping and animal conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98, 9177–9180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, R. A. and Cant, M. A. 1999. Reproductive skew and the threat of eviction: a new perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266, 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, R. A. and Grafen, A. 1992. The continuous Sir Philip Sidney game: a simple model of biological signaling. Journal of Theoretical Biology 156, 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karavanich, C. and Atema, J. 1998. Individual recognition and memory in lobster dominance. Animal Behaviour 56, 1553–1560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiflawi, M. and Gray, D. A. 2000. Size-dependent response to conspecific mating calls by male crickets. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267, 2157–2161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klump, G. M. and Gerhardt, H. C. 1987. Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray tree frogs. Nature 326, 286–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokko, H. 2003. Are reproductive skew models evolutionarily stable?Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kokko, H., Johnstone, R. A., and Wright, J. 2002. The evolution of parental and alloparental care in cooperatively breeding groups: when should helpers pay to stay?Behavioral Ecology 13, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and Dawkins, R. 1984. Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation. In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds.) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2nd edn, pp. 380–402. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Lank, D. B. and Dale, J. 2001. Visual signals for individual identification: the silent “song” of ruffs. Auk 118, 759–765.Google Scholar
Lank, D. B. and Smith, C. M. 1992. Females prefer larger leks: an experimental study with ruffs Philomachus pugnax. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 30, 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lank, D. B., Smith, C. M., Hanotte, O., Burke, T. A., and Cooke, F. 1995. Genetic polymorphism for alternative mating strategies in lekking male ruff, Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comber, C., Faulkes, C. G., Formosinho, J., and Smith, C. 2003. Response of territorial males to the threat of sneaking in the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus: a field study. Journal of Zoology (London) 261, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luyten, P. H. and Liley, N. R. 1985. Geographic variation in the sexual behaviour of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Peters). Behaviour 95, 164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. and Seghers, B. H. 1990. Risk sensitive courtship in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behaviour 112, 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marler, P. and Evans, C. 1996. Bird calls: just emotional displays or something more?Ibis 138, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, E. and Taborsky, M. 1997. Alternative male mating tactics in a cichlid, Pelvicachromis pulcher: a comparison of reproductive effort and success. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41, 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matos, R. J. and McGregor, P. K 2002. The effect of the sex of an audience on male–male displays of siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). Behaviour 139, 1211–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matos, R. J. and Schlupp, I. 2005. Performing in front of an audience: signalers and the social environment. In McGregor, P. K. (ed.) Animal Communication Networks, pp. 63–83. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matos, R. J., Peake, T. M., and McGregor, P. K. 2003. Timing of presentation of an audience: aggressive priming and audience effects in male displays of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). Behavioural Processes 28, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. 1991. Honest signalling: the Philip Sydney game. Animal Behaviour 42, 1034–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, P. K. 1993. Signalling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification, ranging and eavesdropping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 340, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, P. K. and Dabelsteen, T. 1996. Communication networks. In Kroodsma, D. E. and Miller, E. H. (eds.) Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds, pp. 409–425. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, P. K. and Peake, T. M. 2000. Communication networks: social environments for receiving and signaling behaviour. Acta Ethologica 2, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKibben, J. R. and Bass, A. H. 1998. Behavioral assessment of acoustic parameters relevant to signal recognition and preference in a vocal fish. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 104, 3520–3533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeot, F. and Bretagnolle, V. V. 2000. Predation as a cost of sexual communication in nocturnal seabirds: an experimental approach using acoustic signals. Animal Behaviour 60, 647–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, B. D. 2004. Increased performance of offspring sired by parasitic males in bluegill sunfish. Behavioral Ecology 15, 327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, R. F., McGregor, P. K., and Latruffe, C. 1998. Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265, 1045–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, M. 1994. Rival recognition affects male contest behavior in sand lizards (Lacerta agilis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 35, 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzner, R. A., Seiwald, M., Adlgasser, M., and Kaurin, G. 1986. The reproduction of Blennius pavo. 5. Reproductive behaviour in the natural environment. Zoologisches Anzeiger 216, 338–350.Google Scholar
