Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 285–305 | Cite as

Studying Visual Cues in Fish Behavior: A Review of Ethological Techniques

  • William J. Rowland
Article

Abstract

This paper reviews the variety of approaches available to fish ethologists to study the role of visual cues in fish behavior. Examples of studies that have used live fish, mirror images, dummies (i.e. models), or video playback as stimuli to investigate fish behavior are described and discussed. These examples represent a diversity of functional categories of behavior exhibited by fishes, including aggression, courtship, aggregation, or schooling behavior, parent–offspring, predator–prey, and cleaner–host interactions. The specific techniques that fish biologists have used to control or manipulate body shape, size, posture, morphological structures, color, marking patterns, or movement are systematically discussed, and the importance of each of these visual features to fish behavior is documented through examples. Studies that have used these techniques to investigate the interaction between visual and nonvisual cues are also considered. Each section encompassing a general experimental approach ends with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of that approach for studying fish behavior.

dummies models mirrors video playback visual stimuli 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Adler, N. & J.A. Hogan. 1963. Classical conditioning and punishment of an instinctive response in Betta splendens. Anim. Behav. 11: 351–354.Google Scholar
  2. Baerends, G.P. 1976. The significance of colour patterns in fish for the study of some fundamental issues in behaviour. Rev. Trav. Inst. Péches marit. 40: 413–423.Google Scholar
  3. Baerends, G.P. & J.M. Baerends-van Roon. 1950. An introduction to the study of the ethology of cichlid fishes. Behaviour, Suppl. I: 1–242.Google Scholar
  4. Baerends, G.P., R. Brouwer & H. Tj. Waterbolk. 1955. Ethological studies on Lebistes reticulatus (Peters). I. An analysis of the male courtship pattern. Behaviour 8: 249–334.Google Scholar
  5. Bando, T. 1991. Visual perception of texture in aggressive behavior of Betta splendens. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 169: 51–58.Google Scholar
  6. Barlow, G.W. 1992. Is mating different in monogamous species? The Midas cichlid fish as a case study. Amer. Zool. 32: 91–99.Google Scholar
  7. Barlow, G.W. & P. Siri. 1994. Polychromatic Midas cichlids respond to dummy opponents: color, contrast and context. Behaviour 130: 77–112.Google Scholar
  8. Barlow, G.W. & P. Siri. 1997. Does sexual selection account for the conspicuous head dimorphism in the Midas cichlid? Anim. Behav. 53: 573–584.Google Scholar
  9. Basolo, A.L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of sword in the swordtail fish. Science 250: 808–810.Google Scholar
  10. Basolo, A.L. 1995. A further examination of a pre-existing bias favouring a sword in the genus Xiphophorus. Anim. Behav. 50: 365–375.Google Scholar
  11. Baube, C.L. 1997. Manipulations of signalling environment affect male competitive success in threespine stickleacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim. Behav. 53: 819–833.Google Scholar
  12. Beeching, S.C. 1993. Eyespots as visual cues in the intraspecific behavior of the cichlid fish Astronotus ocellatus. Copeia 1993: 1154–1157.Google Scholar
  13. Beukema, J.J. 1968. Predation by the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.): the influence of hunger and experience. Behaviour 31: 1–126.Google Scholar
  14. Bischoff, R.L., J.L. Gould & D.I. Rubenstein, 1985. Tail size and female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17: 253–255.Google Scholar
  15. Bolyard, K.J. & W.J. Rowland. 1996. Context-dependent response to red coloration in stickleback. Anim. Behav. 52: 923–927.Google Scholar
  16. Breder, C.M. 1976. Fish schools as operational structures. U.S. Fish. Bull. 74: 471–502.Google Scholar
  17. Chauvin-Muckensturm, B. 1979. Les réactions agressives des Épinoches en luminières colorées. C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris (Série D) 289: 1065–1067.Google Scholar
