Effect of male aggressivity profile on female chemical choice in Nile tilapia
Selection favors females that make use of reliable information on the genetic quality of males, which affects mating decisions. Although studies have shown that females prefer dominant males, it may not be adaptive for females to choose very aggressive males, as aggression can be misdirected towards females. The Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus is an appropriate model species for testing this dilemma because it shows dominance hierarchy, in which dominant males defend territories, build nests, court females and have priority of access to mating. In addition, in this species, odor recognition affects sexual and social status. We tested whether females can select, by means of chemical cues, dominant males with aggressive profiles. Females were allowed to choose between the odors of two dominant males differing in their aggression level. Our findings show that females discriminate dominant males that have a high aggressivity profile in favor of males that are less aggressive.
KeywordsAggression Dominance Mate choice Chemical cues Sexual selection Fish
We thank Dr. Assaf Barki for improving the manuscript. This study was supported by a grant to Marina B. de Sá from the Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa Estado de Sao Paulo—FAPESP (2012/06565-7).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors involved in this study declare no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This study is in agreement with the precepts of the Brazilian College for Animal Experimentation (protocol no. 484) (http://www.cobea.org.br). This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2002) Molecular biology of the cell, 4th edn. In: Cells and genomes. Garland Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
- Beeching SC (1995) Colour pattern and inhibition of aggression in the cichlid fish Astronotus ocellatus. J Fish Biol 47:50–58Google Scholar
- Carvalho TB, Gonçalves-de-Freitas E (2008) Sex group composition, social interaction, and metabolism in the fish Nile tilapia. Braz J Biol 68:1678–4375Google Scholar
- Dugatkin LA, Druen M (2004) The social implications of winner and loser effects. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:488–489Google Scholar
- Dugatkin LA, FitzGerald GJ (1997) Sexual selection. In: Godin GJ (ed) Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Falter U (1983) Agonistic behavior of Sarotherodon niloticus and the evolutionary significance of buccal incubation. Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. Classe des Sciences. Bulletin 69(10):566–594Google Scholar
- Goldstein JS (2001) War and gender: how gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Halliday TR (1994) Sex and evolution. In: Slater PJB, Halliday TR (eds) Behaviour and evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Johnstone RA (1998) Game theory and communication. In: Dugatkin LA, Reeve HK (eds) Game theory and animal behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kutsyna O, Velez Z, Canário AV, Keller-Costa T, Hubbard PC (2016) Variation in urinary amino acids in the Mozambique tilapia: a potential signal of dominance or individuality? In: Schulte B, Goodwin T, Ferkin M (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates 13. Springer, Cham, pp 189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Le Boeuf BJ, Mesnick S (1990) Sexual behaviour of male northern elephant seals. I. Lethal injuries to adult females. Behaviour 116:1–2Google Scholar
- Magurran AE (2011) Sexual coersion. In: Evans J, Pilastro A, Schlupp I (eds) Ecology and evolution of poeciliid fishes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 209–217Google Scholar
- McGregor P, Doutreland C (2000) Eavesdroping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 137:12Google Scholar
- Tinbergen N (1972) Social behaviour in animals. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Volpato GL, Fernandes MO (1994) Social control of growth in fish. Braz J Med Biol Res 7:797–810Google Scholar