Peake, T. M. 2005. Eavesdropping in communication networks. In McGregor, P. K. (ed.) Animal Communication Networks, pp. 13–37. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, T., Rutte, C., Killingback, T., Taborsky, M., and Bonhoffer, S. 2005. Evolution of cooperation by generalized reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272, 1115–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeve, H. K., Emlen, S. T., and Keller, L. 1998. Reproductive sharing in animal societies: reproductive incentives or incomplete reproductive control by dominant breeders?Behavioral Ecology 9, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruchon, F., Laugier, T., and Quignard, J. P. 1995. Alternative male reproductive strategies in the peacock blenny. Journal of Fish Biology 47, 826–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. J. and Rosenthal, G. G. 2001. Variation and selection in swordtails. In Dugatkin, L. A. (ed.) Model Systems in Behavioral Ecology, pp. 133–148. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, T. 1994. Active accumulation of spawning substrate: a determinant of extreme polygyny in a shell-brooding cichlid fish. Animal Behaviour 48, 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T., Hirose, M., Taborsky, M., and Kimura, S. 2004. Size-dependent male alternative reproductive tactics in the shell-brooding cichlid fish Lamprologus callipterus in Lake Tanganyika. Ethology 110, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayigh, L. S., Tyack, P. L., Wells, R. S., et al. 1999. Individual recognition in wild bottlenose dolphins: a field test using playback experiments. Animal Behaviour 57, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shuster, S. M. and Wade, M. J. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sisneros, J. A. and Bass, A. H. 2003. Seasonal plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency sensitivity. Journal of Neuroscience 23, 1049–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sisneros, J. A., Forlano, P. M., Deitcher, F. L., and Bass, A. H. 2004. Steroid-dependent auditory plasticity leads to adaptive coupling of sender and receiver. Science 305, 404–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. and Reichard, M. 2005. Females solicit sneakers to improve fertilization success in the bitterling fish (Rhodeus sericeus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272, 1683–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborsky, M. 1994. Sneakers, satellites and helpers: parasitic and cooperative behavior in fish reproduction. Advances in the Study of Behavior 23, 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborsky, M. 1997. Bourgeois and parasitic tactics: do we need collective, functional terms for alternative reproductive behaviours?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41, 361–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborsky, M. 1998. Sperm competition in fish: “Bourgeois” males and parasitic spawning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 222–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taborsky, M. 1999. Conflict or cooperation: what determines optimal solutions to competition in fish reproduction? In Almada, V. C., Oliveira, R. F. and Gonçalves, E. J. (eds.) Behaviour and Conservation of Littoral Fishes, pp. 301–349. Lisbon: Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada.Google Scholar
Taborsky, M., Hudde, B., and Wirtz, P. 1987. Reproductive behaviour and ecology of Symphodus (Crenilabrus) ocellatus, a European wrasse with four types of male behaviour. Behaviour 102, 82–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valera, F., Hoi, H., and Krištín, A. 2003. Male shrikes punish unfaithful females. Behavioral Ecology 14, 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berghe, E. P., Wernerus, F., and Warner, R. R. 1989. Female choice and the mating cost of peripheral males. Animal Behaviour 38, 875–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhijn, J. G. 1973. Behavioral dimorphism in male ruffs Philomachus pugnax (L.). Behaviour 47, 153–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhijn, J. G. 1991. The Ruff. London: Poyser.Google Scholar
Staaden, M. J., Rieser, M., Ott, S. R., Pabst, M. A., and Romer, H. 2003. Serial hearing organs in the atympanate grasshopper Bullacris membracioides (Orthoptera, Pneumoridae). Journal of Comparative Neurology 465, 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WagnerJr., W. E. 1992. Deceptive or honest signalling of fighting ability? A test of alternative hypotheses for the function of changes in call dominant frequency by male cricket frogs. Animal Behaviour 44, 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. R. 1987. Female choice of site versus mates in a coral reef fish, Thalassoma bifasciatum. Animal Behaviour 35, 1470–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. R. 1990. Male versus female influences on mating site determination in a coral reef fish. Animal Behaviour 39, 540–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watters, J. V. 2005. Can the alternative male tactics “fighter” and “sneaker” be considered “coercer” and “co-operator” in coho salmon?Animal Behaviour 70, 1055–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, A. M., Semlitsch, R. D., and Gerhardt, H. C. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280, 1928–1930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werner, N. Y., Balshine, S., Leach, B., and Lotem, A. 2003. Helping opportunities and space segregation in cooperatively breeding cichlids. Behavioral Ecology 14, 749–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widemo, F. 1998. Alternative reproductive strategies in the ruff, Philomachus pugnax: a mixed ESS?Animal Behaviour 56, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widemo, F. and Owens, I. P. 1995. Lek size, male mating skew and the evolution of lekking. Nature 373, 148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widemo, F. and Owens, I. P. 1999. Size and stability of vertebrate leks. Animal Behaviour 58, 1217–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witte, K. and Ryan, M. J. 2002. Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna, in the wild. Animal Behaviour 63, 943–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, K. and Ueding, K. 2003. Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behavioral Ecology 14, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E. M., Gonçalves, D. M., Partridge, J. C., and Oliveira, R. F. 2004. Vision and visual variation in the peacock blenny. Journal of Fish Biology 65, 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitfield, D. P. 1987. Plumage variability, status signaling and individual recognition in avian flocks. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×