  18. Chien, A.K. 1973. Reproductive behaviour of the angelfish Pterophyllum scalare (Pisces: Cichlidae) II. Influence of male stimuli upon the spawning rate of females. Anim. Behav. 21: 457–463.Google Scholar
  19. Dawkins, M.S. 1996. Distance and social recognition in hens: implications for the use of photographs as social stimuli. Behaviour 133: 663–680.Google Scholar
  20. Deiker, T.E. & D.R. Hoffeld. 1973. Interference with ritualized threat behavior in Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum. Anim. Behav. 21: 607–612.Google Scholar
  21. Douglas, R.H. & C.W. Hawryshyn. 1990. Behavioural studies of fish vision: an analysis of visual capabilities. pp. 373–418. In: R.H. Douglas & M.B.A. Djamgoz (ed.) The Visual System of Fish, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  22. Fantino, E., S. Weigele & D. Lacey. 1972. Aggressive display in the Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). Learn. Motiv. 3: 457–468.Google Scholar
  23. Fiedler, K. 1954. Vergleichende Verhaltensstudien an Seenadeln, Schlangennadeln und Seeferdchen. Z. Tierpsychol. 11: 358–415.Google Scholar
  24. Francis, R.C. 1983. Experiential effects on agonistic behavior in the paradise fish, Macropodus opercularis. Behaviour 85: 292–313.Google Scholar
  25. Franck, D. & R. Hendricks. 1973. Zur Frage der biologischen Bedeutung des Schwertfortsatzes von Xiphophorus helleri. Behaviour 44: 167–185.Google Scholar
  26. Fricke, H.W. 1966. Zum Verhalten des Putzerfisches Labroides dimidiatus. Z. Tierpsychol. 23: 1–3.Google Scholar
  27. Fricke, H.W. 1973. Individual partner recognition in fish: field studies on Amphiprion bicinctus. Naturwiss. 60: 204–206.Google Scholar
  28. Gallup, G. 1968. Mirror-image stimulation. Psychol. Bull. 70: 782–793.Google Scholar
  29. Goldstein, S.R. 1967. Mirror image as a reinforcer in Siamese fighting fish: a repetition with additional controls. Psychon. Sci. 7: 331–332.Google Scholar
  30. Guthrie, D.M. 1986. Role of vision in fish behaviour. pp. 75–113. In: T. Pitcher (ed.) The Behavior of Teleost Fishes, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  31. Haines, S.E. & J.L. Gould. 1994. Female platys prefer long tails. Nature 370: 512.Google Scholar
  32. Heiligenberg, W., U. Kramer & V. Schulz. 1972. The angular orientation of the black eyebar in Haplochromis burtoni (Cichlidae, Pisces) and its relevance to aggressivity. Z. vergl. Physiol. 76: 168–176.Google Scholar
  33. Helfman, G.S. 1983. Resin-coated fishes: a simple model technique for in situ studies of fish behavior. Copeia 1983: 547–549.Google Scholar
  34. Hert, E. 1986. Freeze branding in fish, a method for eliminating color patterns at the skin surface. Ethology 72: 165–167.Google Scholar
  35. Hert, E. 1989. The function of egg-spots in an African mouthbrooding cichlid fish. Anim. Behav. 37: 726–732.Google Scholar
  36. Heschl, A. 1989. Integration of ‘innate’ and ‘learned’ components within the IRME for mussel recognition in the European bitterling Rhodeus amarus (Bloch). Ethology 81: 193–208.Google Scholar
  37. Hess, E. 1952. Temperature as a regulator of the attack-response of Betta splendens. Z. Tierpsychol. 9: 379–382.Google Scholar
  38. Hogan, J.A. 1967. Fighting and reinforcement in the Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). J. Comp. Physiol. Psych. 64: 356–359.Google Scholar
  39. Holtby, L.B. 1992. Through a glass darkly: a response to Ruzzante's reappraisal of mirror image stimulation studies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1968–1969.Google Scholar
  40. Hopkins, C.D. 1974a. Electric communication: functions in the social behavior of Eigenmannia virescens. Behaviour 50: 271–305.Google Scholar
  41. Hopkins, C.D. 1974b. Electric communication in fish. Amer. Scient. 62: 426–437.Google Scholar
  42. Hughes, A.L. 1985. Male size, mating success, and mating strategy in the mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (Poeciliidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17: 271–278.Google Scholar
  43. Huntingford, F.A., J. Lazarus, B.D. Barrie & S. Webb. 1994. A dynamic analysis of cooperative predator inspection in sticklebacks. Anim. Behav. 47: 413–423.Google Scholar
  44. Huntingford F.A. & P.J. Wright. 1992. Inherited population differences in three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behaviour 122: 264–273.Google Scholar
  45. Iersel, J.J.A. van 1953. An analysis of the parental behaviour of the male three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Behaviour, Suppl. 3: 1–159.Google Scholar
  46. Johnson, R.N. & L.D. Johnson. 1973. Intra-and interspecific social and aggressive behaviour in the Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Anim. Behav. 21: 665–672.Google Scholar
  47. Karplus, I., M. Goren & D. Algom. 1982. A preliminary analysis of predator face recognition by Chromis caeruleus (Pisces, Pomacentridae). Z. Tierpsychol. 58: 53–65.Google Scholar
  48. Katzir, G. 1981. Visual aspects of species recognition in the damselfish Dascyllus aruanus L. (Pisces, Pomacentridae). Anim. Behav. 29: 842–849.Google Scholar
  49. Keenleyside, H.H.A. 1955. Some aspects of the schooling behaviour of fish. Behaviour 8: 183–248.Google Scholar
  50. Keenleyside, M.H.A. 1971. Aggressive behavior of the male longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis). Z. Tierpsychol. 28: 227–240.Google Scholar
  51. Kuenzer, P. 1968. Die Auslösung der Nachfolgereaktion bei erfahrungslosen Jungfischen von Nannacara anomala (Cichlidae). Z. Tierpsychol. 25: 257–314.Google Scholar
  52. Kynard, B. 1978. Breeding behavior of a lacustrine population of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Behaviour 67: 178–207.Google Scholar
  53. Leiner, M. 1930. Fortsetzung der ökologischen Studien an Gasterosteus aculeatus. Morph. Ökol. Tiere 16: 499–540.Google Scholar
  54. Leong, C.Y. 1969. The quantitative effect of releasers on the attack readiness of the fish Haplochromis burtoni (Cichlidae, Pisces). Z. vergl. Physiol. 65: 29–51.Google Scholar
  55. Lissmann, H.-W. 1932. Die Umwelt des Kampffisches (Betta splendens Regan). Z. vergl. Physiol. 18: 65–111.Google Scholar
  56. Long, K.D. & A.E. Houde. 1989. Orange spots as a visual cues for female mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 82: 316–324.Google Scholar
  57. Losey, G.S. Jr. 1977. The validity of animal models: a test for cleaning symbiosis. Biol. Behav. 2: 223–238.Google Scholar
  58. Losey, G.S. Jr. 1982. Ecological cues and experience modify interspecific aggression by the damselfish, Stegastes fasciolatus. Behaviour 81: 14–37.Google Scholar
  59. Losey, G.S. Jr. 1993. Knowledge of proximate causes aids our understanding of function and evolutionary history. pp. 175–186. In: F.A. Huntingford & P. Torricelli (ed.) Behavioural Ecology of Fishes, Harwood Academic Publishers, Reading.Google Scholar
  60. Losey, G.S. & L. Margules. 1974. Cleaning symbiosis provides a positive reinforcer for fish. Science 184: 179–180.Google Scholar
  61. Magurran, A.E. & S.L. Girling. 1986. Predator model recognition and response habituation in schoaling minnows. Anim. Behav. 34: 510–518.Google Scholar
  62. McDonald, C.G., T.E. Reimchen & C.W. Hawryshyn. 1995. Nuptial colour loss and signal masking in Gasterosteus: an analysis using video imaging. Behaviour 132: 963–978.Google Scholar
  63. McKinnon, J.S. 1995. Video mate preferences of female three-spined sticklebacks from populations with divergent male coloration. Anim. Behav. 50: 1645–1655.Google Scholar
  64. McKinnon, J.S. & J.D. McPhail. 1996. Male aggression and colour in divergent populations of the threespine stickleback: experiments with animations. Can. J. Zool. 74: 1727–1733.Google Scholar
  65. Meesters, A. 1940. Über die Organisation des Gesichtsfeldes der Fische.Z. Tierpsychol. 4: 84–149.Google Scholar
  66. Metcalfe, N.B. 1989. Differential response to a competitor by Atlantic salmon adopting alternative life-history strategies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Sect. B 236: 21–27.Google Scholar
  67. Milinski, M. 1987. Tit for tat in sticklebacks and the evolution of cooperation. Nature 325: 433–435.Google Scholar
