Sex and the public

References

• Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994; Princeton Princeton University Press
   Google Scholar
• Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK. Alternative mechanisms of non-independent mate choice. Anim Behav 2000; 59:467 - 476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnie KE, Earley RL. Expanding the scope for social information use. Anim Behav 2007; 74:171 - 181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earley RL. Social eavesdropping and the evolution of conditional cooperation and cheating strategies. Phil Trans R Soc B 2010; 365:2675 - 2686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause J, Ruxton GD. Living in Groups 2002; Oxford Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Valone TJ, Templeton JJ. Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 2002; 357:1549 - 1557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH. Public information: from noisy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 2004; 305:487 - 491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabelsteen T. McGregor PK. Public, private or anonymous? Facilitating and countering eavesdropping. Animal Communication Networks 2005; Cambridge Cambridge University Press 38 - 62
   Google Scholar
• Grosenick L, Clement TS, Fernald RD. Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature 2007; 445:429 - 432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valone TJ. From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2007; 62:1 - 14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druen M, Dugatkin LA. Evans J, Pilastro A, Schlupp I. Communication networks. Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) 201; Chicago University Press
   Google Scholar
• McGregor PK, Peake T. Communication networks: social environments for receiving and signaling behaviour. Acta Ethol 2000; 2:71 - 81
   Google Scholar
• Earley RL, Dugatkin LA. McGregor PK. Fighting, mating and networking: pillars of poeciliid sociality. Animal communication networks 2005; Cambridge Cambridge University Press 84 - 113
   Google Scholar
• Matos R, Schlupp I. McGregor PK. Performing in front of an audience: signallers and the social environment. Animal Communication Networks 2005; Cambridge Cambridge University Press 63 - 83
   Google Scholar
• Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP. Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol 2004; 15:1011 - 1015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peake TM. McGregor PK. Eavesdropping in communication networks. Animal Communication Networks 2005; Cambridge Cambridge University Press 13 - 37
   Google Scholar
• Fitzsimmons LP, Foote JR, Ratcliffe LM, Mennill DJ. Eavesdropping and communication networks revealed through playback and an acoustic location system. Behav Ecol 2008; 19:824 - 829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruett-Jones S. Independent versus non-independent mate-choice: do females copy each other?. Am Nat 1992; 140:1000 - 1009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugatkin LA. Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 1992; 139:1384 - 1389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordell SE, Valone TJ. Mate choice copying as public information. Ecol Letters 1998; 1:74 - 76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte K. Brown C, Laland KN, Krause J. Learning and mate choice. Fish cognition and behavior 2006; Oxford Blackwell Publishing 70 - 95
   Google Scholar
• Marler P, Dufty A, Pickert R. Vocal communication in the domestic chicken II. Is a sender sensitive to the presence and nature of a receiver?. Anim Behav 1986; 34:194 - 198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Schlupp I. Misleading mollies—the effect of an audience on the expression of mating preferences. Comm Integr Biol 2008; 1:199 - 203
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zuberbühler K. Audience effects. Curr Biol 2008; 11:189 - 190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans JP, Magurran AE. Multiple benefits of multiple mating in guppies. Proc Nat Ac Sci USA 2000; 97:10074 - 10076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becher SA, Magurran AE. Multiple mating and reproductive skew in Trinidadian guppies. Proc R Soc Lond B 2004; 271:1009 - 1014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierbach D, Kronmarck C, Hennige-Schulz C, Stadler S, Plath M. Sperm competition risk affects male mate choice copying. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2011;
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Richter S, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I. Male fish deceive competitors about mating preferences. Curr Biol 2008; 18:1138 - 1141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierbach D, Girndt A, Hamfler S, Klein M, Mücksch F, Penshorn M, et al. Male fish use prior knowledge about rivals to adjust their mate choice. Biol Lett 2011; 7:349 - 351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker TMC. The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 1999; 136:1237 - 1265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierotti MER, Knight ME, Immler S, Barson NJ, Turner GF, Seehausen O. Individual variation in male mating preferences for female coloration in a polymorphic cichlid fish. Behav Ecol 2008; 19:483 - 488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodd FH, Hughes KA, Grether GF, Baril CT. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit?. Proc R Soc Lond B 2001; 269:475 - 481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endler JA, Houde AE. Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 1995; 49:456 - 468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks R, Endler JA. Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behaviour and the consequences for sexual selection. Evolution 2001; 55:1644 - 1655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugatkin LA. Heyes CM, Galef BG Jr. Copying and mate choice. Social learning in animals: the roots of culture 1996; New York Academic Press 85 - 105
   Google Scholar
• Jennions MD, Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 1997; 72:283 - 327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 2006; 16:755 - 765
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan MJ. Krebs JR, Davies NB. Sexual selection and mate choice. Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach 1997; Fourth edition Oxford Blackwell 179 - 202
   Google Scholar
• Houde AE. Sex, Color and Mate Choice in Guppies 1997; Princeton, New Jersey Princeton University Press
   Google Scholar
• Clutton-Brock TH, McAuliffe K. Female mate choice in mammals. Quat Rev Biol 2009; 84:1 - 27
   Google Scholar
• Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 2001; 76:305 - 339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sæthers SA, Fiske P, Kalas JA. Male mate choice, sexual conflict and strategic allocation of copulations in a lekking bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 2001; 268:2097 - 2102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong BBM, Jennions MD, Keogh JS. Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil signifer. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2004; 56:253 - 256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Seggel U, Burmeister H, Heubel KU, Schlupp I. Choosy males from the underground: male mate choice in surface- and cave dwelling Atlantic mollies, Poecilia mexicana (Poeciliidae, Teleostei). Naturwissenschaften 2006; 93:103 - 109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Kromuszczynski K, Tiedemann R. Audience effect alters male but not female mating preferences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2009; 63:381 - 390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milinski M, Bakker TCM. Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 1992; 250:229 - 233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bro-Jørgensen J. Reversed sexual conflict in a promiscuous antelope. Curr Biol 2007; 17:2157 - 2161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokko H, Jennions MD. Sexual conflict: The battle of the sexes reversed. Curr Biol 2008; 18:121 - 123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amundsen T, Forsgren E. Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98:13155 - 13160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berglund A, Rosenqvist G. Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behavioral Ecology 2001; 12:402 - 406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker GA. Bateson P. Mate quality and mating decisions. Mate Choice 1983; Cambridge Cambridge University Press 141 - 166
   Google Scholar
• Pélabon C, Borg ÅA, Bjelvenmark J, Forsgren E, Barber I, Amundsen T. Do male two-spotted gobies prefer large fecund females?. Behav Ecol 2003; 14:787 - 792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman EJ, Kelley CD, Godin JGJ. Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): Do males prefer larger females as mates?. Ethology 2004; 110:97 - 111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riesch R, Plath M, Schlupp I. Toxic hydrogen sulfide and dark caves: life history adaptations in a livebearing fish (Poecilia mexicana, Poeciliidae). Ecology 2010; 91:1494 - 1505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner NY, Lotem A. Choosy males in a hamplochromine cichlid: first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Ethology 2003; 112:657 - 663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolm N. Female courtship in the Banggai cardinalfish: Honest signals of egg maturity and reproductive output?. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 2004; 361:319 - 334
   Google Scholar
• Pierotti MER, Martín-Fernández JA, Seehausen O. Mapping individual variation in male mating preference space: Multiple choice in a color polymorphic cichlid fish. Evolution 2009; 63:2372 - 2388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 2002; 17:313 - 320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aspbury AS. Sperm competition effects on sperm production and expenditure in sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna. Behav Ecol 2007; 18:776 - 780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong BBM, McCarthy M. Prudent male mate choice under perceived sperm competition risk in the eastern mosquito fish. Behav Ecol 2009; 20:278 - 282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziege M, Mahlow K, Hennige-Schulze C, Kronmarck C, Tiedemann R, Streit B, et al. Audience effects in the Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana)—prudent male mate choice in response to perceived sperm competition risk?. Front Zool 2009; 6:17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Largiadér CR, Fries V, Bakker TCM. Genetic analysis of sneaking and egg-thievery in a natural population of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Heredity 2001; 86:459 - 468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eizaguirre C, Yeates SE, Lenz TL, Kalbe M, Milinski M. MHC-based mate choice combines good genes and maintenance of MHC polymorphism. Mol Ecol 2009; 18:3316 - 3329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker GA. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol Rev 1970; 45:525 - 567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Constanz GD. Smith RL. Sperm competition in poeciliid fishes. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems 1984; Orlando Academic Press 465 - 485
   Google Scholar
• Haskins CP, Haskins EF, McLaughlin JJA, Hewitt RE. Polymorphism and Population Structure in Lebistes reticulatus, an Ecological Study 1961; Austin University of Texas Press
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal HL. Observations of reproduction of the poeciliid Lebistes reticulatus (Peters). Biological Bulletin 1952; 102:30 - 38
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magurran AE. Evolutionary Ecology: The Trinidadian Guppy 2005; Oxford Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Neff BD, Pitcher TE, Ramnarine IW. Inter-population variation in multiple paternity and reproductive skew in the guppy. Mol Ecol 2008; 17:2975 - 2984
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travis J, Trexler JC, Mulvey M. Multiple paternity and its correlates in female Poecilia latipinna (Poeciliidae). Copeia 1990; 3
   Google Scholar
• Trexler JC, Travis J, Dinep A. Variation among populations of the sailfin molly in the rate of concurrent multiple paternity and its implications for mating-system evolution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1997; 40:297 - 305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatarenkov A, Healey CIM, Grether GF, Avise JC. Pronounced reproductive skew in a natural population of green swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri. Mol Ecol 2008; 17:4522 - 4534
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans JP, Pilastro A, Ramnarine IW. Sperm transfer through forced matings and its evolutionary implications in natural guppy (Poecilia reticulata) populations. Biol J Linn Soc 2003; 78:605 - 612
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Makowicz AM, Schlupp I, Tobler M. Sexual harassment in live-bearing fishes: comparing courting and non-courting species. Behav Ecol 2007; 18:680 - 688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M. Male mating behavior and costs of sexual harassment for females in cavernicolous and extremophile populations of Atlantic mollies (Poecilia mexicana). Behaviour 2008; 145:73 - 89
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler A, Hildenbrand P, Schleucher E, Riesch R, Arias-Rodriguez L, Streit B, et al. Effects of male sexual harassment on female time budgets, feeding behavior and metabolic rates in a tropical livebearing fish (Poecilia mexicana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2011;
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dosen LD, Montgomerie R. Mate preferences by male guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in relation to the risk of sperm competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2004; 55:266 - 271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretman A, Fricke C, Chapman T. Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive fitness. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2009; 276:1705 - 1711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlupp I, Ryan MJ. Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males. Behav Ecol 1997; 8:104 - 107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte K, Ryan MJ. Mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) in the wild. Anim Behav 2002; 63:943 - 949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widemo MS. Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. Behav Ecol 2006; 17:255 - 259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frommen JG, Rahn AK, Schroth SH, Waltschyk N, Bakker TCM. Mate-choice copying when both sexes face high costs of reproduction. Evol Ecol 2008; 23:435 - 446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liley NR. Ethological isolating mechanisms in four sympatric species of Poeciliid fishes. Behav Suppl 1966; 13:1 - 197
   Google Scholar
• Parzefall J. Zur vergleichenden Ethologie verschiedener Mollienesia-Arten einschließlich einer Höhlenform von Mollienesia sphenops. Behaviour 1969; 33:1 - 37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher H, Rosenthal GG. Male swordtails court with an audience in mind. Biol Lett 2007; 3:5 - 7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doutrelant C, McGregor PK, Oliveira RF. The effect of an audience on intrasexual communication in male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav Ecol 2001; 12:283 - 286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Blum D, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R. Audience effect alters mating preferences in Atlantic molly (Poecilia mexicana) males. Anim Behav 2008; 75:21 - 29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Blum D, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I. A visual audience effect in a cavefish. Behaviour 2008; 145:931 - 947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plath M, Richter S, Schlupp I, Tiedemann R. Misleading mollies: surface- but not cave-dwelling Poecilia mexicana males deceive competitors about mating preferences. Acta Ethol 2010; 13:49 - 56
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doutrelant C, McGregor PK. Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 2000; 137:1655 - 1669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ophir AG, Galef BG. Female Japanese quail that “eavesdrop” on fighting males prefer losers to winners. Anim Behav 2003; 66:399 - 407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar