Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use

Review

Abstract

Public information (PI), a form of indirect social information, is used by individuals to estimate the quality of environmental parameters. It can be acquired in two ways. One way is by noting the performance of others. The other way it can be acquired is by noting the behavioral decisions of other individuals. Performance-based PI has been observed most often in the context of food and breeding patch estimation, as well as by individuals eavesdropping on contests between others in the context of assessing the fighting ability of opponents and the quality of mates. Evidence for the acquisition of PI from behavioral decisions of others comes mostly from studies of copying behavior, although recent work suggests that it also occurs when individuals estimate the tendency of others to be altruistic. PI use appears to be widespread across many taxa, although most work has been conducted on birds and fish. Absent from the literature are clear examples of PI use in mammals. The use of PI appears to often depend on its cost of acquisition and whether it contradicts an individual’s personal prior experience. PI can be an important benefit of associating with others.

Keywords

Altruism Assessment of quality Fighting ability Foraging Mate choice Social information 

References

  1. Ahlering MA, Faaborg J (2006) Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: if you build it, will they come? Auk 123:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander RD (1987) The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltz AP, Clark AB (1999) Does conspecific attraction affect nest choice in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus: Psittacidae: Aves)? Ethology 105:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2001) Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav Ecol 12:402–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulinier T, Danchin E (1997) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding patch selection in territorial migratory species. Evol Ecol 11:505–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briggs SE, Godin J-G, Dugatkin LA (1996) Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 7:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brindley EL (1991) Response of European robins to playback of song: neighbor recognition and overlapping. Anim Behav 41:503–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks R (1996) Copying and the repeatability of mate choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bshary R, D’Sousa A (2005) Cooperation in communication networks: indirect reciprocity in interactions between cleaner fish and client reef fish. In: McGregor P (ed) Communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 521–539Google Scholar
  11. Bshary R, Grutter AS (2006) Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism. Nature 441:975–978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadiou B, Monnat J-Y, Danchin E (1994) Prospecting in the kittiwake, Rissa tridactyla: different behavioural patterns and the role of squatting in recruitment. Anim Behav 47:847–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caine NG, Addington RL, Windfelder TL (1995) Factors affecting the rates of food calls given by red-bellied tamarins. Anim Behav 50:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2005) Social complexity and the information acquired during eavesdropping by primates and other animals. In: McGregor P (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 583–603Google Scholar
  15. Childress MJ, Herrnkind F (2001) The guide effect influence on the gregariousness of juvenile Caribbean spiny lobsters. Anim Behav 62:1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark RW (2007) Public information for solitary foragers: timber rattlesnakes use conspecific chemical cues to select ambush sites. Behav Ecol 18:487–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark CW, Mangel M (1984) Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain world. Am Nat 123:626–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark CW, Mangel M (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor Popul Biol 30:45–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Day RL, Laland KN (2003) Species difference in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2413–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coolen I, Ward AJW, Hart PJB, Laland KN (2005) Foraging nine-spined sticklebacks prefer to rely on public information over simpler social cues. Behav Ecol 16:865–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock T, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol 14:405–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dabelsteen T, McGregor PK, Shepard M, Whittaker X, Pedersen SB (1996) Is the signal value of overlapping different from that of alternating during matched singing in great tits? J Avian Biol 27:189–0194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Danchin E, Wagner RH (1997) The evolution of coloniality: the emergence of new perspectives. Trends Ecol Evol 12:342–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M (1998) Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implications for the evolution of coloniality. Ecology 79:2415–2428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Danchin E, Heg D, Doligez B (2001) Public information and breeding habitat selection. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 243–258Google Scholar