  68. Milinski, M. & T.C.M. Bakker. 1990. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344: 330–333.Google Scholar
  69. Milinski, M., D. Külling & R. Kettler. 1990. Tit for tat: sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) ‘trusting’ a cooperating partner. Behav. Ecol. 1: 7–11.Google Scholar
  70. Morris, M.R. & M.J. Ryan. 1996. Sexual difference in signal-receiver coevolution. Anim. Behav. 52: 1017–1024.Google Scholar
  71. Myrberg, A.A. Jr. & R.E. Thresher. 1974. Interspecific aggression and its relevance to the concept of territoriality in reef fishes. Amer. Zool. 14: 81–96.Google Scholar
  72. Nicoletto, P.F. & A. Kodric-Brown. 1999. The use of digitally-modified videos to study the function of ornamentation and courtship in the puppy, Poecilia reticulata. Env. Biol. Fish. 56: 335–344 (this issue).Google Scholar
  73. Noble, G.K. 1934. Sex recognition in the sunfish, Eupomotis gibbosus (Linne). Copeia 1934: 151–154.Google Scholar
  74. Noble, G.K. 1938. Sexual selection among fishes. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 13: 133–158.Google Scholar
  75. Noble, G.K. & B. Curtis. 1939. The social behavior of the jewel fish, Hemichromis bimaculatus Gill. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 76: 1–46.Google Scholar
  76. Peden, A.E. 1973. Variation in anal spot expression of gambusiin females and its effect on male courtship. Copeia 1973: 250–263.Google Scholar
  77. Peeke, H.V.S. 1969. Waning of the aggressive response to male models in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Anim. Behav. 17: 224–228.Google Scholar
  78. Peeke, H.V.S. & A. Veno. 1973. Stimulus specificity of habituated aggression in the stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav. Biol. 8: 427–432.Google Scholar
  79. Pelkwijk, J.J. ter & N. Tinbergen. 1937. Eine reizbiologische Analyse einiger Verhaltensweisen von Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Z. Tierpsychol. 1: 193–204.Google Scholar
  80. Pitcher, T.J. 1979. Sensory information and the organization of behaviour in a shoaling cyprinid fish. Anim. Behav. 27: 126–149.Google Scholar
  81. Posner, G.S. 1982. Variation in the aggressive behavior of Xiphophorous variatus (Pisces: Poeciliidae) with regard to group dynamics and response towards conspecific models. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, New York. 116 pp.Google Scholar
  82. Pressley, P.H. 1981. Parental effort and the evolution of nest-guarding tactics in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Evolution 35: 282–295.Google Scholar
  83. Reboreda, J.C. & A. Kacelnik. 1990. On cooperation, tit-for-tat and mirrors. Anim. Behav. 40: 1188–1189.Google Scholar
  84. Rhoad, D.K., J.W. Kalat & P.H. Klopfer. 1975. Aggression and avoidance by Betta splendens toward natural and artificial stimuli. Anim. Learn. Behav. 3: 271–276.Google Scholar
  85. Rogers, W. & G.W. Barlow. 1991. Sex differences in mate choice in a monogamous biparental fish, the Midas cichlid (Cichlasoma citrinellum). Ethology 87: 249–261.Google Scholar
  86. Rosenqvist, G. & K. Johansson. 1995. Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim. Behav. 49: 1039–1045.Google Scholar
  87. Rosenthal, G.G. & C.S. Evans. 1998. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 4431–4436.Google Scholar
  88. Rosenthal, G.G., C.S. Evans & W.L. Miller. 1996. Female preference for dynamic traits in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim. Behav. 51: 811–820.Google Scholar
  89. Rowland, W.J. 1974. The reproductive behavior of the fourspine stickleback, Apeltes quadracus. Copeia 1974: 183–194.Google Scholar
  90. Rowland, W.J. 1975. The effects of dummy size and color on behavioral interaction in the jewel cichlid, Hemichromis bimaculatus Gill. Behaviour 53: 109–125.Google Scholar
  91. Rowland, W.J. 1978. Sound production and associated behavior in the jewel fish, Hemichromis bimaculatus. Behaviour 64: 125–136.Google Scholar
  92. Rowland, W.J. 1979. Some methods of making realistic fish dummies for ethological research. Behav. Res. Meth. Instr. 11: 564–566.Google Scholar
  93. Rowland, W.J. 1982. The effects of male nuptial coloration on stickleback aggression: a re-examination. Behaviour 80: 118–126.Google Scholar
  94. Rowland, W.J. 1983. Interspecific aggression and dominance in Gasterosteus. Env. Biol. Fish. 8: 269–277.Google Scholar
  95. Rowland, W.J. 1989a. The ethological basis of mate choice in male threespine sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Anim. Behav. 38: 112–120.Google Scholar
  96. Rowland, W.J. 1989b. Mate choice and the supernormality effect in female sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24: 433–438.Google Scholar
  97. Rowland, W.J. 1995. Do female stickleback care about male courtship vigour?: manipulation of display tempo using video playback. Behaviour 132: 951–961.Google Scholar
  98. Rowland, W.J., C.L. Baube & T.T. Horan. 1991. Signalling of sexual receptivity by pigmentation pattern in female sticklebacks. Anim. Behav. 42: 243–249.Google Scholar
  99. Rowland, W.J., K.J. Bolyard & A.D. Halpern. 1995a. The dual effect of stickleback nuptial coloration on rivals: manipulation of a graded signal using video playback. Anim. Behav. 50: 267–272.Google Scholar
  100. Rowland, W.J., K.J. Bolyard, J.J. Jenkins & J. Fowler. 1995b. Video playback experiments on stickleback mate choice: female motivation and attentiveness to male colour cues. Anim. Behav. 49: 1559–1567.Google Scholar
  101. Rowland, W.J. & P. Sevenster. 1985. Sign stimuli in the three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): a re-examination and extension of some classic experiments. Behaviour 93: 241–257.Google Scholar
  102. Ruzzante, D.E. 1992. Mirror image stimulation, social hierarchies, and population differences in agonistic behaviour: a reappraisal. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1966–1968.Google Scholar
  103. Satou, M., A. Shiraishi, T. Matushima & N. Okumoto. 1991. Vibrational communication during spawning behavior in the himé salmon (landlocked red salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Comp. Physiol., A 168: 417–428.Google Scholar
  104. Satou, M., H. Takeuchi, J. Nishii, S. Kitamura, N. Okumoto & M. Iwata. 1994. Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences that the lateral line is involved in the inter-sexual vibrational communication of the himé salmon (landlocked red salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Comp. Physiol., A 174: 539–549.Google Scholar
  105. Satou, M., H. Takeuchi, K. Takei, N. Okumoto & K. Ueda. 1987. Involvement of vibrational and visual cues in eliciting spawning behaviour in male himé salmon (landlocked red salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka). Anim. Behav. 35: 1556–1584.Google Scholar
  106. Schwassmann, H.O. & L. Kruger. 1968. Anatomy of visual centers in teleosts. pp. 3–16. In: D. Ingle (ed.) The Central Nervous System and Fish Behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  107. Schwartz, A. 1974a. Sound production and associated behavior in a cichlid fish, Cichlasoma centrarchus. I. male-male interactions. Z. Tierpsychol. 35: 147–156.Google Scholar
  108. Schwartz, A. 1974b. The inhibition of aggressive behavior by sound in the cichlid fish, Cichlasoma centrarchus. Z. Tierpsychol. 35: 508–517.Google Scholar
  109. Seitz, A. 1943. Die Paarbildung bei einigen Cichliden. II. Die Paarbildung bei Hemichromis bimaculatus Gill. Z. Tierpsychol. 5: 74–104.Google Scholar
  110. Semler, D.E. 1971. Some aspects of adaptation in a polymorphism for breeding colours in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). J. Zool. (London) 165: 291–302.Google Scholar
  111. Sevenster, P. 1949. Modderbaarsjes II. De Levende Natuur 12: 184–189.Google Scholar
  112. Sevenster, P. 1961. A causal analysis of a displacement activity (fanning in Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Behaviour, Suppl. 9: 1–170.Google Scholar
  113. Sevenster, P. 1968. Motivation and learning. pp. 233–245. In: D. Ingle (ed.) The Central Nervous System and Fish Behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  114. Sevenster-Bol, A.C.A. 1962. On the causation of drive reduction after a consummatory act. Arch. Neerl. Zool. 15: 175–236.Google Scholar
  115. Shaw, E. 1962. The schooling of fishes. Sci. Amer. 206: 128–138.Google Scholar
  116. Simpson, M.J.A. 1968. The display of the Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Anim. Behav. Monographs 1 (Part 1): 1–73.Google Scholar
  117. Stout, J.F. 1975. Sound communication during the reproductive behavior of Notropis analostanus (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Amer. Mid. Nat. 94: 296–325.Google Scholar
  118. Stringer, G.E. & W.S. Hoar. 1955. Aggressive behavior of underyearling kamloops trout. Can. J. Zool. 33: 148–160.Google Scholar
  119. Sumner, F.B. 1935. Studies of protective color change. III. Experiments with fishes both as predators and prey. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 21: 345–353.Google Scholar
  120. Sumner, I.T., J. Travis & C.D. Johnson. 1994. Methods of female fertility advertisement and variation among males in responsiveness in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna). Copeia 1994: 27–34.Google Scholar
  121. Swain, D.P. & L.B. Holtby. 1989. Differences in morphology and behavior between juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) rearing in a lake and its tributary stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 1406–1414.Google Scholar
  122. Takeuchi, H., K. Takei, M. Satou, T. Matsushima, N. Okumoto & K. Ueda. 1987. Visual cues as key stimuli for courtship behaviour in male himé salmon (landlocked red salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka). Anim. Behav. 35: 937–939.Google Scholar
  123. Tavolga, W.N. 1956. Visual, chemical and sound stimuli as cues in the sex discriminatory behavior of the gobiid fish, Bathygobius soporator. Zoologica 41: 49–64.Google Scholar
  124. Tavolga, W.N. 1958. The significance of underwater sounds produced by males of the gobiid fish, Bathygobius soporator. Physiol. Zool. 31: 259–271.Google Scholar
  125. Tayssedre, C. & P. Moller. 1983. The optomotor response in weakly electrical fish.Z. Tierpsychol. 60: 265–352.Google Scholar
  126. Thompson, T. & T. Sturm. 1965. Classical conditioning of aggressive display in Siamese fighting fish. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 8: 397–403Google Scholar
  127. Tinbergen, N. 1940. Die Übersprungbewegungen. Z.Tierpsychol. 4: 1–40.Google Scholar
  128. Tinbergen, N. 1942. An objectivistic study of the innate behaviour of animals. Biblioth. Biotheor. 1: 39–98.Google Scholar
  129. Tinbergen, N. 1948. Social releasers and the experimental method for their study. Wilson Bull. 60: 6–51.Google Scholar
  130. Tinbergen, N. 1951. The study of instinct. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 228 pp.Google Scholar
  131. Tinbergen, N. 1953. Social behaviour in animals. Methuen, London. 150 pp.Google Scholar
  132. Tinbergen, N. 1974. Curious naturalists. Penguin Educ., Harmondsworth. 271 pp.Google Scholar
  133. Warburton, K. & N. Lees. 1996. Species discrimination in guppies: learned responses to visual cues. Anim. Behav. 52: 371–378.Google Scholar
  134. Willmott, H. & S.A. Foster. 1995. The effects of rival male interaction on courtship and parental care in the fourspine stickleback, Apeltes quadracus. Behaviour 132: 997–1010.Google Scholar
  135. Wickler, W. 1962. 'Egg-dummies' as natural releasers in mouth-breeding cichlids. Nature 194: 1092–1093.Google Scholar
  136. Wootton, R.J. 1976. The biology of the sticklebacks. Academic Press, London. 387 pp.Google Scholar
  137. Wunder, W. 1934. Gattenwahlversuche bei Stichlingen und Bitterlingen. Zool. Anz. Suppl. (Verh. Deut. Zool. Ges.) 7: 152–158.Google Scholar
  138. Young, J.Z. The life of vertebrates. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 820 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Rowland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, and Center for the Integrative Study of Animal BehaviorIndiana UniversityBloomingtonU.S.A. (e-mail

Personalised recommendations