Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 335–342 | Cite as

Effect of male aggressivity profile on female chemical choice in Nile tilapia

  • V. S. Rossi
  • M. Borges de Sá
  • V. S. Sugihara
  • I. M. de Mello
  • P. C. GiaquintoEmail author
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Aggression Dominance Mate choice Chemical cues Sexual selection Fish 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Ethical approval

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Alvarenga CMD, Volpato GL (1995) Agonistic profile and metabolism in alevins of the Nile tilapia. Physiol Behav 57:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Barata EN, Hubbard PC, Almeida OG, Miranda A, Canário AV (2007) Male urine signals social rank in the Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus). BMC Biol 5:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreto RE, Carvalho GGA, Volpato GL (2011) The aggressive behavior of Nile tilapia introduced into novel environments with variation in enrichment. Zoology 114:53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beeching SC (1995) Colour pattern and inhibition of aggression in the cichlid fish Astronotus ocellatus. J Fish Biol 47:50–58Google Scholar
  7. Bierbach D, Sassmannshausen V, Streit B, Arias-Rodriguez L, Plath M (2013) Females prefer males with superior fighting abilities but avoid sexually harassing winners when eavesdropping on male fights. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blengini FR, Tassino B, Passos C (2018) Females of the annual killifish Austrolebias reicherti (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae) recognize conspecific mates based upon chemical cues. Behav Process 155:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Candolin U (2000) Male–male competition ensures honest signaling of male parental ability in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Castro ALS, Gonçalves-de-Freitas E, Volpato GL, Oliveira C (2009) Visual communication stimulates reproduction in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.). Braz J Med Biol Res 42:368–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeBose JL, Nevitt GA (2008) The use of odors at different spatial scales: comparing birds with fish. J Chem Ecol 34:867–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doutrelant C, McGregor PK (2000) Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 137:1655–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dugatkin LA, Druen M (2004) The social implications of winner and loser effects. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:488–489Google Scholar
  15. Dugatkin LA, FitzGerald GJ (1997) Sexual selection. In: Godin GJ (ed) Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Fernandes MO, Volpato GL (1993) Heterogeneous growth in the Nile tilapia: social stress and carbohydrate metabolism. Physiol Behav 54:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeland WJ (1981) Parasitism and behavioural dominance among male mice. Science 213:461–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuller RC (2001) Patterns in male breeding behaviors in the bluefin killifish, Lucania goodei: a field study (Cyprinodontiformes: Fundulidae). Copeia 3:823–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gasparini C, Devigili A, Pilastro A (2012) Cross-generational effects of sexual harassment on female fitness in the guppy. Evolution 66:532–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giaquinto PC, Volpato GL (1997) Chemical communication, aggression, and conspecific recognition in the fish Nile tilapia. Physiol Behav 62:1333–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giaquinto PC, Militão C, Delicio HC (2010) Female preferences based on male nutritional chemical traits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1029–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golan M, Levavi-Sivan B (2013) Social dominance in tilapia is associated with gonadotroph hyperplasia. Gen Comp Endocrinol 192:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldstein JS (2001) War and gender: how gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Gómez-La Plaza LM, Morgan E (1993) Social isolation, aggression, and dominance in attacks in juvenile angelfish, Pterophyllum scalare. Aggress Behav 19:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gonçalves-De-Freitas E, Teresa FB, Gomes FS, Giaquinto PC (2008) Effect of water renewal on dominance hierarchy of the Nile tilapia. Appl Anim Behav Sci 112:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gozlan RE, Flower CJ, Pinder AC (2003) Reproductive success in male sunbleak, a recent invasive fish species in the UK. J Fish Biol 63:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haller J, Wittenberger C (1988) Biochemical energetics of hierarchy formation in Betta splendens. Physiol Behav 43:447–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halliday TR (1994) Sex and evolution. In: Slater PJB, Halliday TR (eds) Behaviour and evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Hannes RP, Franck D, Liemann F (1984) Effects of rank-order fights on whole-body and blood concentrations of androgens and corticosteroids in the male swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri). Z Tierpsychol 65:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirschenhauser K, Canario AVM, Ros Albert FH et al (2008) Social context may affect urinary excretion of 11-ketotestosterone in African cichlids. Behaviour 145:1367–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hubbard PC, Baduy F, Saraiva JL, Guerreiro PM, Canário AVM (2017) High olfactory sensitivity to conspecific intestinal fluid in the chameleon cichlid Australoheros facetus: could faeces signal dominance? J Fish Biol 90(5):2148–2156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnstone RA (1998) Game theory and communication. In: Dugatkin LA, Reeve HK (eds) Game theory and animal behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Keller-Costa T, Hubbard PC, Paetz C, Nakamura Y, da Silva JP, Rato A, Barata EN, Schneider B, Canario AV (2014) Identity of a tilapia pheromone released by dominant males that primes females for reproduction. Curr Biol 24:2130–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller-Costa T, Adelino VM, Hubbard PC (2015) Chemical communication in cichlids: a mini-review. Gen Comp Endocr 221:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keller-Costa T, Saraiva JL, Hubbard PC, Barata EN, Canário AV (2016) A multi-component pheromone in the urine of dominant male tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) reduces aggression in rivals. J Chem Ecol 42(2):173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kodric-Brown A (1983) Determinants of male reproductive success in pupfish. Anim Behav 31:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Köhler A, Hildenbrand P, Schleucher E, Riesch R, Arias-Rodriguez L, Streit B, Plath M (2011) Effects of male sexual harassment on female time budgets, feeding behavior, and metabolic rates in a tropical livebearing fish (Poecilia mexicana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1513–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Le Boeuf BJ, Mesnick S (1990) Sexual behaviour of male northern elephant seals. I. Lethal injuries to adult females. Behaviour 116:1–2Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Maruska KP, Fernald RD (2012) Contextual chemosensory urine signaling in an African cichlid fish. J Exp Biol 215:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maynard Smith J (1979) Game theory and the evolution of animals conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGhee KE, Fuller RC, Travisa J (2007) Male competition and female choice interact to determine mating success in the bluefin killifish. Behav Ecol 18:822–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGregor P, Doutreland C (2000) Eavesdroping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 137:12Google Scholar
  46. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM, Boag PT (2002) Female eavesdropping on male song contests in songbirds. Science 296:873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miranda A, Almeida OG, Hubbard PC, Barata EN, Canário AV (2005) Olfactory discrimination of female reproductive status by male tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus). J Exp Biol 208:2037–2043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oliveira RF, Almada VC (1996) Dominance hierarchies and social structure in captive groups of the Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus (Teleostei Cichlidae). Ethol Ecol Evol 8:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ophir AG, Galef BG (2003) Female Japanese quail that ‘eavesdrop’ on fighting males prefer losers to winners. Anim Behav 66:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ophir AG, Galef BG (2004) Sexual experience can affect use of public information in mate choice. Anim Behav 68:1221–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Otter K, McGregor PK, Terry AMR, Burford FRL, Peake TM, Dabelsteen T (1999) Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? A field study using interactive song playback. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1305–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinho-Neto CF, Miyai CA, Sanches FHC, Giaquinto PC, Delicio HC, Barcellos LJG, Volpato GL, Barreto RE (2014) Does sex influence intraspecific aggression and dominance in Nile tilapia juveniles? Behav Process 105:15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pizzari T, Froman DP, Birkhead TR (2002) Pre- and post-insemination episodes of sexual selection in the fowl, Gallus g. domesticus. Heredity 88:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plenderleith M, van Oosterhout C, Robinson RL, Turner GF (2005) Female preference for conspecific males based on olfactory cues in a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Biol Lett 1:411–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E (1998) Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol 13:498–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ridley M (1995) Animal behavior: an introduction to behavioral mechanisms, development and ecology, 2nd edn. Blackwell, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saraiva JL, Keller-Costa T, Hubbard PC, Rato A, Canário AV (2017) Chemical diplomacy in male tilapia: urinary signal increases sex hormone and decreases aggression. Sci Rep 7(1):7636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Serrano RM, Barata EN, Birkett MA, Hubbard PC, Guerreiro PS, Canário AV (2008) Behavioral and olfactory responses of female Salaria pavo (Pisces: Blenniidae) to a putative multi-component male pheromone. J Chem Ecol 34:647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smadja C, Butlin RK (2009) On the scent of speciation: the chemosensory system and its role in premating isolation. Heredity 102:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tinbergen N (1972) Social behaviour in animals. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Trivers RL (1974) Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool 14:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Volpato GL, Fernandes MO (1994) Social control of growth in fish. Braz J Med Biol Res 7:797–810Google Scholar
  63. Wong BBM, Candolin U (2005) How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev 80:559–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wong BBM, Jennions MD, Keogh JS (2004) Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil signifer. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Giaquinto PC (2010) Female pintado catfish choose well-fed males. Behaviour 147:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zahavi A (1979) Ritualisation and the evolution of movement signals. Behaviour 72:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Physiology Department, Institute of BiosciencesState University of Sao Paulo/UNESPBotucatuBrazil

Personalised recommendations