  26. Danchin E, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dittus WOJ (1984) Toque macaque food calls: semantic communication concerning food distribution in the environment. Anim Behav 32:470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Doligez D, Part T, Danchin E, Clobert J, Gustafsson L (1999) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding habitat selection in a non-colonial, hole-nesting species, the collared flycatcher. J Anim Ecol 68:1193–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J (2002) Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 297:1168–1170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Doligez B, Cadet C, Danchin E, Boulinier T (2003) When to use public information for breeding habitat selection? The role of environmental predictability and density dependence. Anim Behav 66:973–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Doligez D, Part T, Danchin E, Clobert J, Gustafsson L (2004) Availability and use of public information and conspecific density for settlement decisions in the collared flycatcher. J Anim Ecol 73:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Doutrelant C, McGreggor PK (2000) Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 137:1655–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dugatkin LA (1992) Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 139:1384–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dugatkin LA (1996) Copying and mate choice. In: Heyes CM, Galef BG Jr (eds) Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. Academic, San Diego, pp 85–105Google Scholar
  35. Dugatkin LA (1998) Genes, copying, and female choice: shifting thresholds. Behav Ecol 9:323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-G (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying. Proc R Soc Lond B 249:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-G (1993) Female mate copying in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata: age dependent effects. Behav Ecol 4:289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dzieweczynski TL, Earley RL, Green TM, Rowland WJ (2005) Audience effect is context dependent in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav Ecol 16:1025–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Earley RL, Dugatkin LA (2002) Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:943–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Earley RL, Druen M, Dugatkin LA (2005) Watching fights does not alter a bystander’s response towards naïve conspecifics in male green swordtail fish, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim Behav 69:1139–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fletcher RJ (2006) Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 168:207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Forbes LS, Kaiser GW (1994) Habitat choice in breeding seabirds: when to cross the information barrier. Oikos 70:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Inkeröinen J (1998) Heterospecific attraction and food resources in migrants’ breeding patch selection in northern boreal forests. Oecologia 115:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fraser CP, Ruxton GD, Broom M (2006) Public information and patch estimation for group foragers: a re-evaluation of patch-quitting strategies in a patchy environment. Oikos 112:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Freeman S (1987) Male red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) assess the RHP of neighbors by watching contests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Galef BG Jr, White DJ (1998) Mate-choice copying in Japanese quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Anim Behav 57:421–426Google Scholar
  48. Gibson RM, Höglund J (1992) Copying and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 7:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gotceita V, Colgan P (1991) Assessment of patch profitability and ideal free distribution: the significance of sampling. Behaviour 119:65–76Google Scholar
  50. Grant JWA, Green LD (1996) Mate copying versus preference for actively courting males by female Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Behav Ecol 7:165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Green RF (1987) Stochastic models in optimal foraging. In: Kamil AC, Krebs JR, Pulliam HR (eds) Foraging behavior. Plenum, New York, pp 273–302Google Scholar
  52. Greene CM, Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection at low population densities. Ecology 82:2091–2100Google Scholar
  53. Grutter AS (1997) Spatio-temporal variation and feeding selectivity in the diet of the cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus. Copeia 1997:346–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Grutter AS, Bshary R (2003) Cleaner wrasse prefer client mucus: support for partner control mechanisms in cleaning interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 270(Suppl 2):S242–S244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hahn BA, Silverman ED (2006) Social cues facilitate habitat selection: American redstarts establish breeding territories in response to song. Biol Lett 2:337–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hamilton WD (1963) The evolution of altruistic behaviour. Am Nat 97:354–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hughes RN, Kaiser MJ, Mackney PA, Warburton K (1992) Optimizing foraging behaviour through learning. J Fish Biol 41:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Huntingford FA, Turner AK (1987) Animal conflict. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Hurley S, Chater N (2005) Perspectives on imitation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  60. Iwasa Y, Higashi M, Yamamura N (1981) Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am Nat 117:710–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jöhnsson JI, Ackerman A (1998) Watch and learn: preview of the fighting ability of opponents alters contest behaviour strategy. Anim Behav 56:771–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Johnstone RA (2001) Eavesdropping and animal conflict. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98:9177–9180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Adv Study Behav 35:333–379Google Scholar
  64. Kiester AR (1979) Conspecifics as cues: a mechanism for habitat selection in the Panamanian grass anole (Anolis auratus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. King AJ, Cowlishaw G (2007) When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making. Biol Lett 3:137–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kotliar AN, Burger J (1984) The use of decoys to attract Least Terns (Sterna antillarum) to abandoned colony sites in New Jersey. Colon Waterbirds 7:134–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kress SW, Nettleship DN (1988) Re-establishment of Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula arctica) at a former breeding site in the Gulf of Maine. J Field Ornithol 59:161–170Google Scholar
  68. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M (2006) Vocal interactions in nightingales, Luscinia megarhynchos: more aggressive males have higher pairing success. Anim Behav 72:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Leboucher G, Pallot K (2004) Is he all he says he is? Intersexual eavesdropping in the domestic canary, Serinus canaria. Anim Behav 68:957–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Marler P, Evans CS, Hauser MD (1992) Animal signals: motivational, referential, or both? In: Papousek H, Jürgens U, Papousek M (eds) Nonverbal vocal communication: comparative and developmental approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–86Google Scholar
  71. Matos RJ, Schlupp I (2005) Performing in front of an audience: signallers and the social environment. In: McGregor P (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–83Google Scholar
  72. McGregor P (2005) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  73. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (1996) Communication networks. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication among birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 409–425Google Scholar
  74. McNamara J, Houston A (1980) The application of statistical decision theory to animal behaviour. J Theor Biol 85:673–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM (2004) Overlapping and matching in the song contests of black-capped chickadees. Anim Behav 67:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM, Boag PT (2002) Female eavesdropping on male song contests in songbirds. Science 296:873–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Micheli F (1997) Effects of experience on crab foraging in a mobile and a sedentary species. Anim Behav 53:1149–1159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Milinski M, Semmann D, Bakker TCM, Krambeck HJ (2001) Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: image scoring or standing strategy? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2495–2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Niemi GJ, Montogomery K (1997) Heterospecific attraction affects community structure and migrant abundances in northern breeding bird communities. Can J Zool 75:2077–2083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Morris DW (1992) Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes. Evol Ecol 1:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Muller KL (1998) The role of conspecifics in habitat selection in a territorial grasshopper. Anim Behav 56:479–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Muller KL, Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Willits NH (1997) The effects of conspecific attraction and habitat quality in territorial birds (Troglodytes aedon). Am Nat 150:650–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Naguib M, Kipper S (2006) Effects of different levels of song overlapping and singing behavior in male territorial nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Naguib M, Todt D (1997) Effects of dyadic vocal interactions on other conspecific receivers in nightingales. Anim Behav 54:1535–1543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Naguib M, Fichtel C, Todt D (1999) Nightingales respond more strongly to vocal leaders of simulated dyadic interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:537–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP (2004) Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol 15:1011–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Nordell SE, Valone TJ (1998) Mate choice copying as public information. Ecol Lett 1:74–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nowak MA, Sigmund K (1998) Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393:573–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nowak MA, Sigmund K (2005) Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437:1291–1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Oliveira RF, McGregor PK, Latruffe C (1998) Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1045–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ophir AG, Galef BG Jr (2003) Female Japanese quail that ‘eavesdrop’ on fighting males prefer losers to winners. Anim Behav 66:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Otter K, McGreggor 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 266:1305–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Parejo D, Danchin E, Avilés JM (2004) The heterospecific habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality? Behav Ecol 16:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Part T, Doligez B (2003) Gathering public information for habitat selection: prospecting birds cue on parental activity. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1809–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Peake TM, Terry AMR, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2001) Male great tits eavesdrop in simulated male-to-male vocal interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1183–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Peake TM, Terry AMR, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2002) Do great tits assess rivals by combining direct experience with information gathered by eavesdropping? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1925–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Peake TM, Matessi G, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2005) Song type switching and eavesdropping in male great tits. Anim Behav 69:1063–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Phelps SM, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2007) The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav Ecol 18:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Ramsay SM, Otter K, Ratcliffe LM (1999) Nest-site selection by female black-capped chickadees: settlement based on conspecific attraction? Auk 116:604–617Google Scholar
  100. Reed JM, Dobson AP (1993) Behavioral constraints and conservation biology: conspecific attraction and recruitment. Trends Ecol Evol 8:253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ruxton GD (1995) Foraging on patches: are groups disadvantaged? Oikos 72:148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Schlupp I, Ryan MC (1997) Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of others. Behav Ecol 8:104–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ (1994) Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263:373–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Schuck-Paim C, Alonso WJ (2001) Deciding where to settle: conspecific attraction and web site selection in the orb-web spider Nephilengys cruentata. Anim Behav 62:1007–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Seamans ME, Gutiérrez RJ (2006) Spatial dispersion of spotted owl sites and the role of conspecific attraction on settlement patterns. Ethol Ecol Evol 18:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sergio F, Newton I (2003) Occupancy as a measure of territory quality. J Anim Ecol 72:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Sergio F, Penteriani V (2005) Public information and territory establishment in a loosely colonial raptor. Ecology 86:340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Smith JW, Benkman CW, Coffey K (1999) The use and misuse of public information. Behav Ecol 10:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Stamps J (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Stamps J (1994) Territorial behavior, testing the assumptions. Adv Study Behav 23:173–232Google Scholar
  111. Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection by dispersers: integrating proximate and ultimate approaches. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 230–242Google Scholar
  112. Stevens J (1985) Foraging success of adult and juvenile starlings Sturnus vulgaris: a tentative explanation for the preferences of juveniles for cherries. Ibis 127:341–347Google Scholar
  113. Templeton JJ, Giraldeau L-A (1995) Patch assessment in foraging flocks of European starlings: evidence for the use of public information. Behav Ecol 6:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Templeton JJ, Giraldeau L-A (1996) Vicarious sampling: the use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patchy environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Trivers R (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Valone TJ (1989) Group foraging, public information, and patch estimation. Oikos 56:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Valone TJ (1993) Patch information and estimation: a cost of group foraging. Oikos 68:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Valone TJ (1996) Food-associated calls as information about patch quality. Oikos 77:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Valone TJ, Giraldeau L-A (1993) Patch estimation by group foragers: what information is used? Anim Behav 45:721–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Valone TJ, Templeton JJ (2002) Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread phenomenon. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:1549–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. van Bergen Y, Coolen I, Laland KN (2004) Ninespine sticklebacks exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:957–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. van Breukelen NA, Draud M (2005) The roles of male size and female eavesdropping in divorce in the monogamous convict cichlid (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus, Cichlidae). Behaviour 142:1029–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wagner RH, Danchin E (2003) Conspecific copying: a general mechanism of social aggregation. Anim Behav 65:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Ward MP, Schlossberg S (2004) Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv Biol 18:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Webster MW, Hart PJB (2006) Subhabitat selection by foraging threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): previous experience and social conformity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK (2000) Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav 59:467–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. White D (2004) Influences of social learning on mate-choice decisions. Learn Behav 32:105–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. White DJ, Galef BG Jr (2000) “Culture” in quail: social influences on mate choice of female Coturnix japonica. Anim Behav 59:975–979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Widemo MS (2006) Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. Behav Ecol 17:255–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Witte K, Noltemeier B (2002) The role of information in mate-choice copying in female sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Witte K, Ryan MJ (1998) Male body length influences mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna. Behav Ecol 9:534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Witte K, Ryan MJ (2002) Mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) in the wild. Anim Behav 63:943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Witte K, Ueding K (2003) Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behav Ecol 14:389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologySt. Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations