Mate choice copying in two species of darters (Percidae: Etheostoma)

in Behaviour
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


Mate choice copying is a form of social learning that is defined as the increased likelihood of an individual choosing a particular mate after observing another individual choosing that mate. Mate choice copying has been demonstrated in a range of taxonomic groups, but not usually for both sexes. Mate choice copying experiments were performed here using two congeneric sympatric darters, Etheostoma flabellare and E. zonale. In E. flabellare, males guard a nest site under a rock and care for developing eggs. In E. zonale, eggs are attached to filamentous green algae and neither sex provides parental care. Our results provide the first evidence that mate choice copying occurs in darters. Previously it was hypothesised that copying might be more common in species and sexes that provide parental care, the reasoning being that the costs of choosing poorly may be higher. However, mate choice copying was found in both sexes of E. zonale (no parental care) and in male but not female E. flabellare (male only parental care). Thus, the only group that did not mate choice copy was the one whose mate would be providing care, and even E. flabellare females copy the mate choice of other females by some definitions. The relationship, if any, between which sex provides parental care and whether copying occurs remains unclear, and the number of species for which such data are available is limited.

Mate choice copying in two species of darters (Percidae: Etheostoma)

in Behaviour



AlhoJ.S.TeplitskyC.MillsJ.A.YarrallJ.W.MerilaJ. (2012). No evidence for inbreeding avoidance through active mate choice in red-billed gulls. — Behav. Ecol. 23: 672-675.

AlonzoS.H. (2008). Female mate choice copying affects sexual selection in wild populations of the ocellated wrasse. — Anim. Behav. 75: 1715-1723.

AmundsenT. (2003). Fishes as models in studies of sexual selection and parental care. — J. Fish. Biol. 63: 17-52.

BierbachD.KronmarckC.Hennige-SchulzC.StadlerS.PlathM. (2011). Sperm competition risk affects male mate choice copying. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65: 1699-1707.

BolkerB.M.BrooksM.E.ClarkC.J.GeangeS.W.PoulsenJ.R.StevensM.H.H.WhiteJ.S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. — Trends Evol. Ecol. 24: 127-135.

BonnieK.E.EarleyR.L. (2007). Expanding the scope for social information use. — Anim. Behav. 74: 171-181.

ConstantzG.D. (1985). Allopaternal care in the tessellated darter, Etheostoma olmstedi (Pisces: Percidae). — Environ. Biol. Fish. 14: 175-183.

DosenL.D.MontgomerieR. (2004). Female size influences mate preferences of male guppies. — Ethology 110: 245-255.

DugatkinL.A. (1992). Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. — Am. Nat. 139: 1384-1389.

DugatkinL.A. (1996). The interface between culturally-based preferences and genetic preferences: female mate choice in Poecilia reticulata. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 2770-2773.

DugatkinL.A. (1998). Genes, copying, and female mate choice: shifting thresholds. — Behav. Ecol. 9: 323-327.

DugatkinL.A. (2005). Mistakes and the evolution of copying. — Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 17: 327-333.

EensM.PinxtenR. (2000). Sex-role reversal in vertebrates: behavioural and endocrinological accounts. — Behav. Process. 51: 135-147.

FisherR.A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. — Oxford University PressOxford.

ForsgrenE.KarlssonA.KvarnemoC. (1996). Female sand gobies gain direct benefits by choosing males with eggs in their nests. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 39: 91-96.

Fowler-FinnK.D.HebetsE.A. (2011). More ornamented males exhibit increased predation risk and antipredatory escapes, but not greater mortality. — Ethology 117: 102-114.

FrommenJ.G.RahnA.K.SchrothS.H.WaltschykN.BakkerT.C.M. (2009). Mate-choice copying when both sexes face high costs of reproduction. — Evol. Ecol. 23: 435-446.

FullerR.C. (2003). Disentangling female mate choice and male competition in the rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum. — Copeia 2003: 138-148.

GalefB.G. (2008). Social influences on the mate choices of male and female Japanese quail. — Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 3: 1-12.

GoldschmidtT.BakkerT.C.M.Feuth-De BruijnE. (1993). Selective copying in mate choice of female sticklebacks. — Anim. Behav. 45: 541-547.

GoncalvesD.M.OliveiraR.F. (2003). Time spent close to a sexual partner as a measure of female mate preference in a sex-role-reversed population of the blenny Salaria pavo (Risso) (Pisces: Blenniidae). — Acta Ethol. 6: 1-5.

GouletD.GouletT.L. (2006). Nonindependent mating in a coral reef damselfish: evidence of mate choice copying in the wild. — Behav. Ecol. 17: 998-1003.

GummJ.M.MendelsonT.C. (2011). The evolution of multi-component visual signals in darters (genus Etheostoma). — Curr. Zool. 57: 125-139.

GummJ.M.FellerK.D.MendelsonT.C. (2011). Spectral characteristics of male nuptial coloration in darters (Etheostoma). — Copeia 2011: 31-326.

HoysakD.J.GodinJ.-G.J. (2007). Repeatability of male mate choice in the mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki. — Ethology 113: 1007-1018.

JamiesonI.G.ColganP.W. (1989). Eggs in the nests of males and their effect on mate choice in the three-spined stickleback. — Anim. Behav. 38: 859-865.

JonesA.G.RattermanN.L. (2009). Mate choice and sexual selection: what have we learned since Darwin?Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(Suppl.): 10001-10008.

KokkoH.JohnstoneR.A. (2002). Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles, and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 357: 319-330.

KnappR.A.SargentR.C. (1989). Egg-mimicry as a mating strategy in the fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare: females prefer males with eggs. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 25: 321-326.

KraakS.B.M.GroothuisT.G.G. (1994). Female preference for nests with eggs is based on the presence of the eggs themselves. — Behaviour 131: 189-206.

LalandK.N.AttonN.WebsterM.M. (2011). From fish to fashion: experimental and theoretical insights into the evolution of culture. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 366: 958-968.

LandeR. (1981). Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 3721-3725.

LeeY.NelderJ.A.PawitanY. (2006). Generalised linear models with random effects: unified analysis via h-likelihood. — Chapman & Hall/CRCLondon.

LillA. (1974). Sexual Behaviour of the lek-forming white-bearded manakin (Manacus manacus trinitatis Hartert). — Z. Tierpsychol. 36: 1-36.

McCullaghP.NelderJ.A. (1989). Generalized linear models2nd edn.Chapman & HallLondon.

MendelsonT.C. (2003). Sexual isolation evolves faster than hybrid inviability in a diverse and sexually dimorphic genus of fish (Percidae: Etheostoma). — Evolution 57: 317-327.

MoretzJ.A.RogersW. (2004). An ethological analysis of breeding behavior of the fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare. — Am. Midl. Nat. 152: 140-144.

MyersR.H.MontgomeryD.C.ViningG.G.RobinsonT.J. (2010). Generalized linear models with applications in engineering and science. — WileyNew York, NY p.  496.

O’RourkeC.F.MendelsonT.C. (2010). Male and female preference for conspecifics in a fish with male parental care (Percidae: Catonotus). — Behav. Process. 85: 157-162.

PageL.M.BurrB.M. (2011). A field guide to the freshwater fishes of North America North of Mexico. — Houghton-MifflinBoston, MA.

PageL.M.SwoffordD.L. (1984). Morphological correlates of ecological specialization in darters. — Environ. Biol. Fish. 11: 139-159.

Patriquin-MeldrumK.J.GodinJ.G.J. (1998). Do female three-spined sticklebacks copy the mate choice of others?Am. Nat. 151: 570-577.

PlathM.MakowiczA.M.SchluppI.TobleraM. (2007). Sexual harassment in live-bearing fishes (Poeciliidae): comparing courting and noncourting species. — Behav. Ecol. 18: 680-688.

PomiankowskiA. (1987). The costs of choice in sexual selection. — J. Theor. Biol. 128: 195-218.

Pruett-JonesS.G. (1992). Independent versus non-independent mate choice: do females copy each other?Am. Nat. 140: 1000-1009.

RidleyM.RechtenC. (1981). Female sticklebacks prefer to spawn with males whose nests contain eggs. — Behaviour 76: 152-161.

RungR.C.PescitelliS.M. (2004). Biological surveys of Big Rock Creek and tributaries: August 2002 and July 2003. — Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Region II Streams OfficeBartlett, IL.

SchluppI.RyanM.J. (1997). Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males. — Behav. Ecol. 8: 104-107.

StiverK.A.AlonzoS.H. (2010). Large males have a mating advantage in a species of darter with smaller, allopaternal males Etheostoma olmstedi. — Curr. Zool. 56: 1-5.

StiverK.A.AlonzoS.H. (2011). Alloparental care increases mating success. — Behav. Ecol. 22: 206-211.

Swanbrow BeckerL.J.GaborC.R. (2012). Effects of turbidity and visual vs. chemical cues on anti-predator response in the endangered fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola). — Ethology 118: 994-1000.

TriversR.L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. — In: Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 ( CampbellB. ed.). Aldine PressChicago, IL p.  136-179.

VakirtzisA. (2011). Mate choice copying and nonindependent mate choice: a critical review. — Ann. Zool. Fennici 48: 91-107.

WatsonK.K.GhodasraJ.FurlongM.A.PlattM.L. (2012). Visual preferences for sex and status in female rhesus macaques. — Anim. Cogn. 15: 401-407.

WebbP.W. (1980). Does schooling reduce fast-start response latencies in teleosts?Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 65A: 231-234.

WestneatD.F.WaltersA.McCarthyT.M.HatchM.I.HeinW.K. (2000). Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. — Anim. Behav. 59: 467-476.

WidemoM.S. (2006). Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. — Behav. Ecol. 17: 255-259.

WileyR.H. (1973). Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus. — Anim. Behav. Monogr. 6: 87-169.

WilliamsT.H.MendelsonT.C. (2010). Behavioural isolation based on visual signals in a sympatric pair of darter species. — Ethology 116: 1038-1049.

WilliamsT.H.MendelsonT.C. (2011). Female preference for male coloration may explain behavioural isolation in sympatric darters. — Anim. Behav. 82: 683-689.

WinnH.E. (1958). Observation on the reproductive habits of darters (Pisces-Percidae). — Am. Midl. Nat. 59: 190-212.

WitteK. (2006). Learning and mate choice. — In: Fish cognition and behaviour ( BrownC.LalandK.KrauseJ. eds). BlackwellOxford p.  70-95.

WitteK.MassmanR. (2003). Female sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna, remember males and copy the choice of others after 1 day. — Anim. Behav. 65: 1151-1159.

WitteK.RyanM.J. (1998). Male body length influences mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna. — Behav. Ecol. 9: 534-539.

ZollerC. (1999). Fooling fish with light. — Am. Curr. 25: 9-11.


  • View in gallery

    Experimental aquaria (shown for female experiment). (a) During test for both pre- and post-treatment. (b) During exposure treatment. Solid lines indicate opaque partition and dotted lines represent transparent plexiglass partitions. Light dashed lines represent association zones. Each compartment was sealed off from the other compartments, limiting fish to receiving only visual signals from other fish. Originally non-preferred male.

  • View in gallery

    Female E. zonale preferences pre- and post-treatment. Compared to pre-treatment (before stimulus), in the post-treatment (after stimulus) focal females spent significantly more relative time next to the male that had been shown next to the stimulus females.

  • View in gallery

    Male E. zonale preferences pre- and post-treatment. Compared to pre-treatment (before stimulus), in the post-treatment (after stimulus) focal males spent significantly more relative time next to the female that had been shown next to the stimulus males.

  • View in gallery

    Female E. flabellare preferences pre- and post-treatment. Compared to pre-treatment (before stimulus), in the post-treatment (after stimulus) focal females did not significantly increase time spent next to the male that had been shown next to the stimulus females.

  • View in gallery

    Male E. flabellare preferences pre- and post-treatment. Compared to pre-treatment (before stimulus), in the post-treatment (after stimulus) focal males spent significantly more time next to the female that had been shown next to the stimulus males.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 14 14 11
Full Text Views 10 10 8
PDF Downloads 3 3 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0